HerrDak
Posts: 21
Joined: 6/13/2013
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lobster
Just because the altitude says 2500 meters doesn't mean the whole place is peaks or even rough.
¡This! Im really dont feel comfortable filling all the map with mountains and alpine terrain type... Altitude should not be the same as peaks and rough terrain.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ogar
I agree with Lobster that rails, cities, rivers, and mountains (peaks) in 1930 are likely the same as 1914 -- watch out for large "lakes", as 1920-onwards is when many hydro/reclamation projects happened. I wonder if searching/requesting a railway map circa 1910 might help ? Maybe on a WWI site ?
I have some information from maps and books, it seems that in the Serbian Campaign the abscense of proper railways in Bosnia Herzegovina and Serbia was a real pain for the K.u.K.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ogar
As for vegetation/terrain/environment, maybe some photographs from 1900+ -- possibly connected with tourist books of the time - might help. It will not have the aerial Google Map view, but it will give an indication. My two pfennigs/dinars (? are those correct) is that there is a lot more land under pasture or cultivation (no synthetic fertilizers); farmlands are very close to dense, small cities; forests are smaller than today (more people needed wood for heat/cooking and needed cleared land for crops/pasture).
Nice tips, specially for Farms.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ogar
Remember, for defense/combat, the worst terrain applies; for movement, miseries accumulate (terrain effects add up to a maximum) -- so mountains might only be used for the 'backbone' of a high-altitude geologic formation, with forested or bare hills for the rest. And of course, the visual aspect matters as well.
¡This! I think its valid to put only Mountain Terrain for really big geologic formations, it will be a great solution.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ogar
Have you read this thread ... about the pains of mapmaking ? Telumar is an experienced designer, and he, too, has questions/concerns on how to do his map. Some good pointers on map-making decisions in that thread, I think.
As for the 10km vs 5km..., remember that will effect combat density, supplies, artillery as well. For 1914, in this region, my first thought is that 5km/half-week is a good fit for leg infantry/horse cavalry, but that's just my initial guess.
Yes, I read that thread, and as a matter of fact it inspires me to design my own scenarios, mapping that Italy was beatiful. 
I like big maps with enough space to maneuver, I already send Oberst Klink a PM with some images (including a map at 10km per hex scale). Im really at the beginning of the scenario, so probably I will change it to a 5km per hex scale.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ogar
If your design is close to working, then it is worth while to take advantage of these offers to test it out. Testing scenarios gives the designer great feedback into what works and what does not. I have greatly benefited from insights and suggestions from folks testing my scenario. That said, "honest" testing only means more re-working/re-designing the scenario.
Paraphrasing something Telumar wrote a while back,
"You may not have plans for much testing of your TOAW scenario, but TOAW has many plans for testing you."
Thats for sure, I have a lot of work ahead.
Thanks
< Message edited by HerrDak -- 5/10/2014 9:03:53 PM >
|
Printable Version
Serbian Campaign 1914 - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread