Balkans - or - The Balkan Peninsula

[patsfan44]

Hmm, gas and lead are boring. I'd rather see nothing than clutter the map up with something insignificant. There's already a lot going on and it will be a challenging map to play.

If we want to add a twist, we could add a shipping lane to the Ionian Sea, west of Greece, and connect it to Athens and the seaport in Albania. In that way the four seas are all chained via seaports - you could hop all the way around the map in eight regions.

Yeah i couldn't find anything interesting...

Plus are we making the sea routes a bonus or not? I am guessing they are more like the Philippines sea routes. Also I am all for the sea regions idea.

Actually I am not sure about the sea regions connecting... I think that is just taking the effects of the mountains/impassables a bit. Just a bit to much freedom of movement.

Nvm i see where you also wanted to add a sea region. I am for that after all.

 

[Shepherd]

that would give four sea regions. +1 for 3, and a larger bonus for holding all of them as we've done with the oil wells in MidEast? Or just a single bonus for the monopoly?

 

[patsfan44]

that would give four sea regions. +1 for 3, and a larger bonus for holding all of them as we've done with the oil wells in MidEast? Or just a single bonus for the monopoly?

I like the +1 for three and +3 for four since they are spread out.

 

[Shepherd]

can do.

Re-routing the river has the effect of creating another region in Romania - one that borders Bulgaria to the south, but not russia to the north. It's interesting. And you're right, theriver runs along the russian border - also interesting.

 

[patsfan44]

can do.

Re-routing the river has the effect of creating another region in Romania - one that borders Bulgaria to the south, but not russia to the north. It's interesting.

I am guessing you meant Ukraine, also I am trying to visualize what you are saying but kinda difficult.

 

[Shepherd]

too late to post anything... I'm sleepy. More tomorrow perhaps.

 

[Sebrim]

Just about the Danube: It has a huge Delta, which covers almost the entire northern half of the Romanian coast. This region is almost impassable, as there are no roads here, and several villages are connected with the rest of Romania only along the river route.

Also, the tiny little coast stretch of Bosnia Hercegovina is really not important, as there is no harbour there, only a small seaside resort. the Dubrovnik region is a good idea, but I think we can take the liberty of leaving Bosnia landlocked, without upsetting anybody.

Regarding bonuses: the sea bonuses are a good idea. One could also take Orthodox Patriarchates, which are situated in Istanbul, Sofia, Bucharest and Belgrad. 3 for +1 and all four for +4 or something.

We could also have a bonus for holding all of Yugoslavia, in addition to the bonuses of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro and Macedonia

Other than that, I like the way this map is taking shape!

 

[Shepherd]

Just about the Danube: It has a huge Delta, which covers almost the entire northern half of the Romanian coast. This region is almost impassable, as there are no roads here, and several villages are connected with the rest of Romania only along the river route.

The way I'm going to present it to patsfan is to create a new region, maybe called the Danube Delta, with the river around it and separating it from the Ukraine to the north.

Also, the tiny little coast stretch of Bosnia Hercegovina is really not important, as there is no harbour there, only a small seaside resort. the Dubrovnik region is a good idea, but I think we can take the liberty of leaving Bosnia landlocked, without upsetting anybody.

Except the Bosnians! But yes, we could either make that strip a region, or lump it in with the rest of the coast.

 

[Blondo]

Are you giving the graphics a NATO vs Warsaw Pact countries kind of flavor?

Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Albania & maybe that ship in the East could have a bombarding ability (either selected NATO targets or the commands that made up neutral Yugoslavia) and vice versa for NATO countries (Greece, E.Thrace & the 2 ships to the West).
Once fog of war has been implemented ... bombarding regions are even more important ... maybe better that you can't fort other regions with the troops that you have on them nor move to a neighbouring region/only 1 way attack into bombarding region ... to limit free movement = you have to make a trade-off.


... or more in line with the M.East map EEC (EU) vs COMECON?

Instead of command bonuses ... use a limited amount of regions as resources, factories & marketplaces ... e.g. EEC free trade = own a ship, harbor, marketplace & 2 resource regions ... you get a big bonus (smaller bonuses if you own fewer of those regions; e.g. only a marketplace & 2 resource regions) ... and similarly for the planned COMECON economy. Still this might be too complicated (considering that capitals could get wires crossed already).


Might be worth it to have a complete set ... we already have M.East, Cold War Europe, etc. ... I'd feel this map and a map of the USSR would complete the set (or also add Czechoslovakia, Cuba, China, Korea & Vietnam maps).

 

[smi]

i think we are kinda derailed on what we want or not want on the map.

About the resourses :
I am from balkans and i dont think that balkans have any good resources , worth fighting over . What they have tho and what caused most wars at the balkans is that are a passage connecting africa - asia - eastern europe and western europe .

However since this is a balkan the only way to implement the above is via harbors , sea routes and dunabe , the main ways of trading in balkans .

So what could be made is the aforementioned idea about sea routes being a command , with a +1 for 3 sea routes and +3 for all sea routes .

Now about Dunabe i dont think anything could be made .

I'd like to insist on the capitols idea tho ( starting neutral tho - now that we got a sea "command" as well ) and maybe in order to solve the programming difficulties Shepherd mentioned , just make each give +1 for holding it and don't add any interactions between them . This can be backed up because the capitols in balkans arent such big cities that holding two would influence a war - holding them gives power on a more "local" scale .

soo wraping it up :

Commands

Croatia          6 borders | 6 regions : +5 troops bonus | no capitol(added an extra region)
Moldova          3 borders | 4 regions : +2 troops bonus | no capitol 
Slovenia         3 borders | 4 regions : +2 troops bonus | [B]has capitol [/B]
Albania          3 borders | 4 regions : +2 troops bonus | no capitol
Montenegro       2 borders | 2 regions : +1 troops bonus | no capitol
Bosn. /hers.     4 borders | 4 regions : +3 troops bonus | no capitol
Serbia:          4 borders | 3 regions : +2 troops bonus | no capitol
Kosovo:          2 borders | 2 regions : +1 troops bonus | [B]has capitol[/B]
Greece:          4 borders | 5 regions : +3 troops bonus | no capitol 
Turkey thing:    3 borders | 3 regions : +1 troops bonus | no capitol
FYROM     :      4 borders | 4 regions : +3 troops bonus | no capitol (reduced to 4)
Hungary:         4 borders | 7 regions : +4 troops bonus | no capitol
Romania:         6 borders | 9 regions : +6 troops bonus | [B]has capitol[/B]
Bulgaria:        6 borders | 9 regions : +6 troops bonus | [B]has capitol[/B]

Sea Routes
+1 for holding any 3 , +3 for holding all 4
( one more sea region to connect North-West with greece needs to be added - maybe call it Ionian Sea )


Capitols
+1 bonus for each capitol
Capitols are considered part of the commands ( you need to capture capitol as well for the command bonus )
Start : 2 neutral

Total Regions : 70
Total regions , non neutral at start : 66 (70 minus 4 capitols)
Possibly , lets discuss this : Total regions , non neutral at start : 62 (70 minus 4 capitols minus 4 sea regions)

suggestions on the above?

edit: formatting

 

[Shepherd]

Hey Patsfan, I'm confused about Albania. The surrounded region doesn't represent the capital, which is Tirana, more to the west. The regions with Albania may require a re-do.

Also, for some countries you've drawn the regions nicely based on actual historical or political divisions, but you haven't used the names of the regions. For example, in the case of Greece especially it wold make more sense to call the Peloponnese by the name Peloponnese rather than to name it after one city in the area. Same thing for Romania. That would be like drawing a map of the US and calling Texas "Dallas" or calling California "Los Angeles" - as a northern Californian I would take offense.

 

[patsfan44]

Hey Patsfan, I'm confused about Albania. The surrounded region doesn't represent the capital, which is Tirana, more to the west. The regions with Albania may require a re-do.

Also, for some countries you've drawn the regions nicely based on actual historical or political divisions, but you haven't used the names of the regions. For example, in the case of Greece especially it wold make more sense to call the Peloponnese by the name Peloponnese rather than to name it after one city in the area. Same thing for Romania. That would be like drawing a map of the US and calling Texas "Dallas" or calling California "Los Angeles" - as a northern Californian I would take offense.

