Professor Flashy's 20 Point Formula

[Nuclear]

Flashman I've been thinking you have been persistent on the Siani Pennisula being part of Egypt. I have been thinking while reading a book about the Yom Kippur War and looking at the revised map and I have been thinking, maybe the reason the siani penninsula is part of Trans Jordan is because not only is the Siani Penninsula physically connected to Palestine and Near East Asia but also to reflect the fact that the Suez canal would have been used as a main deffensive line for the British if they had lost Egypt just as the Isralis used it against the Egyptians for several years to deter an invasion. I realize that historically its inacurate but it really makes since that they are seperate.

I think the main reason you see this on so many maps is that it was so on the original A&A map, and was not corrected in Revised.
Most people use A&A official maps as the base reference for making their own board, rather than a historically accurate Atlas. It's the same as people placing Rio de Oro on the Guinea coast, or Moscow in the Urals.
Show them a real map of the world and they'll exclaim "but what is Moscow doing in Europe; surely that makes it too close to Germany?"
For me the appeal of a map and consequently the game it's played on diminishes markedly if I notice the map is more abstact than historical. I would have no interest in playing A&A on a chessboard.
I would argue that Geographically the Gulf of Aquaba is also a natural border, so why not go with what is historically true?

For me the whole challenge of map designing is to create something that is both interesting to play on but also as accurate as the chosen scale allows.

I think any map based off one of the A&A maps is going to be on the weaker side. That is why on my Europe map I used an altas.

[Imperious leader]

WHY is it necessary to have a two territory control of Suez?
Why not give Constantinople to Bulgaria to create the same effect with the Bosporus, or give eastern Panama to Venezuela?

Suez was entirely within Egypt; that's why the British set such great store on defending the country, and why Cairo is a VC on my map.

under #1 the Suez is much more important to England which is represented in the game than Turkey which is not. Larry does not want to deal with neutrals and its neither here nor there about that reason. The Suez counts because the Axis made it a target. They didn't make a target out of Turkey...so those considerations are not part of the game.

They could also make rules covering the Denmark straights or Gibraltar... but they need to keep it simple and just stick to the basics. How is this not easy to figure out?

Panama and Suez... thats it because it effects players that are represented in the game. Neutrals are dirt in the game.

[Nuclear]

Excellent point Imperoius leader. Espically since we have no idea how important a narrow water way would have been if it was not directly involved in the war.

However there is evidence out there that states that both the Axis and Allies were trying to get Turkey to enter the war. In fact Turkey did enter near the very end on the side of the Allies.

Despite that, I still think Neutrals could become interesting in the game. Perhaps providing a special bonus of some sort. For example, if the Axis could get Spain, perhaps planes from there could reach the USA and return. Thus allowing Germany or Italy, or even Japan to SBR the USA.

Turkey could allow the Russian player a possible chance to combat the Axis fleets in the Med. Sea. by giving them access to pass from the Black Sea to the Med. Sea.

Perhaps different ideas such as this could give a kick to the neutrals. After all both sides wanted some of the neutrals to enter, so there had to be a good reason to try and persuade them.

On a different note I think Africa needs different rules. The world's second largest continet is worth a great deal of IPC money and can be crossed very fast. Honestly I think that Africa needs to lose some of its IPC value and instead make it that for every 3 terriorities or so under Ally control, the Allies get one free Inf. in Africa to represent their colonial guard force.

[Imperious leader]

However there is evidence out there that states that both the Axis and Allies were trying to get Turkey to enter the war. In fact Turkey did enter near the very end on the side of the Allies.

This point and others are possible... but Revised is like a checkers version of warfare in its most basic form. Neutrals and heavier historical 'what-if' may be a position to have on a Advanced or Deluxe product.

[pellulo]

Turkey declared war against Germany, to get founder's status in the new United Nations, military action was mostly symbolic, at this stage of the war, thanks, Pellulo

[Flashman]

Hitler decided against the operation Sphinx proposed by Raeder, by which some suggest Germany might have won the war.
This involved pumping resources into the Med theatre before attacking Russia. Principally it would have given German control of the Middle East and made it much easier to capture the Caucasus oil fields when the invasion of Russia did get underway.
This strategy would definately have involved invading Turkey, perhaps even with Soviet collaboration.
Stalin and co. had a border dispute with Turkey over Armenia, and wanted guaranteed access trhough the Bosporus.

However such a carve up was unlikely, and Hitler partly decided on the Barbaraossa attack because the Russians insisted on expanding in the Turkey/Balkans area that Hitler wanted himself, rather than towards Persia/India which is what Hitler wanted them to do.

[adlertag]

However such a carve up was unlikely, and Hitler partly decided on the Barbaraossa attack because the Russians insisted on expanding in the Turkey/Balkans area that Hitler wanted himself, rather than towards Persia/India which is what Hitler wanted them to do.

That Stalin character should have listen to Hitler

[Imperious leader]

But the game does not do 'what -ifs' ..Rather it sticks to the actual war as it was fought.