1912 Preparation

[Kaiser Kirk]

I have been working from a blank basemap.

To move forward for 1912, we need an updated 1911 HY 2 basemap.

Looking around...I could not find one.

Did HY2 1911 ever get adjudicated and a map posted??

I presume not- it was about when everyone had personal problems in real life.

SO -

I have taken the HY1 1911 Map.
I have updated it with the Iberian claims from that 1910HY1 thread, with Rocky's missed ABC & Puerto Rico islands, and made the agreed adjustments to the Norse.
I am also cleaning up the lines and coloring in little holes as I go.

I can use that as a basemap to put on whatever you guys picked up in HY2 1911.



What I Need

1. Please Double Check the Basemap - anything missing or added?

2. Rocky- Falklands and the Brazilian State of Parnabuca- they were Iberian Green,  you noted some of your provinces were colored wrong, they then were Vilnus Green....is this correct?

Please let me know of any territories claimed & approved in HY2, 1911.

Once I get that information,
I will add ports to the map and we can move on.

[The Rock Doctor]

To my knowledge we had no claims in 2/11.  I had a map ready for it, but the call didn't come.

Parnabuco and the Falklands are Iberian claims. 

The Union colonies look correct to me.

Thanks for forging ahead, Kirk.

[Kaiser Kirk]

OK here is the same map...with Ports.

Ports are ONLY shown for non PC/NPC territories.
Only multi-province areas have Ports Pictured.
Island chains, or single islands are assumed to have a port somewhere.

Feel free to look at the map and tell me I made some critical error.
Rather discuss and fix it now than later.

Tomorrow I will post this map (with any edits) in a H1 1912 Thread and PM the various players that colonial applications are being taken.

Click Link  :https://postimg.cc/LhMjdj0K

Image :



Since I am forging ahead without finalizing things with Snip I am going to set some expansion rate limits until he finalizes his rules update :

PCs : Can Claim Port territories, and any/all the territories adjacent to those Port territories *
PCs : Can expand current Land claims by 2 provinces further "inland" *
China/Japan : Given we do not know the final resources - Please choose 4 Port Territories. Expansion to adjacent will have to wait, but at least you can

*Provided you have the deployment points.




Ports Intent :
There are many ports- it would be hard for one player to 'wall off' an area by grabbing all the ports.
These are meant to be major natural anchorages which can accommodate a steamship with a 7-8m draft, need little development to serve as a supply point for a major colonial effort.
They will hopefully be a means towards strategy later, allowing focal points for trade or naval efforts.

Snip is considering Regions centered on the Port, I am a little unclear his goals on the Region thing, but it will help if you have a port.
They are tied to real-world locations. Which is why the US east coast has many, and Namibia has little.

A combination of Ports.com, Worldportsouce.com, wiki, atlases, Google Earth adn "Coaling, Docking and Repairing facilities of the Ports of the World."...were used.

[The Rock Doctor]

I can't see the map.

[The Rock Doctor]

Which is weird because I can see others further up-thread.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Sorry, not used to *trying* to post big maps.
Though looking at my posts, I seemed to have used the same approach for both...


I try to fix it at my lunchtime.  2000 GMT

I will include a clickable link too so if the image part does not work, that should.

It did show on my home computer, but currently at work where images are blocked. (technically reasonable personal use is allowed on break)

[Desertfox]

I can see it, maybe its your browser Rocky? Is there a larger resolution version? Or at least a zoomed in one in the Caribbean?

Yeah work blocks certain images and links but not all. The N-verse board upload option usually works best for me.

[The Rock Doctor]

It could definitely be my browser, but I can't do a lot about that.

[The Rock Doctor]

Okay, I quoted Kirk's post, copied the hyperlink, and downloaded it from the original host site, although my computer thought there was some malicious stuff elsewhere on that page (probably the Russian singles ad).

I'll open it up in Paint and have a gander.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Okay, I quoted Kirk's post, copied the hyperlink, and downloaded it from the original host site, although my computer thought there was some malicious stuff elsewhere on that page (probably the Russian singles ad).

I'll open it up in Paint and have a gander.

1.  Revised post, now has click link.
2.  Reloaded map and did link. Shows for me :)
3.  Foxy asked me about the missed San Diego. I had accidentally stuck it at LA.  LA's port was originally tidal mudfalts that were not usable until dredged. So I revised the map to show the port at San Diego where it was supposed to be.
4. Feel free to bring up "hey what about this port" type comments.  Usually there is a reason. Occasionally not. 
5. I will be double checking somethings myself, but will be posting a new thread for the bids section. 

[The Rock Doctor]

Ushuaia comes to mind for me as a "What About?"

[Kaiser Kirk]

Ushuaia comes to mind for me as a "What About?"

Fair Question.
I looked at ports in Patagonia, I didn't look terribly hard at that one.
Looking at it further, it reminds of Juneau, but with a difference.

Ushuaia (Patagonia) meets the natural harbor definition, but as it has no overland link, it doesn't really help you develop anything without a substantial infrastructure investment.
I faced a similar situation with Juneau. However in the vicinity of the dot there is Sitka and Skagway, the latter having an inland route that allowed mining.  I considered that all sheltered waters with access for development. The dot probably better represents Skagway.

In both cases they could help the development of the islands in the vicinity, but one helps develop other places, and the other doesn't.

So on review, with what I was going for, I think it still makes sense.

BUT I won't take vehement disagreement poorly.
I'm making a judgement call- it may be a bad one :)

[Kaiser Kirk]

Commentary :

Developed provinces are expected to have some useable Port facilities somewhere.
But for these undeveloped areas, one of the considerations of Ports being listed is how easily they become useful as they will be the engine for development for the rest.
Getting supplies safely, securely and reliably, and then easily moving them onto/off of shipping.

There are real life ports like Los Angeles, that required dredging the mudflat...i.e. IC
There are ports like Lüderitz, which was a sailing ship port, but was shallow and had a stony bottom and fell out of use. Now they were/are building facilities to allow shipping..again IC.
Hence why a port like Juneau or Ushuaia which needs an infrastructure (IC) of barges and lighters and little ships to move cargo around the islands or to get inland fall out. Skagway on the other hand- punch a road up the river.

[Jefgte]

Set the cost of a new port at $ 0.5 or $ 1.
Prices of platforms, warehouses and some cranes.
If you add a repair dry dock, you will have to pay for it in addition.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Set the cost of a new port at $ 0.5 or $ 1.
Prices of platforms, warehouses and some cranes.
If you add a repair dry dock, you will have to pay for it in addition.

That is more a discussion for rule changes.
As discussed, my expectation is that developed provinces can be assumed to have the infrastructure to develop other harbors - all part of building an IC.
At that point, where you place a drydock/slip becomes up to you.

The goal here is :
1. We have been "stuck" since last summer.
2. We have been trying to continue since New Years.
3. After two months we are 'stuck' again.
4. So... lets proceed to 1912.
5. Whenever Snip can return and finalize and introduce the new rule, we can incorporate those at that time.

6. One thing I know Snip wants is a desire to center colonial regions, and linking them to a good harbor for supply transport is a natural way for a colony to get started.
6. Since we know #5 is intended, it is easiest to proceed for 1912 under the Port Model.