Page 2 of 4

Re: The Great Lakes

PostPosted: 04 Jun 2011, 23:15
by DOI
Pedros wrote:Now, the Lakes. Firstly, the connection between the two Lakes areas is canal-type - a fleet can't move EGL-WGL but has to crawl along a coastline.

Secondly, what's clear from any map you care to look at is that Chicago and Toronto each has two coasts, one to EGL and one to West (it's arguable that Chicago has two different ones for WGL, but I'm going to take them as one coast. I'll insert the coastline tags in the next map.

Adding coasts? After Baltic, that caught my attention. These coast additions make sense from a game perspective, but I don't think that Toronto needs two coasts. Leaving Toronto as is would mean that you can move EGL-Mic-WGL or EGL-Tor-WGL. That would be geographically accurate (see: the boundary between Ontario and Michigan).

Re: The Great Lakes

PostPosted: 05 Jun 2011, 00:00
by RedelMondo
DOI wrote:
Pedros wrote:Now, the Lakes. Firstly, the connection between the two Lakes areas is canal-type - a fleet can't move EGL-WGL but has to crawl along a coastline.

Secondly, what's clear from any map you care to look at is that Chicago and Toronto each has two coasts, one to EGL and one to West (it's arguable that Chicago has two different ones for WGL, but I'm going to take them as one coast. I'll insert the coastline tags in the next map.

Adding coasts? After Baltic, that caught my attention. These coast additions make sense from a game perspective, but I don't think that Toronto needs two coasts. Leaving Toronto as is would mean that you can move EGL-Mic-WGL or EGL-Tor-WGL. That would be geographically accurate (see: the boundary between Ontario and Michigan).


Also, I believe this is what the variant bank says:

Continuous coasts. Movement by fleets is allowed along the coasts of Toronto, Michigan and Delta as if they were canals, like Denmark in the standard variant.

Re: Britain's SCs

PostPosted: 05 Jun 2011, 03:54
by stalin813
2) That last step raises my second question: Nor seems to have a tiny piece on the eastern shore of the Mississippi, touching Msp, Flo and APP. So.... Army enters Nor from Tex, can army move on next turn to Msp or Flo? (I guess same question applies to Para, Amazonia and Loreto on the Amazonia...)




I agree, looking at the map it seems very clear that NOr touches GOM, APP, and Flo. All should be considered valid moves from NOr, but i think for a fleet, you shouldn't be able to move NOr to Flo, because a fleet is technically in the river and the river empties into GOM or APP.

Re: War in the Americas 2: Rules issues

PostPosted: 05 Jun 2011, 10:01
by AardvarkArmy
i think for a fleet, you shouldn't be able to move NOr to Flo, because a fleet is technically in the river and the river empties into GOM or APP


I think the "continuous coasts" premise would swing infavor of fleet moves from Nor to Flo...

... the fleet is basically deemed to exist along all points on the coastlines simultaneously

Re: Britain's SCs

PostPosted: 05 Jun 2011, 13:46
by Pedros
stalin813 wrote:
2) That last step raises my second question: Nor seems to have a tiny piece on the eastern shore of the Mississippi, touching Msp, Flo and APP. So.... Army enters Nor from Tex, can army move on next turn to Msp or Flo? (I guess same question applies to Para, Amazonia and Loreto on the Amazonia...)




I agree, looking at the map it seems very clear that NOr touches GOM, APP, and Flo. All should be considered valid moves from NOr, but i think for a fleet, you shouldn't be able to move NOr to Flo, because a fleet is technically in the river and the river empties into GOM or APP.

No, No, No! AA is right. An army occupies the whole province and can move accordingly; a fleet in New Orleans is on the coast as much as the river, so ditto. Both can go to Florida. But Stalin is right about the little piece of NOr on the east bank.

Re: War in the Americas 2: Rules issues

PostPosted: 05 Jun 2011, 14:00
by Pedros
RedelMondo wrote:An army in Par can go north or south regardless of which part of the province it seemingly appears as the whole thing is one territory, correct?

Sorry - missed this one earlier. The same question applies also to Ama and Man.

Correct RedelMondo - the river is just like the other rivers, and armies occupy the whole province, north and south. Fairly low on my list of things to do with this map is to take out the obese rivers (I inherited them) and replace them with 'normal' ones!

Re: The Great Lakes

PostPosted: 05 Jun 2011, 14:06
by Pedros
DOI wrote:
Pedros wrote:Now, the Lakes. Firstly, the connection between the two Lakes areas is canal-type - a fleet can't move EGL-WGL but has to crawl along a coastline.

Secondly, what's clear from any map you care to look at is that Chicago and Toronto each has two coasts, one to EGL and one to West (it's arguable that Chicago has two different ones for WGL, but I'm going to take them as one coast. I'll insert the coastline tags in the next map.

Adding coasts? After Baltic, that caught my attention. These coast additions make sense from a game perspective, but I don't think that Toronto needs two coasts. Leaving Toronto as is would mean that you can move EGL-Mic-WGL or EGL-Tor-WGL. That would be geographically accurate (see: the boundary between Ontario and Michigan).

Welcome to the discussion DOI, and thanks for this. You're right about Toronto (and thanks for the reference RedelMondo) - I'd missed it. And on the basis that I'm trying to stick to the original, it definitely stays as is. But Chicago must have three coasts - you can't slip round Michigan just like that, and nobody's ever suggested there's a subtle canal there.

I aim to start the auction later today, including posting the rules for the auction here. It will have a 48 hour deadline, and during that time I will finalise the map, the rules, and my GM's House Rules ready for the start, hopefully on Monday

St Lawrence and Mississippi

PostPosted: 05 Jun 2011, 18:18
by Pedros
One final question was raised - where the two rivers end.

St Lawrence ends in New York State, and Mississippi ends south of the Chicago-Michigan border, so that Mic-Min is not possible. Both are in accordance with the original. I will put darker lines on the map to clarify that.

Re: War in the Americas 2: Rules issues

PostPosted: 06 Jun 2011, 09:00
by theangrycastle
What was your final call on Britain?

Re: War in the Americas 2: Rules issues

PostPosted: 06 Jun 2011, 09:22
by stalin813
I believe 5 SC, two in Canada, two in Caribbean, and 1 in the Falklands.