New WW2 Euro map [Vacation]

ZeoEmpire · Post by **ZeoEmpire** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:52 pm

ZawBanjito wrote:North Africa should definitely be readded. It was a major, central theater of war, very much connected with what was going on in Europe. A WW2 map without N. Africa is nothing.

ok North Africa is back in
should I bring USA and Canada?

ZeoEmpire · Post by **ZeoEmpire** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:57 pm

Marvaddin wrote:
ZeoEmpire wrote:tell me what you think of it?

I think its simply terrible. Can you improve the graphics? Because if you cant, I would suggest you give up now.

can you give any sites to improve the Graphics?

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:22 pm

P Gizzle wrote:
P Gizzle wrote:what if the map was only for three doubles, or three players? then each team starts off with either nazi land, allied, or neutral land. the bonuses would be geographically set. (like western, northern, southern and eatern europe) since the neutral has the least amount of teritories, they cant be attacked until they attack someone, or until turn 5. let me know what you think.

Anyone like this idea?

spiesr · Post by **spiesr** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:24 pm

This is just like the Eruope map except for worse.
So why?

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:51 pm

ZeoEmpire wrote:
Marvaddin wrote:
ZeoEmpire wrote:tell me what you think of it?

I think its simply terrible. Can you improve the graphics? Because if you cant, I would suggest you give up now.

can you give any sites to improve the Graphics?

To improve the graphics, you need use another program better than paint. Your map looks terrible. Get gimp and inkscape (free graph editors) and try make it better (but I think you will hardly suceed, since it looks like you dont know how even use paint properly).

spiesr has a good point. It is worse than our Europe map, so... unnecessary maybe? But Im sure they can play in your map in landgrab site :lol:

ZeoEmpire · Post by **ZeoEmpire** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:20 am

tell me what you think of it?

ZawBanjito · Post by **ZawBanjito** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:32 am

It looks cleaner! It's making progress.

I still think you need to put it in more of a historical context. A lot of people are complaining that it looks like a poor substitute for Europe. I think there would be demand for a map built along a WW2 theme if it were done clearly and boldly.

There are for example a lot of historical oddities here. Most obvious is, Why is Africa a separate continent? Nothing from the time suggests that this be so. Turkey is in as an active country, but it was neutral for the majority of the war, only joining the Allied side opportunistically at the very end. This appears to be a 1939 map, with Poland partitioned, and by this time the USSR had also occupied Finland. I also continue to object to Sweden and Spain getting left out... the reason Sweden was able to remain neutral was that it provided aid and comfort to Germany on the condition that it be left independent. This is not strictly a condition of neutrality. The same with Spain, for obvious reasons.

My comments on the map thus far is that there should be no link between Iceland and Britain. Italy has borders on every single one of its countries. USSR needs to be waaaaay smaller than it is. Asia in the Classic map gets away with it because it's surrounded on all sides, but this mass of countries is all off to the side. My suggestion is to add more to Germany.

onbekende · Post by **onbekende** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:06 pm

As stated before, it is nice to speak of Belgium, but make it Benelux.

steve monkey · Post by **steve monkey** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:44 pm

i just dont get the point of this map at all. We already have an excellent Europe map, this is just a poor imitation.
If you're going to do a WW2 theme you'd be better off focussing upon particular arenas, e.g. Stalingrad, Normandy, North Africa, Pacific islands - this would lead to the creation of a more original map.

casper · Post by **casper** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:29 pm

what steve said. i'll also add that the graphics are terrible. i don't understand people trying to make maps with crappy software & zero graphic design experience. it's not just you zeo. a lot of the new maps being posted lately look horrendous (e.g. texas, new york city, italy -- ouch my eyes.)

gavin_sidhu · Post by **gavin_sidhu** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:05 am

So were going to have the Europe map, Crusades and this map all of the same area with just differently shaped continents...

ZeoEmpire · Post by **ZeoEmpire** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:37 am

I add USA and Canada

gavin_sidhu · Post by **gavin_sidhu** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:57 am

Thats better, its just now that africa looks retarted.

ZeoEmpire · Post by **ZeoEmpire** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:03 am

is africa Still retarted?

gavin_sidhu · Post by **gavin_sidhu** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:15 am

Not as much.

ZeoEmpire · Post by **ZeoEmpire** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:46 am

onbekende wrote:As stated before, it is nice to speak of Belgium, but make it Benelux.

fixed it

steve monkey · Post by **steve monkey** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:42 pm

why are Canada and Bulgaria the same colour???

ZawBanjito · Post by **ZawBanjito** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:29 pm

onbekende wrote:As stated before, it is nice to speak of Belgium, but make it Benelux.

Incorrect! The name was created for the Benelux Customs Union, whose treaty wasn't signed until 1944! Thus it's an anachronism here. (Thanks Wikipedia!)

onbekende · Post by **onbekende** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:15 am

ZawBanjito wrote:
onbekende wrote:As stated before, it is nice to speak of Belgium, but make it Benelux.

Incorrect! The name was created for the Benelux Customs Union, whose treaty wasn't signed until 1944! Thus it's an anachronism here. (Thanks Wikipedia!)

I KNOW!! but Belgium was also false

ZawBanjito · Post by **ZawBanjito** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:54 am

onbekende wrote:I KNOW!! but Belgium was also false

In what sense? In that it leaves out the Netherlands and Luxembourg too?

That's fairly interesting... this map might have some appeal if it were completely geographically accurate, with all the countries correct, unlike the Europe map (which paints with a larger and looser brush.)

How about finding a real map of the time and editing out from that, Zeo? That might help with the complaints about the graphics too.

Pedronicus · Post by **Pedronicus** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:04 am

this map is bollox.

Why was is Called WWII? - because the world was at war.

You've missed out North Africa (Romell & Monty would be turning in thier graves seeing this map)

and Japan and the USA had something to do with it I'm lead to believe.

Can this piece of shit and make a new map..

onbekende · Post by **onbekende** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:58 pm

ZawBanjito wrote:
onbekende wrote:I KNOW!! but Belgium was also false

In what sense? In that it leaves out the Netherlands and Luxembourg too?

If you want it to be correct, split Belgium+Luxembourg with Netherlands, the Netherlands were neutral, occupied but neutral

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:01 pm

P Gizzle wrote:
P Gizzle wrote:what if the map was only for three doubles, or three players? then each team starts off with either nazi land, allied, or neutral land. the bonuses would be geographically set. (like western, northern, southern and eatern europe) since the neutral has the least amount of teritories, they cant be attacked until they attack someone, or until turn 5. let me know what you think.

Anyone like this idea?

still, let me know what you think of it. at least say you like it or hate it

ZawBanjito · Post by **ZawBanjito** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:17 pm

onbekende wrote:If you want it to be correct, split Belgium+Luxembourg with Netherlands, the Netherlands were neutral, occupied but neutral

How do you be occupied AND neutral? That's like saying, "he wasn't involved in the fight because he'd already been knocked unconscious and was bleeding on the floor."

That's what I don't get about this whole neutral thing. There was no country in Europe that wasn't involved in the war. Just because some country says they're neutral hardly makes it so. Spain wasn't neutral. It pretended it was, but German boats were in their harbors and German planes in their skies. Same with Sweden. Hard to pretend you're above it all with German tanks rumbling past your door. And hey Switzerland! Where'd all these gold teeth come from? So what was it with the Netherlands? Did a bunch of German soldiers come 'round for fours years of summer camp? Put up a few tents, sing a few songs, establish a puppet government or two... Whatever happened to that nice Frank family that lived down the road? Maybe they went on VACATION!

Put the "neutral" countries in. It looks dumb leaving them out.

onbekende · Post by **onbekende** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:29 pm

The Netherlands were trying to be neutral, asking for Germany to not invade it, but then they swooped them going for Paris via Belgium.
Scandinavia was partially neutral, so was Swiss. And that didn't stop the Germans for steamrolling thruw them.