general_tiu
SOC-8
Are there any 2300 AD maps of the world out there?
2300 AD maps
- Thread starter general_tiu
- Start date
ryanrulz37
SOC-7
There were some but I don't think their available online any more.
There are quite a few military maps among the various orbats on etranger... http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/index.htm
For Tirane try...http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/Tirane/tirane.htm
Other colony worlds ..http://stalexone.tripod.com/gg2/map-info.htm
There are quite a few military maps among the various orbats on etranger... http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/index.htm
For Tirane try...http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/Tirane/tirane.htm
Other colony worlds ..http://stalexone.tripod.com/gg2/map-info.htm
Peter Schutze
SOC-12
>the world
Earth = Earth/Cybertech sourcebook
Invasion and Aurore also have maps of the french Arm colonies
not much official on Chinese or American Arms
2320 has pretty good maps but I'd wait for the corrected versions if the PDF ever gets updated as there are some significant errors compared to 2300 canon such as Colonial Atlas descriptions
Earth = Earth/Cybertech sourcebook
Invasion and Aurore also have maps of the french Arm colonies
not much official on Chinese or American Arms
2320 has pretty good maps but I'd wait for the corrected versions if the PDF ever gets updated as there are some significant errors compared to 2300 canon such as Colonial Atlas descriptions
Thanks for posting them, but I must point out that these maps are quite different from the maps seen in Earth/Cybertech Sourcebook, and what is glimpsed from the maps in 2320 AD. In some cases these maps are unfortunately even contradictory to the descriptions of the various nations on Earth.
ryanrulz37
SOC-7
Well their from Richard Spakes version of 2300AD, which can only be classed as an alternative version of 2300AD.
The American map is pretty acurate with ESB with the exception of Arizona. The European map is also accurate except for the German/Polish borders, the Baltic States and Ireland being part of the UK. ESB actually has Denmark as part of Germany so their is no real error with Richard's map. The Asian map is however totaly different to ESB in almost every way.
The American map is pretty acurate with ESB with the exception of Arizona. The European map is also accurate except for the German/Polish borders, the Baltic States and Ireland being part of the UK. ESB actually has Denmark as part of Germany so their is no real error with Richard's map. The Asian map is however totaly different to ESB in almost every way.
Dave Malesevich has prepared maps of most of the colony worlds (plus others). These are available in his CD, "2300AD: 20 Years of Work" from his website at
http://dwm-enterprises.com/index.php
There is a wealth of other info on the CD as well.
http://dwm-enterprises.com/index.php
There is a wealth of other info on the CD as well.
Spake's map doesn't show the German Rhineland as part of France, gives Spain its old colonial holdings in Morocco, hands Karelia as far east as the White Sea to the Scandinavian Union, gives all of Slovakia to Hungary, the Georgian heartland to Armenia, and makes Flanders the size of Belgium. It isn't a close fit.
ECS shows the Danish mainland, Jutland, as part of Germany even though Danish membership in the Scandinavian Union is explicitly set out. (?) I'd go with the fanon that all of Denmark is part of a Scandinavian Union that did recover from the Twilight Era rather earlier than northern Germany. That, or you could have the Danish islands be part of Scandinavia while leave Jutland out, but this possibility's rarely talked about so there you go.
The biggest error with ECS as far as I'm concerned is the text that talks about how the Hungarian-Romanian border has changed significantly to Hungary's advantage. Is this shown on the map? Ha.
I've assumed that in piecing together the tatters of post-war Europe, rather than engage in wholesale revisionism of frontiers, France chose to recognize states with their pre-Twilight frontiers (Italy, Poland, Ukraine, et cetera), with exceptions for amalgamated states (Austrovenia, Scandinavian Union), successfully secessionist entities with a track record for stability (Catalonia), the occasional successful military victory (Hungary at Romania's expense), or, in the case of Germany, a ruthless five-way partition accompanied by territorial annexations made by France and the Netherlands so as to weaken Germany for good (or for three centuries ...).
ryanrulz37
SOC-7
Well I did say the German borders were not accurate Randy, and as for the rest its sort of hard to realy accurately make out the borders smaller countries except for Karelia being larger. But then it is Spakes World. Did you ever get to read his online write ups before his hard drive crashed nearly 10 years ago? He e-mailed me a whole load of stuff years ago when I was helping him out with a T2K project he was doing. Interesting stuff, I think I still have them on file somewhere.
