>>96731013
A location has to have a place.
it has to have a place relative to other locations.
It has to be locatable in proximity to other things.
AOS has no map; it is definitionally a mass of vague "anywhere".
It is too loose to mean anything; there is no broader context to any battle.
Who cares if your city falls?
It was a paper thin construct, without even the depth to postulate any real consequences.
How can the border collapse under the weight of invasion, if there is no border?
How can lines of logistics be threatened if there is no sense of scale?
To where do the survivors flee?
It can't even really be described as a coherent "setting" - it's half built and half borrowed from something better.
>>96730984
Aight, I see it; looks decent, but is it fleshed out at all?
The Old World's map is bristling with battle sites and landmarks with substantive lore, and remains of old narrative campaign plotlines of yesteryear; about four decades worth of world building.
This map is on it's face, fine, but is also one of a handful of "floating points" in a setting that morphs and squashes and stretches to accomodate any narrative; give that map a decade or more of stories and modules fleshing it out, and we'll see.
But thus far?
Too vague, too dreamlike, lacking enough innate structure to make "building your own" feel meaningful, because what's there to integrate it into?
I guess there's the micro-setting constituting the ongoing conflicts of your play-group, and their forces, and that IS the sort of wargaming that I'm into; but I prefer to do that on my own terms, and if I'm gonna do half the fleshing out work myself, I'd rather it come with less baggage reminding me of something that was better.
For AOS to reach me it would have to run a serious narrative campaign, on a fairly stable map, and then build on that basis, and for it to not be revolving mostly around hand-me-down characters who's plot arcs all concluded when their fucking planet blew up.
