War In Europe

[bwheatley]

Map so far

Trying for 10km map similar to GPW but all of europe. I've used Google Map Saver for my overlay.
Doing the Sept 1939 borders has been a pita. But coupled with the West Point European Atlas it's coming along nicely.

[JJKettunen]

I hope you don't mind me saying this, but you have a serious projection problem there. Scandinavia is way too big.

[ernieschwitz]

Looks interesting I hope you get a good scenario done using this map

[Josh]

ORIGINAL: Keke

I hope you don't mind me saying this, but you have a serious projection problem there. Scandinavia is way too big.

Scandinavia? All I see is the lower part of Danmark?
Anyways, totally beautiful Bill, it'll be a blast to play on this map with the ATG engine. Sort of War in the West ... *with* production! [:D]
Thanks for your hard work. [&o]

[JJKettunen]

See the mini-map. I´m sure there will be a great scenario though.

[Josh]

Hey you're right, didn't even notice the minimap so large is the map LOL. It seems a bit big though, I've noticed a similar distortion in the provinces where I live (Northern Netherlands; Friesland and Groningen) they seem 2-3 hexes too wide.
But it's hardly a problem and worth mentioning IMHO, the map looks stunning!

[Krafty]

Doesnt look that far off to me.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Kraftwerk
Doesnt look that far off to me.

Because it has the same projection problem.

[ernieschwitz]

Actually scandinavia is pretty big. For instance, the distance from Copenhagen to Stockholm is about the same distance as Copenhagen to Paris... If you meassure that distance on the map, you get approximately the same in this case, so i think the projection is accurate.

[Jeffrey H.]

I'm interested in the discussion, and only pointing out this for the sake of it.

I have a globe in my office, not a super fancy one but not a stupid cartoony one either.

I measure the distance from Copenhagen to Stockholm as 13 mm, (meaningless I know in an ablsoulute sense without a scalar reference but only in a relative one) and from Copenhagen to Paris as 24 mm.

Now that's along the surface of the globe.

I suppose we could get a bit more technical, (which I kind of like) and do a long and lat conversion to spherical and then really calculate a distance. But I'm betting the proportion or ratio will come out about the same.

Long way of saying, I agree with Keke.

[TPM]

Woah, yeah you're right...it looks gargantuan..

ORIGINAL: Keke

See the mini-map. I´m sure there will be a great scenario though.

[Krafty]

For what its worth, modern day germany is 10,000 square miles SMALLER than Norway. Which is easily the smallest of the Scandinavian nations.

I think its right, its just not being adjusted for the lack of curvature. Looking at a globe, or a map that adjusts for curvature, it seems smaller because of perspective. But im pretty sure BW is right on with his map.

Perhaps theres an extra layer of land hexes where his overlay falls in the middle of a hex, and he chose to do land, rather than water.


The easiest way is a hex count. Norway is 148,000 square miles. And Germany is 138,000 square miles.

If Norway in the map is > 25% more hexes than germany minus the danzig corridor, it is to big. If it is not. It is right on (which is my opinion, that it is correct, or very near correct)

[Shadehawk]

Most maps use the standard mercator projection, which means that all areas nearer the poles get projected down on the map much bigger than their real, geographical size, than the areas nearer to the equator. E.g. a common example is that Greenland looks bigger than the continent of Africa.

[Krafty]

Another way of course is distances, as ernie mentions. Measuring hexes between known locations that havent changed in 60 years, and comparing them is a faster way than I suggested (total hex count).

If its the same number of hexes between points as it is on GPS or navigational maps (which is what were simulating, operational navigation) then its right, regardless what the eye tells you.

[Krafty]

Actually Finland is the smallest at 130,000 sq. miles. Sweden at 180,000 square miles.

So were looking at 3.5x the size of modern day germany, for Scandinavia's land area. Thats actually pretty big. Thats the entire east coast of the united states, to the Mississippi river.

Which in an operational sense, is the farthest germany ever made it into the soviet union (which looking at the map, I know eyes can lie, but it looks to match up) Id be really surpised if its off by more than just a single line of hexes at the coastlines.

[derstralle]

I took a quick look at Wikipedia (yeah... I know [;)]).

It seems like Google maps uses a close variant of the mercator projection.
For a distance measured across a line with constant latitude the scaling factor in mercator projection is sec(phi)=1/cos(phi), where phi is the latitude.
Northern scandinavia is around 70° latitude => scaling factor of roughly 2,9.
Southern Italy is around 35° latitude => scaling factor of about 1,2.
This is quite a huge diversion.

The reason you did not notice the projection errors yet is your choiche of locations.
Oslo, Stockholm and Helsinki are at about 60° latitude => scaling factor 2.
Paris and "central" Germany are located at about 50° => scaling factor 1,5. However along the line Paris - Kopenhagen latitude is not constant hence the scaling factor is even higher. The difference is not noticable by the naked eye - at least to mine. [;)]

I hope I do not sound rude - in fact I love the idea of detailed realistic scenarios. [:)]

edit: Confused the english words for latitude and longitude. [8|]

[Jeffrey H.]

It does have me thinking about a subject which has been on my mind lately which is flat map hex representation of a globe.

I imagined myself drawing lon and lat lines on a map as straight and adding in terrain details as I encounter them on a globe.

Then dumping a hex overlay on that. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work 'out of the box'.

I might need to do variable spacing on the lines.

[Krafty]

Hey if you figure that one out, copyright that idea, because if ive noticed anything in grand strategy games that encompass the whole world, its that theres no concensus on how to do that correctly. Some of the maps people have come up with have blown my mind thinking, how in the hell did they think thats what the world looks like?!

You could retire to the Camans...

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Keke

I hope you don't mind me saying this, but you have a serious projection problem there. Scandinavia is way too big.

If it's off then it's on vic for his overlay setup. I'm mapping it out exactly as the 12000x12000 googlemaps export did it. Looking at it and comparing vs google maps it looks like ya it might be a bit distorted.

Here is the overlay i used Europe Overlay.jpg (60 meg)

Maybe it's "useless" space but think it will add something. I am considering adding in 5-10 hexes to the top once i'm done to be able to have real northern lend lease convoys.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

I'm interested in the discussion, and only pointing out this for the sake of it.

I have a globe in my office, not a super fancy one but not a stupid cartoony one either.

I measure the distance from Copenhagen to Stockholm as 13 mm, (meaningless I know in an ablsoulute sense without a scalar reference but only in a relative one) and from Copenhagen to Paris as 24 mm.

Now that's along the surface of the globe.

I suppose we could get a bit more technical, (which I kind of like) and do a long and lat conversion to spherical and then really calculate a distance. But I'm betting the proportion or ratio will come out about the same.

Long way of saying, I agree with Keke.

Heh maybe it's google maps being a turd then if vic's overlay stuff isn't causing it.