I hadn't heard them, but I'd be interested in taking a gander at them.
ryanrulz37
SOC-7
Randy, if you can pm me your e-mail I'll paste Richards write ups onto a word file and send them over to.
I like 2300ad but have always felt that france somehow escaping WW3 was pretty hard to swallow when you look at a map of europe and the then warsaw pact countries locations. I understand that the setting was somewhat derived from the great game or what not but I have a feeling that alot of the setting is pure handwavium. It seems to me that a post WW3 germany would probably be the nation on the continent to rise to power even with the fact that the bulk of the fighting happened there. Pretty much the fact that France is part of the EU would have to be factored in also, If a nation invaded any part of the EU france would have to become involved.
Peter Schutze
SOC-12
>If a nation invaded any part of the EU france would have to become involved
Even in the cold war when France was (sometimes) part of NATO that wasnt true. The period twilight:2000 was written in (from memory) was one of those periods when it was less true than normal. On the flip side France did warn the Soviets many times that they considered the "French" border to be the inter-german boundary ..... so invading west germany would be treated as an attack on france itself.
As a policy the soviet warplans mean they would have nuked France regardless .... too risky to have france as a undamaged base.
Personal belief is that Europe and Asia and North America would have been a wasteland after the drawn out limited nuclear war of Twilight:2000. Oh and Australia would have been screwed as well. 4 nukes and the country is effectively depopulated as well as militarily neutralised
Unfortunately there's not much hope the rest of the world could maintain even 1950's technology with that part gone.
Even in the cold war when France was (sometimes) part of NATO that wasnt true. The period twilight:2000 was written in (from memory) was one of those periods when it was less true than normal. On the flip side France did warn the Soviets many times that they considered the "French" border to be the inter-german boundary ..... so invading west germany would be treated as an attack on france itself.
As a policy the soviet warplans mean they would have nuked France regardless .... too risky to have france as a undamaged base.
Personal belief is that Europe and Asia and North America would have been a wasteland after the drawn out limited nuclear war of Twilight:2000. Oh and Australia would have been screwed as well. 4 nukes and the country is effectively depopulated as well as militarily neutralised
Unfortunately there's not much hope the rest of the world could maintain even 1950's technology with that part gone.
It'd take more then 4, unless they were in the GT range.
Military bases generally aren't near cities to start with, though a couple of the naval bases are. On the other hand a 10 MT nuke hitting Melbourne I'd be walking away from even though I live there:
http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html?ll=144.96,-37.815&yd=10000
Hint: I live near Narre Warren/Dandenong and work in Mulgrave/Clayton
epicenter00
SOC-13
I've always felt that France escaping WW3 relatively intact was more than a little odd myself. In fact, the plot of France escaping WW3 worked better in 2300 than it did in T:2000 - the world was different with France in charge, but not so different as to turn off the majority of RPG players (US and Western Europeans) who expect a world essentially like ours today.
True, I think a lot of the of the other potential power players could be essentially ruled out, I think: South Africa would probably be struck by the Soviets as SA would likely support the NATO nations with strategic materials. India and Pakistan fight their own nuclear war. Japan's US bases would get hit, as well as other places because you can't really be neutral in a fight in the Far East between the USSR and China and if that didn't work, Japan would crumble due to the nation's reliance upon imports. New Zealand and Australia would suffer a similar fate to Japan, I think, for similar reasons: Both identify very strongly (over strongly, I think) with their Anglophone character and would probably be involved in supporting China at the behest of NATO and US and would become appropriate targets.
There is an area I think might come out reasonably unscathed: South America. While places like Peru or Chile are probably too minor to matter, Brazil (Brasil) or Argentina I think would have had a pretty good chance to come out in good shape. While those two nations had more than their share of problems like corruption and economic malaise, suddenly being the biggest fish in the pond means quite a bit - both nations have resources, plenty of farmland, and a decent (if not spectacular) industrial base. Most importantly, they'd be likely to sit out a NATO-China-WP war and being in the Southern hemisphere, the weather changes from the nuke exchanges could be milder or the onset delayed, giving them time to prepare. In addition, I think Venezuela's oilfields get hit (I don't remember) but for countries relatively untouched, I don't think it'd be that hard for them to get oil production working in Venezuela (this is assuming they don't know about the offshore finds near the Falklands or off the coast of Brazil).
An alternate 2300 with the ANZAC nations, Brazil, and Argentina as world powers could potentially be quite interesting (or at least on par Europe and North America), though I think it'd be too weird for the sensibilities of Ameri- and Eurocentric gamers that make up the majority of RPGers, though.
