|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Mar 23, 2016 3:09:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Mar 23, 2016 5:56:36 GMT
Yay! So many reservations! Keep it up peeps  |
|
|
|
Post by best75 on Mar 23, 2016 8:15:42 GMT
I want to take New Zealand and Mexico.
|
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Mar 23, 2016 10:47:04 GMT
Desophaeus, pick three countries and we'll tell you whether you've picked a good selection of countries or a bad selection of countries
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Mar 23, 2016 14:41:37 GMT
France?
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Mar 23, 2016 14:49:50 GMT
you can if you want to Would like to request people to consider USA and USSR as well since we can't play without them |
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Mar 23, 2016 15:00:08 GMT
i also would reccommend players to pick WTO
|
|
|
|
Post by General Macarthur on Mar 24, 2016 1:37:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 24, 2016 2:01:30 GMT
Desophaeus, pick three countries and we'll tell you whether you've picked a good selection of countries or a bad selection of countries India, Indonesia, and Egypt. I don't feel comfortable with something so huge and vital to the war like USSR but I still wanted 3 countries that are quite heavily populated. I picked WTO only because there's not enough people on that side even though I prefer NATO. |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Mar 24, 2016 2:07:45 GMT
I think its looks like a fine selection of countries |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 24, 2016 2:13:30 GMT
I think its looks like a fine selection of countries Just curious, is it more advantageous to select 3 across the globe or concreated in a single region (for example India, Central Asia Union, Iran - very close to each other) or would it be possible to absorb neighboring allies like Iran absorb Iraq to become a stronger enemy against NATO which means it's better to be more spread out? |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Mar 24, 2016 2:40:14 GMT
I think its looks like a fine selection of countries Just curious, is it more advantageous to select 3 across the globe or concreated in a single region (for example India, Central Asia Union, Iran - very close to each other) or would it be possible to absorb neighboring allies like Iran absorb Iraq to become a stronger enemy against NATO which means it's better to be more spread out? Not exactly sure, I'd ask Napoleon Bonaparte about this. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Mar 24, 2016 4:09:26 GMT
Just curious, is it more advantageous to select 3 across the globe or concreated in a single region (for example India, Central Asia Union, Iran - very close to each other) or would it be possible to absorb neighboring allies like Iran absorb Iraq to become a stronger enemy against NATO which means it's better to be more spread out? Not exactly sure, I'd ask Napoleon Bonaparte about this. well in the case given I'd say Iran plus Central Asia and India look more good as an alliance, but the neutral and hostile Pakistan can be an issue |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 24, 2016 4:35:37 GMT
Different topic: I looked at the nations, and I think some of them could use some mergers and it would be less strain on the mapmaker for this TW Qatar---WTO Bahrain---NATO UAE---NATO Those three probably could merger with Saudi Arabia. Singapore has been merged into the South Asia Union but it's the same size as Bahrain and has the same population as UAE in comparison. So I think those 3 little specks of sand dune and salt water might as well be inside Saudi Arabian territory on the map, and be done with it. **This merger idea is probably the most helpful out of all of my suggestions here imho.** Kuwait---NATO Could merger with Saudi Arabia as well but this one is bigger than a speck and it did have a history of being attacked and taken by Iraq before USA defeated Saddam and pushed his forces back in the 90s, so in this TW Iraq could go for an earlier conquest of Kuwait this time and USA probably wouldn't be bothered to be coming to Kuwait's rescue this time if they had more pressing issues to attend to. It's a TW, anything can happen. Thailand---WTO Laos---WTO Cambodia---WTO Either all 3 of them merger into one or leave Thailand alone but Laos and Cambodia could merger at least. I don't think it would hurt to do one of the two possibilities here. Papua---NATO New Guinea---NATO This is more of a needed fix for historical reasons than the mapmaking geographical reasons. There is NO Papua or New Guniea after WW2. It is actually Papua New Guinea. However, I checked out whether if they were independent or not (Port Moresby was under Australian's rule, but I could had been wrong). It turns out that in 1946 the setting of TW10 here, Australia was indeed in charge of the Papua New Guinea territory. Papua New Guinea became independent only in 1975. I didn't know that until now. Australia should have domination over Papua New Guinea here instead of spilt into British Papua and German New Guniea or an independent Papua New Guinea. North Yemen---NATO South Yemen---WTO A spilt Yemen sounds like an interesting idea to play out, but the spilt only happened from the 1960s to 1994 (yes, I checked this one too ). But even if it didn't happen in 1946, it's still possible and is very interesting to incorporate into the TW anyway, maybe those two still should be left as separate instead of merged together. What do you guys think of those possible modifications to the list of nations? |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Mar 24, 2016 4:46:16 GMT
Last three look good, not sure about the starting two
I will think tho, I have to mash a lot of countries!
|
|
