you could probably play a complete world war 2 simulation by having russia be neutral until 2 years into the game or until germany attacks it, I mean technically Stalin was Hitler's ally, until the whole invade the Soviet Union deal

I'll be back to put my humorous and questionable useful comments this afternoon

Alright my thoughts...
-I don''t think France should be occupying Germany, the french weren't in the Rhineland in 1939 which is wha the map is base on. The Maginot line is a top quality idea which I lazily drew a black line but, the point was made
-The Norwegian campaign was touch and go for awhile till the Germans got air superiority, I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is over Norway here.
-Is there a code for planes? I know planes where an option in modern diplomacy orginally
-I like the africa it's pretty solid for now
-What about adding German minor allies as a power? Like Finland, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria or any combo of them and then have standing neutral armies around?
-Stragetically important SC is viable IMHO. After all Kiel was a secondary port if you compare it to the mighty city of Hamburg but, is an SC because it was an important naval base.

-That's Alsace-Lorraine. The Germans occupied 1870-1917 but was French before and after.
-Historically; Russia Failed to Take Norway and it played a role in the seige of Leningrad. Strategically; It's an alternative to the SC clutter the Germans have, allows them to invade Norway and gives then a chance at besieging Leningrad.
-No idea.
-Agreed.
-Agreed.

Here's an edited map. Two Versions; One where Neutrals are impassable and new territories are labelled. A second where Neutrals are SCs with an Home Army. Turkey isn't in either but could be added.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63266312@N04/sets/72157626814954479/

If Greece has a standing army so should Poland. Poland fought bravely and with some degree of skill and managed to hold back both Germany and Russia roughly the same amount of time it took France to fall.

In fact, I'm thinking that Poland should be divided up into more than 2 pieces since that area became important in 1939 and 1943-45, not making it a power or anything but, allow for some field maneuvers

True. The main issue would be Balance. Spain, Poland and Turkey are all eligable powers, but in a very dangerous position;

-Having Spain would crush France immediately. Too many fronts. They'd need at least two allies and then they'd be suffocated for growth space.
-Turkey and England would destroy eachother in the Mediterrainean. Even if they were allied, they'd lack the breathing space to grow if they had to share potential gains.
-Poland would simply be cannibalized by Germany and Russia, ala history. There is no where else for Russia to go and there's not many spots for Poland to grow on either. In the end Russia would win simply by virtue of having more SCs, and the rear of Poland would make too tempting a target for the Germans. Having an army has potential as an idea, however.

"In fact, I'm thinking that Poland should be divided up into more than 2 pieces since that area became important in 1939 and 1943-45, NOT making it a power or anything but, allow for some field maneuvers"

no again I state Poland should not be a power but have standing armies

Misread that. It's possible, but it might get fairly cluttered considering the scale of the other territories. I can see maybe three [Danzig gets it's own territory] but otherwise, it seems arbitrary to divide it up more especially considering the scale of other territories.

The only way I can see a "moving" Poland is if Poland is "paired" with UK or France

http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=674&p=3811#p3811
I reposted on E's forum tab, this is my newest take

I was refering to further dividing Poland, though you did do a rather good job of it. It's fine Neutral, though giving it to the Brits might be interesting.

I still prefer my version because of

-The Alcase-Lorraine/Rhineland thing, and marking the DMZ.
-The division of Finland and Norway seeming to be largely arbitrary and limits Germany's power a bit.
-Tobruk I feel should be isolated and thus very difficult to conquer and prone to sieges.
-Division of Russia looks/is kind of odd.

On the other hand it is more divided then mine, which I kind of prefer.
-

well, of course you prefer your own design but, this isn't either of our variant anyways unless you want to start on your own in which case I give you a hearty good luck but, remember this has been about helping Mr. E as I will call him ezpickins is kinda hard for me to spell. In any case his curious lack of comments is well rather curious. There are a bunch of legitmate designs out there now at least.

I feel sorry for ez...you're hijacking his map here ;)

:P Airborne, I was more saying sticking points/what I feel I did better, so we could compare theories and bring out the best aspects of both into one, not to bring yours down.

And yeah, I do feel like I got sort of carried away with it. It's just fun and not often that I get the chance to pull out so much WWII trivia and the like. Eitherway, when he gets back I hope he can take some of the better parts of mine and put it to good use and hopefully doesn't think I'm usurping him with my efforts here.

@Fauxlosophe - I understand your perspective re: the importance of strategic battles and agree that they should be represented, but disagree that they should represent an SC. Let me give you both historical and Dip analogies.

In real life the first battle of El Alamein stopped the Axis advance: a strategic success in preventing them going on to then access what would've been an even more important centre (Egypt and the Suez Canal and access to the Middle East oilfields). The second battle threw the Germans back and allowed for (similarly) the liberation of Libya (the strategic objective). So I like to suggest that territories that you've included like El Alamein etc are separate territories that showcase their strategic value, but not SCs in their own right. An equally good example is Crete which gave strategically access to the Med (and what could be grabbed from there) rather than Crete itself being an objective in its own right.

I like to give the Dip example of the 1066 variant. When creating it we developed territories for strategically important battles that occured in real life (Hastings and Stratford Bridge) which weren't of any military value other than acting as the launching pad onto London (or York). Similarly that variant adds territories of the same ilk that would've had strategic value but never came to light in real life (Hadrian's Wall is an excellent example, Mont St Michel not as much as originally planned.)

That's just my take as someone who likes to see a historically accurate narrative weaved into a Dip storyline. Hope it helps you ponder and possibly reconsider.

It's a good point. My only worry is how easy it might get to overwhelm Egypt if we cut down on the supply centres. Maybe rather than Crete and Alamein, we could put one on Alexandria or Suez, perhaps a Neutral on Arabia.

bump

hey guys, i haven't had much time to check this because i've been out of town. i'll adress some of the complaints when i get the chance

Sounds good Faux.

Using that perspective Stalingrad wouldn't have an SC territory but would be the launching pad onto the Caucas oilfields.

Hm. Fair enough. I always assumed the city itself was of high industrial value, but in retrospect, that wasn't really the case... I suppose I'll get on sketching an updated version unless you can think of anything else to add/that I'm missing?

I think you can definitely argue its usefulness in the war as an industrial base. It also had high propaganda factor. Hitler wanted to capture the city that bore his enemy's name to rub it in. But strategically Stalingrad was (as far as the Nazi's were concerned) the main launch pad onto the oilfields that they needed.

http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=674&p=3789#p3789

I'm waiting for someone else to comment on Mr E map...

and on the Stalingrad topic it was also important for its position in the supply line

I'm pretty sure i got hijacked...

you on a plane?

the map, not me personally.