Magyarország [Quenched]

[iancanton]

After World War One, Europe lies in ruins is better than After World War one, Europe lay in ruin because the rest of the story is in the present tense. After the Great War of 1914-18, Europe lies in ruins is also possible because, before World War Two, this conflict wasn't actually called World War One.

Holding any two Saved land bonuses will double these bonuses, but it's unclear whether these bonuses are the Saved Land or Consolidated bonuses. Also, Saved Land, not Saved land.

on the unplayable land, u've misspelled Slovenes as Slovines.

english-language maps of the period (and those of up to fifty years afterward) tended to spell Romania as Rumania. however, since the romanians themselves always used Romania on their stamps, this is perfectly good for our purposes.

ian.

[koontz1973]

Hungarian text fixed.
Story fixed.
Austria is slightly bigger so as to fit army numbers.
Ribbon land border in Hungarian colours.
Changed wording for the consolidated bonus part of legend.
Added small map.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[iancanton]

bonus wordings are good now.

Also, Saved Land, not Saved land.

perhaps we'd better revert from Saved Land to Saved land because u have Shattered land and Consolidated land almost everywhere else in the legend (apart from the titles). on the large map only, change shattered land to Shattered land.

are u able to tone down the white of the perimeter ribbon, so that it doesn't catch the eye so much?

ian.

[koontz1973]

Wording fixed.
Toned down the white in the ribbon.
Image with 88s and CB tests now in first post.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[iancanton]

i think only the bridges look a bit out of place now. while we wait for a graphics CA to comment further, can u update the gameplay notes in the first post to list the amended starting neutral regions and delete the start positions? the other change is that games with 2 or 3 players will start with 14 regions each instead of 15.

ian.

[koontz1973]

Done for you.

What is it about the bridges that you dislike?

[Jatekos]

On page 5, you were experimenting with darker text boxes. I think that (or something similar) would fit more with the other colours of the map. At the moment, the legend at the bottom stands out and seems to be too much in the focus, because of the light brown colour used for the boxes.

Yes, the white shapes would be more noticeable with the darker text boxes, but e.g. they could be light brown instead, like the boxes are now.

I would also suggest not using these soldier and cannon shapes at those specific areas where there is also another image (You could delete them from the "legend key" section, or keep only one of the 3 and move it behind the text in the bottom right of that box. At the "Shattered land bonus" box, you could move these 3 images closer to each other and move them to the right a bit, so that the soldier on the left would get next to the images of the zones, instead of behind them.)

[koontz1973]

On page 5, you were experimenting with darker text boxes. I think that (or something similar) would fit more with the other colours of the map. At the moment, the legend at the bottom stands out and seems to be too much in the focus, because of the light brown colour used for the boxes.

Done

Yes, the white shapes would be more noticeable with the darker text boxes, but e.g. they could be light brown instead, like the boxes are now.

Adjusted.

I would also suggest not using these soldier and cannon shapes at those specific areas where there is also another image (You could delete them from the "legend key" section, or keep only one of the 3 and move it behind the text in the bottom right of that box. At the "Shattered land bonus" box, you could move these 3 images closer to each other and move them to the right a bit, so that the soldier on the left would get next to the images of the zones, instead of behind them.)

They are spaced in such a way as they would on playing cards. Left them where they are.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[tokle]

before World War Two, this conflict wasn't actually called World War One.

This is not true. It might be a bit pedantic of me, but the term "first world war" was used by historians since as early as 1914.

Some notes about the text:
The white text on the white background is difficult to read.

You are using the word "nationals" in the wrong sense. "Nationals" means a citizen of a nation-state. What you mean to say is "ethnic Hungarians".
I don't know what you mean by saying they were "displaced", though. There weren't any major population movements in these teritories after this.

[koontz1973]

before World War Two, this conflict wasn't actually called World War One.

This is not true. It might be a bit pedantic of me, but the term "first world war" was used by historians since as early as 1914.

Correct, pedantic but correct but lets all get along and agree that war and world where used.

Some notes about the text:
The white text on the white background is difficult to read.

Not important to GP, and it is readable. Gong to keep it as it. Any lighter and it will take over the board. Any darker and it will not be easy to read in the green.

You are using the word "nationals" in the wrong sense. "Nationals" means a citizen of a nation-state. What you mean to say is "ethnic Hungarians".
I don't know what you mean by saying they were "displaced", though. There weren't any major population movements in these teritories after this.

Hungarian national as the Kingdom of Hungary was a nation state. They became ethnic Hungarians after the treaty. Displaced in the sense that these people went to bed living in Hungary and woke up living in other countries, this is an over simplification of it. It may not be the same as forcing someone out of there home but it is correct.

[tokle]

You are using the word "nationals" in the wrong sense. "Nationals" means a citizen of a nation-state. What you mean to say is "ethnic Hungarians".
I don't know what you mean by saying they were "displaced", though. There weren't any major population movements in these teritories after this.

Hungarian national as the Kingdom of Hungary was a nation state. They became ethnic Hungarians after the treaty. Displaced in the sense that these people went to bed living in Hungary and woke up living in other countries, this is an over simplification of it. It may not be the same as forcing someone out of there home but it is correct.

No, that is not correct. The word "displaced" doesn't hold that meaning in English, so the sentence you have written doesn't have the meaning you want it to.

This Hungary was not a nation-state. And if it were, then the usage of the term "Hungarian nationals" would have had to be used for all the subjects of the Hungarian crown, not just ethnic Hungarians.

The word "annexed" is misused too, maybe "occupied" would be better.

[koontz1973]

Displace, means to move from one position, to take the place, or to remove from the usual or correct place. So why is it incorrect in this sense? These people where not force ably removed from their homes, but they where removed from their country. Therefore, they where displaced.
Annexed was chosen over occupied so as not to inflame national sensibilities. Only 3 of the surrounding countries occupied with force, and one of those did it peacefully. To use the term occupied suggests that they all came in with guns blazing. So, with Italy having Fiume, where the Italians where the majority, it was just a natural shift from one state to another and was a natural process for that city.

[tokle]

Displace, means to move from one position, to take the place, or to remove from the usual or correct place. So why is it incorrect in this sense? These people where not force ably removed from their homes, but they where removed from their country. Therefore, they where displaced.
Annexed was chosen over occupied so as not to inflame national sensibilities. Only 3 of the surrounding countries occupied with force, and one of those did it peacefully. To use the term occupied suggests that they all came in with guns blazing. So, with Italy having Fiume, where the Italians where the majority, it was just a natural shift from one state to another and was a natural process for that city.

They did come in with guns blazing. That is what a war is. This one was even called a Great War.
I know what you mean about "occupied", but in that sentence it is still better than "annexed". These territories weren't annexed into the neighbouring countries until after this treaty. And with Czechoslovakia there was no annexation going on at all.
How about saying "The remaining land is given to the victors."?

If you are looking to not inflame national sensibilities, I would suggest to leave out the part about "displacing Hungarian nationals" altogether. Make the map about land only. The premise would be that Hungary has lost all this land to its neighbouring countries, and now it's time for you to win them back.

[koontz1973]

The remaining land is given to the victors.

To inflammatory. Already had it on a previous version. If I remember, it might of been on the first version.

I would suggest to leave out the part about "

displacing Hungarian nationals

" altogether. Make the map about land only. The premise would be that Hungary has lost all this land to its neighbouring countries, and now it's time for you to win them back.

That I can do. On the rest, give me something to put on. As of now, I am more than happy with the wording. It is correct (important) and it fits the space (very important). It does not inflame (extremely important), or cause problems when we get to beta like Rorke's Drift did (this is so important, I will not even try to measure how important it is).

I have no trouble getting your suggested words on, but give me something that works with all of the criteria in this order(fits, not inflammatory, correct).

[Oneyed]

I am glad that you will change some things/words in story, koontz.

you are from Britain (as you said), so maybe you can not right understand why I had so much notices against story as it was. unfortunately my English is poor to explain everything correct. by changing some words the story will become from a little neofascist theory to historic objectivity.

good luck with these changes

Oneyed