Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message


Froonp -> Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (6/30/2006 9:48:41 AM)

Hello,

The China map discussion is moreover ended, and Steve allowed me post a new map modification suggestion to this forum.

The next area of concern to me is the Caucausus area, especially the area east of the European Map.
This area in CWiF / MWiF as is, is done wrongly in my opinion.

I'll post some pictures, one showing as it is in WiF FE, one showing as it is in CWiF / MWiF as is, one showing the real place on a map, and a last showing my suggestions for modifications so that the map is more true to WiF FE and to real geography.

Here is the first map, the WiF FE map.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/E1C48D8DEE5C41BBBAE21A8F7F7D0C1A.jpg[/image]




Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (6/30/2006 9:51:42 AM)

Here it is, as it is modelled in CWiF / MWiF as is.

For me there is an obvious flaw, this is this lack of mountains east of Tiflis.
Basicaly, in WiF FE, the Germans have to cross mountains to arrive to Tiflis, here they just have forests to cross. It seems wrong to me.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/16A50D43B1634D69BEBB1B8A2133C276.jpg[/image]




Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (6/30/2006 9:53:50 AM)

Here is how it look for real (a 2004 map).
The mountains are here, extending nearly to Baku.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/DE7DB4CAC2204E0FAD3CAB6F66238C7C.jpg[/image]




Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (6/30/2006 10:04:20 AM)

Here is my proposal for changes, so that the area is both more true to WiF FE, and to real geography.

The railways I traced are black lines.
The Yellow line is the WiF FE maps separation. The western part of it should be strictly identical to the WiF FE maps, as they are already at the European Scale.

I payed extra attention to Tiflis so that it can only be attacked as it could be in WiF FE (from the same hexes), and same for mountain hex 24 (by placing Alpine hexsides).

At first I found that the Baku position was offset to the south too much, but on one hand I could not move it without destroying the neighboring areas (and potentialy all the pacific scaled areas rescaled to european scale), and I realized that the WiF FE at the pacific scaled were very wrong to begin with, so I did not change its position.

I post this for comments, to see if it can be improved, to see if you agree with me that this area must be slightly redrawn, and it must be redrawn as I show here (I call this map 1b).

[image]local://upfiles/10447/47DAC4EE29744ABF816624E8774B8AA2.jpg[/image]




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (6/30/2006 11:22:09 AM)

Patrice,

Overall I do not have any objections to your changes. My real problem is with the WIF FE European map when compared to the 2004 map you presented. If you draw a line on the 2004 map from Sukumi to Baku, Tiflis lies slightly south of the connecting line. Another way to look at it is that Tiflis should be roughly at the same latitude as Batum. Either way, TIflis seems too far north and east on the WIF FE map.

Now, don't get me wrong here, I do not want to change the WIF FE European map whatsoever. I merely mention the above problem because it has repercussions when trying to adjust other hexes east of Tiflis. For example, what on the WIF FE map is one mountain hex on the coast road north of Baku is now 5 mountain hexes.

I do like your changes to the rail line, so that getting the oil out of Tiflis requires either going west to the Black Sea or down to Baku.




Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (6/30/2006 5:49:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Overall I do not have any objections to your changes. My real problem is with the WIF FE European map when compared to the 2004 map you presented. If you draw a line on the 2004 map from Sukumi to Baku, Tiflis lies slightly south of the connecting line. Another way to look at it is that Tiflis should be roughly at the same latitude as Batum. Either way, TIflis seems too far north and east on the WIF FE map.

I agree, and I also saw this, but I firmly believe that the European portion of the map must not be changed.
I think that the Tiflis area was wrongly drawn for the European map, to be able to enter in the surface of the map, because it was important that the Caucasus area was on the map.

quote:

Now, don't get me wrong here, I do not want to change the WIF FE European map whatsoever. I merely mention the above problem because it has repercussions when trying to adjust other hexes east of Tiflis. For example, what on the WIF FE map is one mountain hex on the coast road north of Baku is now 5 mountain hexes.

Yes, but to cross that mountain chain, you still only have 1 mountain hex to cross.
I think that all in all, it will be better like I drew it, respective to the WiF FE map, than it is now in the game.

quote:

I do like your changes to the rail line, so that getting the oil out of Tiflis requires either going west to the Black Sea or down to Baku.

Like it is on the WiF FE map [:D].

I tried to have the map drawn so that it is equally hard to take Tiflis in MWiF than WiF FE, because my experience of the war in the Caucasus in WiF FE was that Tiflis is the strategic target of the campaign. When Tiflis falls, the mountains are crossed, and Baku is nearly taken.




lomyrin -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (6/30/2006 6:55:25 PM)

This proposed change in the map east of Tiflis seems fine to me.

