 |
|  |
 |
|
Michael Daumen
|
 |
Research Triangle
Jan 1970 time: 00:14
|
|
Hey all,
I think I have developed a way around the frustrating map barriers in TOT. It is counter-intuitive but I think it will work. What I really need are some heavyweights like Cam and techumseh to check it out independently.
Here is my example:
Say we want to do the classic WW2 scenario. Here are the three maps we'll use, the US on the left, Europe/Russia in the middle and Pacific on the right. How to make them link? First of all, the maps are round! Second of all, if we put impassable terrain where the white borders are, the shape of each map is slightly distorted to the point that some of their edges are now on the other side of the (now) flat maps.
For example, we have a unit going from Russia to the Far East via the Trans-Siberian Railway. In the center map it travels east, east, east . . . until it goes across the map border into the RED portion of its map. Note that it cannot go further becuse the impassable terrain is in the way. Nor can a unit in, say, England in that same area pass over the terrain into the red zone. Place a transport site in the red, linking it to the Pacific map, and it appears over on that map in the corner we want it!
The same thing goes for Atlantic travel (yellow zone) and California (blue zone). Note that the zones need only be two spaces wide or even long (one for the actual transport site, and one for the impassable border.
[This message has been edited by Michael Daumen (edited October 20, 1999).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
William Keenan
|
 |
New Jersey, USA, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Sep 1999 time: 00:14
|
|
It seems to me that Russian units would be traveling from Leningrad to London, Americans would go from Miami to Istanbul and from San Diego to Hong Kong.
Under that system I don't see how strategic sites like Gibraltar and the Suez would be important since the Americans can still just pop in to the Mediterranean Sea even if both sites were controlled by the Germans. Furthermore how can you keep the AI from pillaging the transport sites during the game?
I think the only workable way of using multiple maps in a historical scenario is though the use of starports. We could start by renaming starport to inter-theater port facility (or some such name) and making it impossible to build. By locating these inter-theater connection points in strategic cites such as Suez, Gibraltar, London, New York, San Diego, Seattle, Hong Kong, and Tokyo we can simulate the ability to strategically re-deploy troops from one theater to another. Thus, the Germans would not be able to send troops to Japan until they have taken the Suez or Gibraltar. Likewise the Allies would have realistic limits on how many units they could move from theater to theater, perhaps two or three per turn.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
techumseh
|
 |
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999 time: 22:14
|
|
Interesting. I think I agree with Michael. This should work, in theory anyway. If you move east on the Pacific map until you pass to the west (round map), then jump maps, you are in the west of the North American map - on the west coast. I don't understand the reference to Leningrad to London, etc. These transport points could be limited to one square, rather than the entire map edge.
Let's say we added a fourth map, Siberia and India. It would have 2 transit routes, one for the Soviets (Urals to Vladivostok) and one for the British (Suez to Burma). Using impassible terrain (yes, it is available in ToT) you could prevent someone playing the Japanese who captured Burma from moving to the Urals. If they captured Vladivostok, however, they could move west across Siberia and exit in the Urals east of Moscow.
The problem is, how you could prevent the Soviet player from simply garrisoning all the overlapping squares to prevent the Japanese player from exiting onto the European map?
I like the ideas of starports to limit the capacity of nations in the 1940's to transport units to other theatres. But how do you control which starport connects to which starport? Just because the Germans capture Gibraltar, they should not be able to move units to the Pacific. Unless I am mistaken, a player could move units between any two starports. San Diego to Suez doesn't make sense if Gibraltar and Singapore are held by the Axis.
This is a very interesting discussion. I think you guys are on to something.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
IG-88
|
|
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Jul 1999 time: 05:14
|
|
MIchael could you please send me a copy, I'm a bit lost and I'd like to try it out. Thanks, the e-mail in my profile is right.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
IG-88
|
|
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Jul 1999 time: 05:14
|
|
Congratulations, that is absolutely brilliant. As someone who loves to play secenarios, especially historical ones, you deserve praise.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
Oh man! Does this mean I have to remake our Cold War map AGAIN!?!?!?!?!?!
I just got all the cities in place and all the maps edited, and with this there will be no orbital fighting, or place for ICBMs to go, or or or or I'll email you...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
I've already done a World War II scenario for TOT,and in that case the best thing to do is not to link the maps at all! Since Europe and the Pacific were so far apart the armies rarely sent units back in forth in the real war. For example, Hong Kong was almost entirely undefended when the Japanese attacked in real life. Keeping them separate will also allow for one civilization to represent two different countries. A civilization like this would act like two civilizations sharing a leader, a cash flow, and technology. It certainly saves on civs so you don't have to bunch a lot of them together in one alliance or another.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14. Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|