As far as Albania I originally only had it as three regions.

I can't remember how I picked the fourth region. I believe I had it as Tirana, but then moved it for space.

The names of every single region need to be reviewed. I just pulled some names out quickly so it would be easier to discuss on what needed to be done to the map. I am sure most of them are acceptable though.

 

[Shepherd]

SO, despite the recent server woes, we've been doing some work on making this map happen. But what we need are region names. If anybody has some knowledge of this part of the world - or just some time to stare at maps - I invite you to help out here.

 

[Sebrim]

please, let me give a hand ;-)

What regions are needed? I think Greece should be smi's domain, but I'd gladly help with the rest

 

[Cardinalsrule]

just start on any region you know about, Sebrim.....

 

[Sebrim]

Can somebody please post the last version of the map, so I can see where to start?

a) the Hungarian regions have names worthy of the Hungarian language, i.e. hundreds of letters and strange diacritics over each second letter. Example: Közép-Dunántúl or Észak-Magyarország. Besides these names being impossible to fit into the terts, I don't think it's useful to use the original names. Their translations of the exampleas are 'Middle Danube Valley' and 'North Hungary'. What solution would you suggest?

b) The Bulgarian regions are named afte the main cities therein. However, the existing names are only partly correct. From Northwest in clockwise direction is: 'Michailovgrad', 'Lovech', 'Razgrad', 'Varna' (already correct), 'Burgas' (already correct), 'Haskovo', 'Plovdiv' (already correct). The last two are actually Sofia (city) and Sofia (region). You could call the region 'Sofiiska' - the adjectival form of the city name.

I'll continue once the updated map is closer to this post ;-)

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I'm going to suggest you Anglicize them as much as possible, both for readability (since there really aren't many Hungarians on the site, I don't believe) and for length.

Last map is in post #58 on page 6.

 

[Sebrim]

OK!

Romania:
The development-regions on which this map is based actually have very boring names, such as 'Sud', 'Vest', 'Centro', 'Nord-Est' etc. so I went with the historical regions, which do not exactly have the same borders, though.
Cluj-Napoca = 'Someşana'
Iaşi = 'Moldova' (which might obviously cause confusion, just as Macedonia in Greece... you could obviously call one of them 'Moldavia' - the latinised name, or the other one 'Republic of Moldova')
Timişoara = 'Apuseana'
Craiova = 'Oltenia'
Galati = 'Dunarea' or 'Dobrogea'
Ploieşti = 'Muntenia'
Braşov and Sibiu are actually one region called 'Mureşana' - Another possibility is 'Mures' and 'Tarnava' respectively

Hungary:

Györ = 'Transdanubia W'
Pecs = 'Transdanubia S'
Szekesfehervar = 'Transdanubia C'
Budapest = 'Hungary C'
Szeged = 'Great Plain S'
Miskolc = 'Hungary N'
Debrecen = 'Great Plain N'
Alternatively, we could leave the names as they are, since that is the capital city of each region.

Turkey:
Correct, except Tekirdag = 'Edirne' (the region Edirne is actually only the Western half of the region, while the Eastern half is Tekirdag, but Edirne is a much bigger city and therefore better known)

I'll take a look at former Yugoslavia tomorrow!

 

[Shepherd]

The development-regions on which this map is based actually have very boring names, such as 'Sud', 'Vest', 'Centro', 'Nord-Est' etc. so I went with the historical regions, which do not exactly have the same borders, though.

Hmm... it's not too late to tweak the borders a bit to make them align with actual regions... I think we can move some borders here and there without changing the map much. We've already added a region to the east of Romania through discussions...

Here's a very stripped-down version of the map I'm working from. Some names have already been changed; Greece, for example, I think is good as-is. If somebody wants to suggest an alternate break-down for a country I'll entertain suggestions.

 

[Shepherd]

thought on Romania... if we use the regions from the map below and add Bucharest it will slightly change the flow of the regions, but it won't change the number of regions in the country nor change the borders. Make more sense?