Lars 




fuzzy_bunnyy -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (6/30/2006 10:34:47 PM)

Agreed, looks great.

However, looking at this on the CWIF scale it seems a little.....unpopulated. Anyone who knows more about the actual number of people living in the Caucasus? Seems to me there should be some more cities on the Caspian and on those rail lines.

If this would turn into a huge project of getting more cities across the map and that would take way to much time, feel free to ignore me.




Borger Borgersen -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 12:11:18 AM)

I look at the map in the Caucasus region and what Froomp has noticed is definitely true
and would be nice to fix (more mountain hexes north of Tbilisi).

But I look further at the map and notice the design of NW Iran and NE Iraq is very
wrong. The city Tabriz in Iran is really north of Mosul in Iraq, but on the map it's placed
south of Mosul. Tabriz should be moved further north and Mosul further south.

I don't know why the strange looking region west of Baku is placed inside Iran (the
hexes inside Iran 4 and 5 hexes west of Baku and northwards).  This area is definitely
NOT inside Iran. I believe this area is really Armenia with a big city called Yerevan
located. So it should have been part of the Soviet-Union. At least most of these hexes.
Some hexes could be part of Turkey or Iraq, but definitely not Iran. The northernmost
part of Iran is 1 degree south of Baku on the real map. On the MWIF map there are
3 hexrows placed inside Iran NORTH of Baku.

North-East Iraq is much wider than shown on the CWIF and MWIF map. I think it should
be made wider at the expense of North-West Iran and possible at the expense of Syria.

I have a feeling the reason for this big map inconsistency is the European scaled map
in Caucasus is for some reason decided to put Iran on the map. The rail line into
Iran is shown maybe for lend-lease purposes etc.  If the European map had been more
correctly then Iran should NOT be on this map at all. The part we see of Iran on this map
is actually Armenia.

So I see only one way of solving this inconsistency. And that is to alter the European
part of the map and move Iran further away. That would solve the scaling problems.
But I also know the big reluctance to change the European scaled map for MWIF because
one wants MWIF to be as close to WIFFE as possible. That's the dilemma. If it's
written in stone that the European scaled WIFFE maps can't be changed then it's
hard to solve.

I believe it would be impossible to create a nice looking borders of Iran and Iraq without
changing this map flaw on the European map. Right now North-West Iran looks really
strange with this thin isthmus west and north of Baku that should not be there.

Tbilisi should have been one hex row further south, but it's not so far away from where
it should that we can't live with the current location of Tbilisi on the map.

Baku should be further north. I think 2 hexes north-west of the current location is
pretty right. Then it would have a more proper distance to Tabriz and Mosul. Especially
if Tabriz is moved northwards.  If Baku is moved then the clear hexes near it should
be moved too. Then the hexrows of mountains north of Baku would decrease from
4 to 2.

It's hard to make this very correct because of the constraints from the European
scaled map. But I feel it's possible to make the map in this region a little closer
to the real map.





Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 12:49:21 AM)

Borger,

As usual, I like your analysis.

Do you have a graphic/map of the real world that you could post? That would facilitate the discussion on this.

There is often conflict between the USSR and Iran/Iraq in WIF so some attempt should be made to improve the map in this region. I know that Patrice was restricting himself to just the area around Tiflis (and Baku) but he has posted other remarks about the terrain around Teheran previously.

So, without expanding the scope of this discussion too much, we should probably broaden it to include the areas you mentioned.

By the way, my father-in-law was born in Persia but moved to Turkey when he was 4 or so (his father was a Persian diplomat). He didn't get back to visit his native country until he was in his late 60's because the Persian government kept wanting him to complete his obligatory military service.




Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 1:27:09 AM)

About the Persian northwest, here is how it looks in MWiF now.

It is not the whole Persian NW, it is only the place where I intended to ask minor modifications to Steve.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/2D4AD75270DF4B2E971F8612C0D151DE.jpg[/image]




Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 1:34:21 AM)

Here are the modifications I intended to show you.
They are minimal, because I prefer the minimalist approach to map modifications too.

Modifications made to the map :

A. Persia-Iraq border had to be pushed 1 hex eastwards east of hex 12 & 13 (Eastern European Map).
Because
- hex 12, 13 & 14 have to be able to go eastwards into a mountain hex still in Iraq.
- hex 11 have to be able to go eastwards into a clear hex still in Iraq.

Consequences :
- Lake Urmia moved 1 hex NE.
- Forest hex replaced with mountain.
- 1 Alpine hexside deleted.