Peter Schutze
SOC-12
>hitting Melbourne I'd be walking away from
true but that picture shows the overpressure only .... ie immediate blast effects assuming no terrain. Pretty much a picture of who would die within the first hour of a detonation. You'd probably be dead from the fallout.
Me, I'd be ash for a single weapon attack .... right in the dark red zone.
Apparently though (according to the 1 MIRV for the east coast Aust Army theory) I'd have lived longer if the real city-busting attack on Sydney occured .... one nuke each on the north, south and west extremity to make sure newcastle and woolongong were also subject to secondary effects. That's 99% of NSW industry & military plus about 95% of the state's population irradiated or worse.
In any case at 1Mt (the common city buster missile) that's most of the 2m population of melbourne likely killed immediately out of a state population of 4m .... with many more casualties to follow from fallout.
similar for sydney with 3.5 to 4m out of 5.5m for the state gone and about 1.5m out of almost 4m for Brisbane/SE Queensland
3 nukes and Australia's 20m are down to 13m immediate casualties most KIA. Probably another 3-4m KIA within the week from fallout etc.
And there's still another of the 4 nukes left .... do you target Pine Gap base to screw US comms or go for Perth's 1m casualties (Fleet Base West being a bonus) or Adelaide's 1m casualties (most of Australia's military industry being the bonus) ?
In any case having lost about half its population and most of its industry .... Australia is screwed.
true but that picture shows the overpressure only .... ie immediate blast effects assuming no terrain. Pretty much a picture of who would die within the first hour of a detonation. You'd probably be dead from the fallout.
Me, I'd be ash for a single weapon attack .... right in the dark red zone.
Apparently though (according to the 1 MIRV for the east coast Aust Army theory) I'd have lived longer if the real city-busting attack on Sydney occured .... one nuke each on the north, south and west extremity to make sure newcastle and woolongong were also subject to secondary effects. That's 99% of NSW industry & military plus about 95% of the state's population irradiated or worse.
In any case at 1Mt (the common city buster missile) that's most of the 2m population of melbourne likely killed immediately out of a state population of 4m .... with many more casualties to follow from fallout.
similar for sydney with 3.5 to 4m out of 5.5m for the state gone and about 1.5m out of almost 4m for Brisbane/SE Queensland
3 nukes and Australia's 20m are down to 13m immediate casualties most KIA. Probably another 3-4m KIA within the week from fallout etc.
And there's still another of the 4 nukes left .... do you target Pine Gap base to screw US comms or go for Perth's 1m casualties (Fleet Base West being a bonus) or Adelaide's 1m casualties (most of Australia's military industry being the bonus) ?
In any case having lost about half its population and most of its industry .... Australia is screwed.
Perth and Garden Island, how big a bomb are you planning to use? You'll kill Campbell Barracks [1] (and adjacent nude beach) before you get the Navy base. If you aim a little south-east you'll kill the airport and major land transport hubs for the city, but why bother?
[1] Home to the SAS, who never go anywhere or do anything, honest.
Peter Schutze
SOC-12
>You'll kill Campbell Barracks
why bother .... they (wouldn't) be off (not) fighting and (not) doing all the other stuff they never do in the real world <laugh>
seriously my main intention in nuking Australia would be cut the US worldwide comms (pine gap) links and depopulate Australia making it useless to the non-communist powers with the minimum expenditure of weapon power
the fact that you could probably trash the 2 main Aussie naval bases at the same time thus giving the smaller US elements a couple less choices would be a bonus.
The regular forces should be OS by the time a T:2000 slow nuke war started and a lot of the Reserves (our National Gaurd/ militia equivalent) would be on their way as replacements or propping up local nations. Thus only infrastructure (fleet bases or SA's military industry) would be worth consideration in commie targetting decisions.
why bother .... they (wouldn't) be off (not) fighting and (not) doing all the other stuff they never do in the real world <laugh>
seriously my main intention in nuking Australia would be cut the US worldwide comms (pine gap) links and depopulate Australia making it useless to the non-communist powers with the minimum expenditure of weapon power
the fact that you could probably trash the 2 main Aussie naval bases at the same time thus giving the smaller US elements a couple less choices would be a bonus.
The regular forces should be OS by the time a T:2000 slow nuke war started and a lot of the Reserves (our National Gaurd/ militia equivalent) would be on their way as replacements or propping up local nations. Thus only infrastructure (fleet bases or SA's military industry) would be worth consideration in commie targetting decisions.
