WWII Europe

[Coleman]

You add some rivers, and you fix bonuses. I don't think the east and west fronts should be identical to their selective maps, whats the point of playing them then?

Not everyone wants to play everything on a massive map. Each front by itself has it's own game play mechanics. Having the two smaller maps and this major one should also promote some interesting themed tournaments.

[cairnswk]

Well i remove legend and put only Sigfried Defence plan biger on corner.

And qwert, to me this looks good....but do you as the map creator think it look good?

[Coleman]

The black with the white glow text hurts my eyes a lot.

[hulmey]

i think there are a few touch ups that can be done...But this map looks amazing!!

[reverend_kyle]

You add some rivers, and you fix bonuses. I don't think the east and west fronts should be identical to their selective maps, whats the point of playing them then?

Not everyone wants to play everything on a massive map. Each front by itself has it's own game play mechanics. Having the two smaller maps and this major one should also promote some interesting themed tournaments.

Exactly, I believe this was already discussed too.

[Qwert]

Unriggable
You add some rivers, and you fix bonuses. I don't think the east and west fronts should be identical to their selective maps, whats the point of playing them then?

You just say"ad more conection" and dont give explanation why,if i remove front line what i will get?Please give me yours opinion and sugestion,but some long explanation,not short.

[Qwert]

Coleman Posted: 10 Sep 2007 04:36 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The black with the white glow text hurts my eyes a lot.

If you notice i have 3 diferent style of text,and people can say who is best.

cairnswk Posted: 10 Sep 2007 01:28 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

qwert wrote:
Well i remove legend and put only Sigfried Defence plan biger on corner.

And qwert, to me this looks good....but do you as the map creator think it look good?

These whas mine first idea,and look very good,like some explanation for these part of map who very small.

[Coleman]

If the moderators allow it I believe this current map should be the small map and another one stretched (but within the same dimensions) to the size of World 2.1 should be the large one.

That's a huge if, but that would be ideal for a map of this style in my opinion.

[Qwert]

Coleman Posted: 10 Sep 2007 17:57 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the moderators allow it I believe this current map should be the small map and another one stretched (but within the same dimensions) to the size of World 2.1 should be the large one.

That's a huge if, but that would be ideal for a map of this style in my opinion.

Yes these will be small map,and large can be in World 2.1 dimension.
I hope so,that Moderators allow these map,if i understand lack want to create 8 players games,and map with 100+ will be good for these.

[Unit_2]

i think you should try to "blow" it up a little, its too small, its hard for me to see.

[Kaplowitz]

The "t" in "Katowitz" should be a "pl".

[unriggable]

You add some rivers, and you fix bonuses. I don't think the east and west fronts should be identical to their selective maps, whats the point of playing them then?

Not everyone wants to play everything on a massive map. Each front by itself has it's own game play mechanics. Having the two smaller maps and this major one should also promote some interesting themed tournaments.

Bite it because this is a massive map. I know not everybody likes big maps so I guess those people will avoid this map. I find it absurd that each front has three openings. Anybody who conquers a front will gain the immediate advantage and most likely victory. By merging the three separate maps it would make an ideal field of play. HOWEVER as it is now I find it to be nothing short of lame.

[Qwert]

unriggable when you say these look so easy "you just take 1 of these front and victory is yours" i not agree with these. Still you dont give me yours opinion how you will conect these fronts.

[DiM]

unriggable when you say these look so easy "you just take 1 of these front and victory is yours" i not agree with these. Still you dont give me yours opinion how you will conect these fronts.

i already said you should remove the front lines. they are unrealistic and ruin the gameplay.
look 1 or 2 pages back

[boberz]

im not a big fan of the front lines either how about get rid of them and add a few un crossable borders that are more historically accurate.

Remember fronts keep moving and can and were occasionaly crossed in random places

[Qwert]

boberz Posted: 11 Sep 2007 09:05 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

im not a big fan of the front lines either how about get rid of them and add a few un crossable borders that are more historically accurate.

Remember fronts keep moving and can and were occasionaly crossed in random places

These is a historical acurate,you can find on wikipedia.

DiM

qwert wrote:
unriggable when you say these look so easy "you just take 1 of these front and victory is yours" i not agree with these. Still you dont give me yours opinion how you will conect these fronts.

i already said you should remove the front lines. they are unrealistic and ruin the gameplay.
look 1 or 2 pages back

Please explane how ruin gameplay.Also i repeat these is historicaly acurate.Its look that everybody forget that WWII in Europe have two main front Eastern and Western and i will not remove front line,because you dont give me yours logical explanation.

[lt_oddball]

England should be able to be invaded...or else there could be no total victory possible with One player on the continent and the other stuck in England.

I repeat again (with fellow critics) please change provinces/areas to how it was tactically perceived in those days.
So look at difficult crossable terrain (major rivers, fortified defense lines, mountain ranges = impassable borders)on one hand (which means many small zones) and fast paced open terrains on the other hand (larger zones where Germans in 1940 and allies in 1944 moved like lightning, and forget about political motivated areas (Vichy ? what 's the point of using that ?) and army commander areas (it just makes no sense to combine that in one map).
That would make it better gameplay than it is now.

[Keredrex]

England should be able to be invaded...or else there could be no total victory possible with One player on the continent and the other stuck in England.

You are wrong... with bombardment rules... unless i am wrong...if the player bombarding england wins... it laves 1 neutral therefore you can potentially bombard that player to nothing resulting in a win

[Qwert]

lt_oddball



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 93

Posted: 12 Sep 2007 14:27 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

England should be able to be invaded...or else there could be no total victory possible with One player on the continent and the other stuck in England.

I repeat again (with fellow critics) please change provinces/areas to how it was tactically perceived in those days.
So look at difficult crossable terrain (major rivers, fortified defense lines, mountain ranges = impassable borders)on one hand (which means many small zones) and fast paced open terrains on the other hand (larger zones where Germans in 1940 and allies in 1944 moved like lightning, and forget about political motivated areas (Vichy ? what 's the point of using that ?) and army commander areas (it just makes no sense to combine that in one map).
That would make it better gameplay than it is now.

I spend so many hours in researching and i can not find some others solution for these provinces,if you can find better please give me. Vichy?You realy dont know for these political state during WWII?

[Night Strike]

I'm enjoying the map so far. Too bad it's too big for now.

Anyways, could you delete some of the previous versions from your first post (or at least provide links instead of images) because the images are taking a relatively long time to load (and it'll clean things up).

[Qwert]

Thanks night strike,but these map can not be smaller then now,and whait some future time when these will be alove.

[hasaki]

Hi qwert
i was just looking at the V10 of your map and i see that you can attack from england but how do you attack it.

by the way love the map. keep up the good work.

[Qwert]

hasaki Posted: 14 Sep 2007 05:36 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi qwert
i was just looking at the V10 of your map and i see that you can attack from england but how do you attack it.

by the way love the map. keep up the good work.

Well these issue not yet decide,i stay these for later.

[GreecePwns]

I really like this map, and I hope it does make it, but some spelling mistakes.

3th should be 3rd Hungarian Army

betven (in connection between 2 fronts) should be between

[Qwert]

GreecePwns Posted: 14 Sep 2007 15:24 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really like this map, and I hope it does make it, but some spelling mistakes.

3th should be 3rd Hungarian Army

betven (in connection between 2 fronts) should be between

Thanks,if you have time you can check all map and find text mistake,and give me list of mistake.