This corrects partly the problem Borgen found, that the NE portion of Iraq is too slim.
Maybe the border can be pushed further away eastwards 1 more hexrow.


B. Teheran placed in a mountain hex.
Because
- It is in a mountain hex on WiF maps.

C. Shiraz placed in a mountain hex.
Because
- It is in a mountain hex on WiF maps.

D. Basra moved 1 hex eastwards.
Because
- It is near to the Persia-Iraq border on real map.
- It is in a swamp hex on WiF map.

E. River north of Tabriz deleted.

I'm not at all convincted for change B, because Teheran is placed so far away from the Russian border now, that the Russian army cannot reach it during the suprise impulse when attacking Persia, so the effect of the supporting bombers in the attack is not doubled, so the attack is far less powerfull. So having Teheran in a plain may be good to have Teheran be quite easily taken by the Russian.


About the problem Borgen talked about, I think it all have to do with the Caspian Sea being too much to the south, or being too much long in the north south direction. I'll have to look at this, and look if it can be shortened 1-2 hexrows without affecting the whole asia portion of the map. China is not that far away.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/0917E05D09D543F88E8DF1459224DAD7.jpg[/image]




Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 2:04:22 AM)

I wrote :
quote:

About the problem Borger talked about, I think it all have to do with the Caspian Sea being too much to the south, or being too much long in the north south direction. I'll have to look at this, and look if it can be shortened 1-2 hexrows without affecting the whole asia portion of the map. China is not that far away.


Well, I looked at Google Earth and a couple of World maps, it seems that the Caspian Sea is placed about where it belongs. I was wrong in my first thoughts.

As for Baku, it is placed as the same latitude than the southern part of Albania & Naples, and this is exactly the case on the MWiF map, so I think the MWiF map is not that wrong in this regard. So, Baku should not be moved. If it seems so much south, it is because IMO Tiflis is mistplaced, too much northwards, to be able to appear on the WiF FE map. I would vot to have no changes made to Tiflis position, as it is crucial to the defense and campaign in the Caucasus in WiF FE. Moving it changes the whole area gamewisely.


I agree with Borger for the northward bit of Persia intruding West of Baku, the real maps are not like that, not even the WWII maps.
It really seems that Georgia was given to Persia on the MWiF Map.
I would vote for modifying this, even if that leads to modify this part of Persia that is on the WiF FE maps. I think that Borger is right that the WiF FE maps are wrong here because the designer wanted to have a bit of Persia on the map. Changing the European map in this area has no game effects in my opinion. I'll pay attention to where the railways are, whether in Turkey or Russia. I have a WWII map of the area that shows railway I seem to remember.

I'll make modifications to this area soon to show you how I think this should be.




Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 2:12:54 AM)

Also, having taken measurements on the Google Earth space view of the area, I think that Tabriz must be moved 1 hex NE. It is about 200 km from the Caspian, 400 km from Baku, and 80 km from the Russian border to the north.
1 hex being about 70-90 km.

This will allow for moving the Persian-Iraq border in this area at least 1 hex more eastwards than I already moved it.




lomyrin -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 2:37:17 AM)

Teheran is reachable by Russian units in the surprise impulse if the rail move bonus option is used, the weather is fine, and the Russian 4 movers start on the east side of the Caspian at the persian border.

Since Russian strength depends to some extent on the Persian oil, making Teheran a mountain hex increases the risk of attacking Persia considerably, a Russian decision dilemma.

A subsequent Russian conquer of Iraq would also be delayed or stopped by Teheran in a mountain.

Lars




trees trees -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 3:45:56 AM)

please don't forget 'wifzen' when working on the maps. Looking at the geologic map in French, it appears that Tiflis/Tbilisi was placed where it was in WiF because it sits in a valley carrying a river and a rail line. So it could be taken from either direction from within the valley, and has to be placed in a 'clear' hex (note just where the city-dot is placed in that hex). The other alternative, placing it a bit more west or south, would put it in a mountain hex, but clearly any defense of the city shouldn't be doubled. If you want to hold the place you have to come down out of the hills where you would much rather place your forces.

so what I'm getting at it is, perhaps the game should be called World in Flex. The unit scale is flexible, no one knows what a 'build point' really is, and the map has to be like this in places. The whole valley from Batum to Tiflis may not be as wide as a WiF hex, but you have to have a line of clear hexes to represent it.

but note doing this for the Tiflis<>Baku valley wipes out the possibility of representing the coastal plain along the west shore of the Caspian, which you could probably advance along without attacking mountains.

and please don't add any cities, anywhere. they are the most powerful hexes in the game. population in a hex is not the issue, the functions of a city in WiF is. Yerevan may have had a population similar to, I don't know, Metz (complete random guess), during WWII, but that doesn't mean they would have the same impact on military operations.

