Please critique my WW2 map!

[curtsibling]

Hi there, I am working on a smaller map for my future projects,
and have placed 98% of the cities, but what I need is the
combined brain-power of the CIV2 people here to make
a formal interrogation of the city placement and perhaps
suggest any cities you think should be added.

I reckon I have around 3-6 cities left to use.
I would appreciate any advice and suggestions!



PS
Ignore the civ names for now, they won't be added till I
create a scn file.

Blue = USA
Red = USSR
Orange = UK
Dark Orange = Commonwealth
White = Japan
Grey = Germany
Yellow = Neutrals

Thanks in advance, you fellows!

[Panda]

Just a couple of comments:

Would it be possible to squeeze in a fifth city on the US West coast for the US player? This would help the US to expand navally into the Pacific (esp when under AI control). I think San Francisco is too far north anyway, and if shifted south would allow a smaller city such as Newport, Oregon, to be placed at 7,39.

There might be in issue with Leningrad: leaving free access from the Baltic to the in-land lakes would allow an unfriendly nation (from the USSR perpsective) to threaten communications to Murmansk, and also allows for a city to be built at 86,14 to allow transit from the Baltic to the White Sea.

I'd also like to see more islands in the Pacific. Remember Mercators advice to clump islands together at first so they retain the same landmass number (if that would cause a problem). They can be split in-game by terrain editing.

[Arthedain]

Hmm, alot of cities could be renamed to their native names.

Some examples:
Cologne - Köln
Munich - München
Konigsberg - Köningsberg
VIENNA - WIEN
Milan - Milano
ROME - ROMA
etc etc.


More suggestions:

Isn't 79,53 a better square for Malta?

Leningrad is also misplaced IMHO. It should me @ 87,71 though then you have to rearrange the lakes.

Why is Lima a Commonwealth city?

South African cities are a little misplaced IMHO, at least Johannesburg is far too north (in Zimbabwe).


Well, these were some suggestions. I'm sure there are people with more and better ones.

[Patine]

Bucharest and Sofia should be German cities: Romania and Bulgaria were staunch supporters of the Nazi regime by late '40.

[curtsibling]

@Panda:
This useful advice is being taken for the USA and added Newport...Cheers, dude!
I agree Leningrad needs to be better placed...
I have followed your pointers and added Belomorsk to the White Sea coast.

PS
I checked the map in the editor and there should be no AI problems...

@Arthedain:
I want to stick with the English version names for now, for ease of use.

I have moved Valletta to the square you suggested.

Some of the placed cities will be made into rebel cities, via the CIVcity utility.

I will have a look at my maps again in regards to South Africa.

@Patine:
To represent the mayhem in the Balkans of 1940, I had
these cities as rebels in my previous WW2 scens, I will
do that here too, it helps the flow of war events too.

It keeps the German AI civ busy for a while and means
they won't launch Barabrossa in August 1940!

Any more edits, just let me know - I am willing to change any city placement!

[Panda]

Originally posted by curtsibling
I agree Leningrad needs to be better placed...
I have followed your pointers and added Belomorsk to the White Sea coast.

Actually I trying to suggest that it would be undesirable to allow a city to be built there and allow transit. OTOH, could make for some more interesting gameplay if the axis capture the city and effectively isolate the peninsular.

[Eivind IV]

Weird, I get an error when trying to open it

[N35t0r]

Yeah, me too. I'm guessing it's for ToT.

[Cyrion]

Originally posted by Arthedain
Konigsberg - Köningsberg

Not exactly: Königsberg would be correct...

But as the english version will prevail, that was just nitpicking...

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Panda




Actually I trying to suggest that it would be undesirable to allow a city to be built there and allow transit. OTOH, could make for some more interesting gameplay if the axis capture the city and effectively isolate the peninsular.

Aha!

My apologies!

Personally, which would you think is the better option?

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by N35t0r
Yeah, me too. I'm guessing it's for ToT.

Oooops!

My bad - It is a ToT save file!

[curtsibling]

I'd like some suggestions for Pacific island cities too - If you all have them!

[Eivind IV]

For Norway, I'd much rather have Narvik than the teny tiny city of Hammerfest. Not that Narvik is much bigger, but it was way more important. It's iron ore supply lengthened ww2.

Also, I'd like to see more cities in South America than in Africa. Looks like Africa is over emphasized.

Also, Honolulu is too far to the north. It should be more like 0,62. Then you could have the Marshall Isl. at 147,75. And the Marianne (is that it's english name?) Isl. at 139,77. Solomon Isl. at 147,89. Guam at 138,76.

[curtsibling]

@Kobra:

I guess Narvik was an important area in WW2 also,
rather than ditch Hammerfest, I might just add Narvik also!

About South America - It played hardly any part in WW2,
and Africa I consider more tempting to the Axis, due to
the diamonds spread over the continent!



I will take your Pacific advice on board!

[Patine]

Another thing, Curt. You have ALL of China under Japanese control; by mid-'40, only less than a third of it actually was. Just a note.