Staghound's map

Show off your A&A photographs and Game maps.
User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:49 pm

Almost every wartime map shows the whole of Western Sahara as just "Rio de Oro". "Spanish Sahara" doesn't appear till postwar maps, although it may technically be more correct.

It seems that this is the same mistake as calling Great Britain "England", as it refers only to the bigger (and far the better) part of a larger entity.

So not only is Rio de Oro usually put in the wrong place it's given a name which only refers to a part of itself.

In futue I think I shall simply refer to the whole strip as "Western Sahara" to avoid further confusion. After all it was mainly desert and the Spanish appear to have had no control other than of a few coastal settlements.

For southern Arabia, Yemen and Oman are all you need; but note that Yemen had a UK naval station (Aden) which was a vital repair/refuel facility on the route to India. Like most of these desert territories the tribes of the interior largely ignored European claims of sovereignty.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:59 pm

Almost every wartime map shows the whole of Western Sahara as just "Rio de Oro". "Spanish Sahara" doesn't appear till postwar maps, although it may technically be more correct.
This is not correct. Spanish Sahara and Rio De Oro are overlapping territories. They comprise of very old territories including Morocco and basically western portion of the Sahara Desert. I have many printed maps from this period and thats how they all are set up. I suggest you buy an old map and have a look for your self. Stop looking at wikpedia.
It seems that this is the same mistake as calling Great Britain "England", as it refers only to the bigger (and far the better) part of a larger entity.
As usual this also is not correct. Om my maps dated 1916 and 1914 they have clearly: England printed the demonstrate the British Isles. This would also be the case on the very english companies which are printing these old maps. The Germans also refer to England and never anything else.

Great Britain is a very old title last used during Napoleonic days.. while Britain (losing the great part) is a common name just for england minus whales and Ireland
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:01 pm

Wow, you don't know old blighty do you?

Lesson:

England is England, period. It consists ONLY of those parts of Great Britain taken over by Anglo-Saxons in the 5th/6th centuries. It most definately does not include Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Isle of Man, Channel Islands etc.

Great Britain refers to the main island of Britain (as opposed to smaller Britain i.e. Brittany). This does include Scotland and Wales but NOT Ireland.

The United Kingdom was formed by the union of Great Britain with Ireland in 1801. You'll note that British flags of the American Rebellion do not include the diagonal red flag of St. Patrick which was added with the union of 1801. The UK has various crown dependencies such as the Channel islands, plus overseas territories such as Gibraltar, Bermuda etc.

Great Britain is still used in many contexts, and the official title of the country remains "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Try telling a Scotsman that he comes from Scotland, England and he'll kick your head in.

I defy you to produce a single British produced map which refers to Great Britain as England. What the Germans think is another matter.

For my benefit, do you have a similar explanation of the diffferences between the following terms:

1. Rio de Oro
2. Western Sahara
3. Spanish Sahara
4. Seguia el Hamra
5. Cap Juby

The Wiki articles do indeed seem mightily confused on the subject.

User avatar
Staghound
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:09 am

Post by Staghound » Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:54 am

Flashman,

For your benefit:
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/northaf ... 41939.html

Click the arrows on the top of the page to find out more.


BTW:
I now understand your talking about 'losing points'.
I just read your 'Prof. Flashy's 20 Point Formula' topic.

Well, you can take away another point for reaching France in one turn, when coming from the Eastern US.
I do have to add though that we play this game with a risk factor of movement -1 for ships, due to bad weather conditions at sea, so sometimes it will take two turns to reach the French coast.

Some interesting facts about our territory values:

While working on this map, I found an old, massive 'Resources Book' from the late thirties, containing all raw materials known or present in every country and island of the world at that time.

We picked out all the raw material figures that were important for the war effort, added them together and let loose a formula on the outcomes, that transferred them into useable territory points.

In other words: all territory values that you see on our map are historically accurate (except for the US - which would have gathered no less than 65 points, destroying the game completely).

How's that for researching?

And yes: India was only worth 4 points back then (raw material wise).

Better pictures send to Elbowmaster.

Take care,

Staghound

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:00 pm

I look forward to seeing your map in full.

Particularly interested to see what IPC figures you came up with, and their distribution.

But really, India needs to be more than one territory, even if it means 4 x 1 IPC areas.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:52 am

As usual this also is not correct. On my maps dated 1916 and 1914 they have clearly: England printed the demonstrate the British Isles. This would also be the case on the very english companies which are printing these old maps. The Germans also refer to England and never anything else.
England is England, period. It consists ONLY of those parts of Great Britain taken over by Anglo-Saxons in the 5th/6th centuries. It most definately does not include Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Isle of Man, Channel Islands etc.

Great Britain refers to the main island of Britain (as opposed to smaller Britain i.e. Brittany). This does include Scotland and Wales but NOT Ireland.

The United Kingdom was formed by the union of Great Britain with Ireland in 1801. You'll note that British flags of the American Rebellion do not include the diagonal red flag of St. Patrick which was added with the union of 1801. The UK has various crown dependencies such as the Channel islands, plus overseas territories such as Gibraltar, Bermuda etc.

Great Britain is still used in many contexts, and the official title of the country remains "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Try telling a Scotsman that he comes from Scotland, England and he'll kick your head in.

I defy you to produce a single British produced map which refers to Great Britain as England.
Again as usual your response has nothing to do with my correction. What i said was that the maps i have which in one case are from a British map company do not say "great Britain" but they do say either England (for the main portion of the island) or the British Isles.... none of them say Great Britain which is what your point was period.
The Wiki articles do indeed seem mightily confused on the subject.
As i said before stop using Wikpedia and get a old book from the period you plan on studying for maps.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Staghound
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:09 am

Post by Staghound » Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:03 pm

Better quality pictures in my first post now...

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:41 pm

Yes, that's better.

I think we can all see why you really needed to make Europe bigger...

But overall this is the most accurate map I've seen. There are some minor quibbles which will come out in my review, but this is a top effort.

Could you possibly take a pic of Europe without the units so we can see all the details?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests