Napoleonic Europe 1812 - Ver 41/44 [Quenched]

[Raskholnikov]

Yey! Thank you!

We use the English spelling of city names here otherwise there would be no end of spelling changes and accent additions

[Industrial Helix]

Speaking of Malmo... you might want to bump that border up on the small version so the numbers aren't resting on it.

And is that continental chunk of Sweden part of Malmo territory?

I also wonder if you might be able to do without army circles. It seems on the small version especially, the elimination of them might reduce clutter.

I can still barely read the Rhine... though I think darkening the words a tad might do it.

I can't believe I missed this in gameplay but, why do the Dardenelles connect Anatolia to the Crimea? This really needs to be resolved because that is such a geographical aburdity. Throw a line through the actual Dardenelles and connect the black sea to the Med, probably B. of Dardenelles to B. of Aboukir. Or rename Dardenelles to Black Sea or something.

Nudge the Naples shield down a tad, i foresee it being mistaken as Rome.

I just noticed the title and its very... plain. But to be honest, I think the map speaks for itself.

Keep it up guys, I'm definitely looking forward to playing this map. I think most of the problems are with the small version and making sure everything fits. Personally, I'm a large map person and the large map looks beautiful. Keep it up!

[jefjef]

My minor critique is Aboukir one way attack arrow. I think it would look better being spaced the same distance from the tert as the Malta arrow is. Not against it.

If your interested you could also relieve the boulogne naval battle congestion a bit if you were to move england to the north a tad. You have the room and it wouldn't detract from the map to increase English channel width.

The London tert division lines seem fainter than the others. Like Scotlands.


I agree with IH in re of the title. What about a French blue hue in the letters?

Great work! Looking forward to it!

[ender516]

I notice that some zone labels (United Kingdom, K. of Denmark, Austrian Empire, Ottoman Empire, maybe some others) have a coloured tint and a grey outline. Perhaps "The Rhine" would be improved by a similar scheme. Should all such labels have this, just for consistency?

[Kabanellas]

Hi guys! Thanks for the feedback.

Helix, I’ll try to soften a bit the army circles as I’ve done in the small version.
As for the Dardanelles appearing in that location while connecting to Anatolia was done for a matter of gameplay.. Though I honestly can’t remember why at this point.... I suppose we could link it to Istanbul instead of Anatolia, if Rask agrees with it.

Jef, I’ll take a look at those arrows . I remember you’ve already pointed that out in the large map and I did change it there.
Moving England to the north...... well could be an option... though I’m not very keen on that.
I’ll try to make those border lines come through a bit more, and I suppose we could try that blue in the title....

Ender, all those letters have the correspondent country colour in them. Sometimes its not so noticeable.

[jefjef]

The correct path is Istanbul for the Dardenelles naval BUT.

If you attach Dardenelles to Istanbul it makes only one dropped player tert connected to it. London has the same issue with Camperdown. It unbalances the drop and initial bonus opportunities.

None of the naval other sites do. Perhaps those connected to a Capital should be upped to a 3 or 4 instead of the 2.

Thank you!

[Raskholnikov]

The Dardanelles Circle should be in the middle of the ... duh... Dardannelles. Unfortunately, there is no space there, so we put it in the Black Sea. The connections normally would be from the southern part of Anatolia (port of Izmir) through the Aegean for the Turks, and through the Black Sea (Sevastopol) for the Russians.

As it is, we had no choice but to place the Dardanelles circles in the Black sea; it may loook different but it makes no difference whatever playwise.

You will note that most capitals cannot be directly attacked from outside their own Kingdom. This also applies to Istanbul. I do not want the Ottoman capital to be easily accessible from the outside. That's why the naval battle is not connected to Istanbul itself.

I agree with Jefjef re: London and I think Camperdown should connect to Yorkahire, not London, for the exact reasons he mentioned.

[Kabanellas]

Playing the Devil’s advocate for a while:

-Though it’s true that initially the Dardanelles’ connection was changed to Anatolia to avoid a direct contact with a Capital, that ‘rule’ was not respected in some other capitals placed on the map. We have a direct contact with Berlin, Vienna, Naples and even London (though we might change that Camperdown link as suggested before)

-On the other side I don’t think that is such a big problem having a border region with an autodeploy feature, could be useful especially in adjacent or chained reinforcement games.

That said, I wouldn’t mind (in this case) putting historical/geographical accuracy in first place and change Dardanelles’ link to Istanbul

Either way, changing Camperdown or Dardanelles link will result in a change of the bonus conditions. In the Ottoman Empire we would be opening a new border, while that in the UK we would be closing one.

[theBastard]

just now I´m playing Third Crusade and this your map looks also great. I do not much like Napoleonic era, but I´m looking forward to play this map. good luck.

[Evil DIMwit]

Having only one player territory start next to a naval battle is not so much a disaster, I think. Even if someone happens to drop, say, both Holland and Sussex, holing up in Camperdown and St. Vincent would use up a significant number of troops and wouldn't yield a bonus for a turn or two.

I also think it's all right to connect Dardanelles to Istanbul for the reasons that Kab mentioned. The border autodeploy would be useful enough to offset the gain in perimeter territory.

On the graphical end: There are points where the colored national border are the only place where two territories touch, which makes it unclear whether those territories actually connect. Wales and Sussex, and Oldenburg and Belgium, are the pairs I'm seeing. Can you shift the borders so that they touch at white parts too?

[Raskholnikov]

Now I remember why I agreed to London connecting to Camperdown. Thanks Kab. I for one am for leaving things as they are in the UK and the Ottoman Empire. But if you think its better to change either or both, Kab, I will go along with it with no problems, as long as existing bonuses are not altered (ie the UK's decreased and Turkley's increased).

Evil, Belgium has a clear border with Oldenburg. There is no doubt there.

the Susses border should be lowered. There should be no contact with Wales.

[Kabanellas]

I suppose I could raise that Holland border a couple of pixels, so it won’t touch the blue. As for Sussex I’ll lower it.

Concerning Dardanelles, if I change it to Istanbul, is the general opinion that I should leave the bonus as they are? We would have 5 borders for 3 troops + 1 troop auto deployed in one border.

[Evil DIMwit]

Concerning Dardanelles, if I change it to Istanbul, is the general opinion that I should leave the bonus as they are? We would have 5 borders for 3 troops + 1 troop auto deployed in one border.

Don't raise the bonus, that's for certain. That would make the full Ottoman Empire overpowered.

I suppose I could raise that Holland border a couple of pixels, so it won’t touch the blue. As for Sussex I’ll lower it.

That would be a help.

[Raskholnikov]

I agree with Evil re: Ottomans.

[Kabanellas]

Updated version 31:

Large

Click image to enlarge.

Small

Click image to enlarge.

-changed title colour
-relocated Naples shield in the small version
-connected Dardanelles to Istanbul
-made UK interior borders clearer
-redone Holland border
-redone dashed lines in the small version

[Kabanellas]

hummm I'm not happy with the way the title looks.... I'll try to give it a more 'shining-steel' look later on....

[Kabanellas]

this is more like it

Click image to enlarge.

[Industrial Helix]

The change in the Dardenelles is an improvement, but I'm still not quite happy with it. I think the Dardenelles should connect something in the Black Sea to something in the Mediterranean. As it stands now, you can take a ship to Istanbul but you gotta fight a land war once you get there. I feel that you should be able to take a boat/naval route as far as England with perhaps a few stop offs at islands. I think it ignores Ottoman Naval power and neglects the fact that any of the Western powers could easily have sailed across the med to anywhere in the Ottoman Empire.

As for the graphics, perhaps it would be better to change the arch in Ottoman Empire to a reverse arch so that it spans Rumelia and Anatolia but doesn't run between the capital icon and the battle sign.

You've got a little pixelation north of St. Petersberg on the border.

And I bet you can fit the word Wales on the map

[Kabanellas]

Thanks Helix for your comments!

The change in the Dardenelles is an improvement, but I'm still not quite happy with it. I think the Dardenelles should connect something in the Black Sea to something in the Mediterranean. As it stands now, you can take a ship to Istanbul but you gotta fight a land war once you get there. I feel that you should be able to take a boat/naval route as far as England with perhaps a few stop offs at islands. I think it ignores Ottoman Naval power and neglects the fact that any of the Western powers could easily have sailed across the med to anywhere in the Ottoman Empire.

Dardanelles here, as all of the others naval battles sites in this map, is not intended to represent the geographic location itself but the Battle carrying that name. In that perspective the battle that occurred during the Russo-Turkish War will be considered as establishing a link between Istanbul and Crimea - as it should.

As for the graphics, perhaps it would be better to change the arch in Ottoman Empire to a reverse arch so that it spans Rumelia and Anatolia but doesn't run between the capital icon and the battle sign.

The battle icon is placed where the battle really happened so I wouldn't move that. but I suppose I could move down Istanbul shield a bit to avoid conflicts there.

You've got a little pixelation north of St. Petersberg on the border.

it seems so.. a bit.... I'll try to soften it.

And I bet you can fit the word Wales on the map

I suppose I could, in the large map. But surely not in the small one. The different sizes of the map need to be coherent between themselves, especially concerning region names and abbreviations.

[Industrial Helix]

Thanks Helix for your comments!

The change in the Dardenelles is an improvement, but I'm still not quite happy with it. I think the Dardenelles should connect something in the Black Sea to something in the Mediterranean. As it stands now, you can take a ship to Istanbul but you gotta fight a land war once you get there. I feel that you should be able to take a boat/naval route as far as England with perhaps a few stop offs at islands. I think it ignores Ottoman Naval power and neglects the fact that any of the Western powers could easily have sailed across the med to anywhere in the Ottoman Empire.

Dardanelles here, as all of the others naval battles sites in this map, is not intended to represent the geographic location itself but the Battle carrying that name. In that perspective the battle that occurred during the Russo-Turkish War will be considered as establishing a link between Istanbul and Crimea - as it should.

Eh, I disagree. I think the purpose of historical maps is to recreate the geostrategic situation that the militaries faced at the time. So therefore, the Dardanelles ought to serve as a key to the Black and Mediterranean Seas, as Russia wanted the Dardanelles opened so it could send ships through the straits. I dunno, its not a huge deal really, I guess it just depends on how we both view historical maps.

Also, I noticed today that Sicily connects to Naples. The connection line is hidden too much, could you arch it more and that way the line would stand out more? I think people might take for granted that Sicily connects to the mainland, but for clarities sake, I think you should adjust it.

[Kabanellas]

I really don't want to complicate it more creating another line that could direct to the Med.

for gameplay purposes we wanted to establish that connection - wish would make sense through the Dardanelles. Being the gameplay defined and stamped I'd stop right there as we are.

As for the sicily connection - yes I'll make it clearer .

[Raskholnikov]

Helix,

I think your historical analysis is not very accurate. The Ottoman navy at the time had almost completely lost its relevance, whilst the Russian navy was still in its infancy. There was no question at the time for Russia to take over Istanbul - as it had just won, in 1812, its first major win against the Ottomans, on the Danube. The idea of a Russian Navy in the Mediterranean in 1812 makes abosulutely no sense in 1812 and our map shows this clearly. In addition to this, a line though the Dardannelles would needlessly clutter the map for no purpose at all, since it would still only connect Anatolia to Crimea. The only result would be to complicate the map visulally, with no gain in either gameplay or geo/historical accuracy.

I think the line between Sicily and Naples is quite clear and there is no need to arch it more. I am all for improving things where necessary and beneficial, but let's not create unncessary extra work for Kab, who has already expended a huge amount of time and effort on this map. Even minor changes at this time are difficult and time-consuming, and should be undertaken only if necessary. Moving the Ottoman icon slightly lower is such a change; altering the "Arch" in the Sicily-Naples line or trying to fit in Wales in full on both large and small maps, are not, IMHO.

[ender516]

As for the sicily connection - yes I'll make it clearer .

I'm glad to hear it. Despite Raskholnikov's impassioned defense of your work, I agree with Industrial Helix that the Sicily-Naples connection is too flat and closely aligned with the actual shorelines to be seen readily.

Oh, just to be sure I'm reading the map properly, Bessarabia is part of the Russian Empire (bonus of 5), but can serve as a extra bonus if held with the Ottoman Empire (bonus of 3 + 1), right? So holding the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire would earn 5 + 3 + 1 or 9 total, correct?

[Evil DIMwit]

Oh, just to be sure I'm reading the map properly, Bessarabia is part of the Russian Empire (bonus of 5), but can serve as a extra bonus if held with the Ottoman Empire (bonus of 3 + 1), right? So holding the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire would earn 5 + 3 + 1 or 9 total, correct?

Plus 1 each auto-deploy on Moscow and Istanbul, and 2 extra from holding capitals with 4 battle sites. Plus 3-6 extra troops for holding the 18 territories.

[ender516]

Fine. I was just wondering because the German & Italian Unification maps fiddle around with bonuses involving regions which provide supplementary bonuses for more than one zone.