In WiF Persia will never be quite the walk-over it was historically for the Allies. It is an obscure part of WWII. Despite no great love for the Russians or the British, the two powers walked in against 120,000 men (probably not all mobilized) in the Persian military which didn't fight. ("There was little fighting and few casualties." reads the only reference I have.) I'm not really sure why. Perhaps because it was a joint Anglo-Soviet operation; if only one power had tried it the Persians may have resisted, so I think WiF does okay here. Historically, in WiF it would go like this: J/A '41 CW DoW Persia (only -3 US Entry, much better), Persia aligns to Germany, Russians walk next to Teheran and roll a '20' (the Persians could've reacted differently, no one knew ahead of time). In your average game though things can be much different if Tojo takes an interest. On this new map Russia can still get a simple relatively low-risk attack with Siberians, Cavalry, and bombers. In my National Geographic atlas of the world it looks like you can approach Teheran without crossing mountain ranges, so putting it in a clear hex seems OK, though I vaguely recall descriptions of it sitting in a valley surrounded by hills. (I don't think Russian strength depends on taking Persia though). But if the Japanese are already in East Africa, they might make it to Teheran ahead of the Russians, unless some Paratroopers go in too.

I think you may be on to something with the idea of shifting the map a little bit on the north-south axis. i.e. if you could pull the hexagonal overlay down to the south a little bit. This would help make Basra a non-coastal hex, for example.

I don't know what you can do with Google Earth or similar programs, but if there was any way to look at a sattelite photo of this region _at the same scale_ as euro WiF, and then drop a hex-grid overlay on top, I'm sure mapping would be much easier. In the meantime, keep up the good work.




Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 4:48:47 AM)

Here's my proposal to fix the Caucasus & the extra Persian Bit, with minimal changes to the WiF FE map.
I'm showing a zoom up first, then the whole area next.

I made Teheran a clear hex as it was.
I also had Basra 1 hex E, as it should be.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/2AAABAF84E81421F870C752CFB608FC4.jpg[/image]




Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 5:01:50 AM)

The whole area.

This represent more changes to the MWiF maps, compared to what I envisionned at start, but I think this is going in the right direction for the game.

Now the Tiflis area is right, the Caucasus mountains are right, and the messed up NW Persia is right too.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/905E5AA725334E2D9577FB022B1C30DC.jpg[/image]




Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 5:18:48 AM)

Mmmm.... I found a major flaw in my drawing...
Iraq gets a border with Russia here, and that's wrong.

To have it right would need to "cut" 2 hexrows of the NE Iraq bit, and have Mosul moved 1 hex south. I looked at Google Earth, and it is true that the Mosul-Baghdad distance is wrong on the WiF FE maps, and that as Borger said, it should be southward, but maybe this would make too many changes just to correct the NW Persia bit abnormality ???

I'm ready to do it anyway, that's easy.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 5:50:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Mmmm.... I found a major flaw in my drawing...
Iraq gets a border with Russia here, and that's wrong.

To have it right would need to "cut" 2 hexrows of the NE Iraq bit, and have Mosul moved 1 hex south. I looked at Google Earth, and it is true that the Mosul-Baghdad distance is wrong on the WiF FE maps, and that as Borger said, it should be southward, but maybe this would make too many changes just to correct the NW Persia bit abnormality ???

I'm ready to do it anyway, that's easy.


We either have a border between the USSR and Iraq or between Turkey and Iran.




Borger Borgersen -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 6:41:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Mmmm.... I found a major flaw in my drawing...
Iraq gets a border with Russia here, and that's wrong.

To have it right would need to "cut" 2 hexrows of the NE Iraq bit, and have Mosul moved 1 hex south. I looked at Google Earth, and it is true that the Mosul-Baghdad distance is wrong on the WiF FE maps, and that as Borger said, it should be southward, but maybe this would make too many changes just to correct the NW Persia bit abnormality ???

I'm ready to do it anyway, that's easy.


We either have a border between the USSR and Iraq or between Turkey and Iran.


Turkey and Iran have a common border on the real map.

I also believe that Iraq was placed on the WIFFE European map for the same reason
as Iran was placed on the map (to show where lend lease of resources etc. would
go). It's not correct to have Mosul shown on the European map if one wants to
have a pretty accurate map.

So I think we can make the map better if we do the following:

* Move Mosul and the oil resource 1 hex to the south-east.
* Give the 2 uppermost mountain hexes currently placed in Iraq to Turkey.

Then Turkey and Iran would have a common border and Russia and Iraq not.
At the same time it makes Mosul not further north than Tabriz. Place the
Mosul city dot on the south-east hexside. Then it will be located on the
same hexrow as Tabriz, but would appear to be further south (which is correct)

Maybe the oil resource south of Mosul (in the hex with the number 13) should
be moved 1 hex further south if we decide to move Mosul 1 hex south-east?

I think with these minor alterations the Caucasus map-area would be not very
wrong compared to the real map.

Would it be correct to put the Armenian capital Yerevan on the map? It's a
quite large city and often shown on strategic WW2 wargames map. I'm
a little surprised it's not part of WIFFE. Maybe because it was located outside
(or on the edge of) the European map? If the answer is yes then I believe
Yerevan would be located in the hex with the number 18 or the hex just east of
the hex with the number 17. If we don't want to make even further changes
to the European map Yerevan can be located in the hex east of the hex with
the number 17. Will adding Yerevan affect gameplay a lot in this area?

It's very good Froonp is going through the map the way he does in areas
like China, Causasus etc. Because these areas are the most critical, because
battles might occur here and part of the map area is changed from Asian
scaled level to European scaled level.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 6:52:07 AM)

I am not keen on adding Yerevan. It would be in a mountain hex and looks as if it would be difficult to capture (rivers, alpine hexsides). Should the Germans get that far it would be an additional city for them to capture, since leaving it in Russian hands would risk reinforcements arriving there and threatening the rail lines needed for shipping resources.




lomyrin -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 7:29:30 AM)


I also dislike adding cities in the area - no Yerevan

Lars




c92nichj -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 12:58:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Mmmm.... I found a major flaw in my drawing...
Iraq gets a border with Russia here, and that's wrong.



This would be a major influence for the game as Russia can DOW iraq without going through Persia or Turkey. And similiary an Axis Iraq can be used to take hexes on the turkish border and being able to align Turkey. I would give turkey the hex with Number 18 and the hex SE of that.




c92nichj -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 1:02:36 PM)

quote:

B. Teheran placed in a mountain hex.
Because
- It is in a mountain hex on WiF maps.


I would vote against this as with the increased map scale Teheran is not so easy to take out as in normal WiF.
To keep the game balance either Teeran should be closer to the russian border so it easily reached on the suprise pulse or put it in a clear hex. Clear hex seems most reasonable for me.




c92nichj -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 1:07:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin


I also dislike adding cities in the area - no Yerevan

Lars


I would not mind adding Yerevan, since I think that the Russians have a too hard time defending in regular WiF and could need a little boosting.

Something needs to be done about the french being too strong as well, but I know that Steve's view is to not change any rules, which I support, so I guess I just need to live with that the french campaign always takes longer and is harder than historically.








Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 1:52:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

quote:

B. Teheran placed in a mountain hex.
Because
- It is in a mountain hex on WiF maps.


I would vote against this as with the increased map scale Teheran is not so easy to take out as in normal WiF.
To keep the game balance either Teeran should be closer to the russian border so it easily reached on the suprise pulse or put it in a clear hex. Clear hex seems most reasonable for me.

I agree and I mae the Teheran hex this way.




Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 1:55:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
I also dislike adding cities in the area - no Yerevan
Lars

I would not mind adding Yerevan, since I think that the Russians have a too hard time defending in regular WiF and could need a little boosting.

I prefer adding no cities, outside of China.
This said, I'd love if some "named places" could be on the map for these places where you can't put a city because of WiF FE maps, but where you would like to have a name written.

Also, I looked at the Urals part of Russia, and found that a couple of extra cities would be needed on the Trans-Siberian Railway to keep a Russia walking unit in supply between cities (as ity is the case on the WiF FE maps, cities are 4 MP appart on the Trans-Siberian railway, and a lot farther on the MWiF Map.

But this will be subject to a future thread I think. Let's concentrate on the Caucasus and the Middle East.




Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 1:57:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Mmmm.... I found a major flaw in my drawing...
Iraq gets a border with Russia here, and that's wrong.

This would be a major influence for the game as Russia can DOW iraq without going through Persia or Turkey. And similiary an Axis Iraq can be used to take hexes on the turkish border and being able to align Turkey. I would give turkey the hex with Number 18 and the hex SE of that.

I'm making changes right now to have this right.




Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion (7/1/2006 2:10:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I'm making changes right now to have this right.

Here is the result.
Would you find it good ?

[image]local://upfiles/10447/82A0B8D9B5594A5BBDCAF163101094D9.jpg[/image]




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125