And Major, I wonder why you edited Moldova and Cyprus. I see no strategic reason to make Moldova a separate single-territory bonus than political correctness, and with the same reason Kalingrad should be separated from the Baltics.

The only answer I have is that we don't. It's a highly rated map that is incredibly similar to your version. Why have a second, slightly altered version of a 'classic'?

I get having this map and expanding to cover more of Asia, Middle East and Africa. Then this would possibly bring something new to the table but as of now it's a simple regurgitation of what has already been produced.

Why are Denmark and Sweden touching?

Also, like Richard says, what's the point? Two different connections?? Wouldn't it be easier to whip up a UserVoice to allow custom connections or something...?

Moldova meant that 1) Romania had 1 less territory and was now easier to defend and 2) Moldova can easily break Romania and Ukraine (If anyone decides to pick there.) 3)Political Correctness as you said - I didn't change Kalingrad because it would make Baltic States a unattractive bonus and we wouldn't want that again :)
I think the balkans will be a much more favourable starting place now - with the changes made.

@ Richard - the Europe map By Troll has some flaws (I believe) and I would like to fix them and make a different version. Just because it looks the same doesn't mean it is - it has very subtle changes that make a big difference to gameplay.

RVW- Denmark and Sweden touch on Trolls map which is a mistake. I will change it later thanks.
Also Uservoice is a slow process and I don't think enough people would vote. Fizzer's time is precious and It wasn't just connections that I changed if you look at the map.

The public seriously disagrees with you based on the ratings.

There are already some 7-8 European maps with various tweaks to them... do we really need to add a 9th with such minimal variation? At least the most recent Europe map was a completely new approach with the focus on languages.

"And why would Scotland need to split from Great Britain? The name is not anything political, just the name of the island, so there's no reason for being offended (I assume you're a Scot because it's just a silly idea splitting a regular bonus into one small one and one tiny consisting of 2 territories. And at the same time you're combining Denmark and Norway into a bonus even bigger than Britain...)"

@Moros,

No, quite the opposite, i´m an Englishman. I suggested ways to alter the map so it doesn´t appear like Troll´s version.

Turning Norway, Denmark, and lets also say Iceland into one bonus will remove the typical ´islands´ starting spots, and make the gameplay different.

I don´t particularly care if Scotland is part of the bonus or not, merely wished to suggest ways to make the map´s gameplay significantly different from the classic version.

@Richard,
He´s making the map, he´s completed alot of it, there´s no reason for you to argue with him.

Don´t play the map if you don´t like it, stop endlessly critisizing and insulting the very idea of it. I don´t see a reason to.

Richard you cannot speak for "the public".
They don't disagree with me - the ratings simply suggest that they like troll's map. You are drawing conclusions from no evidence, if you really want to keep trolling the forums be my guest but do it in another thread - there is nothing more to be said on the matter. Hint: If you don't like the map, don't play on it!

I didn't speak for the public... I led the 500+ ratings of Troll's map speak for the public.

All I am saying is that I don't see the point in producing such a straight-up facsimile. Dropping ten territories and adding 2 null-bonuses to a map of this scope is nothing. As others said, an adjustment to make your map stand out would be advisable lest it be ignored as just another rip-off of existing maps.

Simply adding in Northern Africa or linking to colonial holdings or expanding westward would add another layer to your map and make it stand out on its own merits. As it now stands I see it simply being ignored for a more well-known and extremely well-liked map. If anything, I could see there being criticisms/complaints from players when they join a game on this map mistaking it for the original.

Another note, you may want to try to lengthen the vertical aspect of the map somehow (don't recall how Warlight adjusts to the Inkscape 'box'). As it now stands, Crete is at the very bottom and it's name is off-screen for me. You could easily buy a bit of room by cropping the northern edge with no impact on connections of gameplay.

Dude, seriously? If you want the map to change, make a UserVoice about adopting the map and making a newer version.
Not only is the map completely unoriginal - even as an imitation - and aesthetically inferior to its model, it's actually less correct.

Bosnia and Herzegovina are very divided, which makes it entitled to a division at least as much as Belgium.
This is even truer for Cyprus, which has a Berlin Wall v 2.0 running through the Nikosia streets.

Giving Moldavia a bonus of its own is a complete miscalculation. What you should have done is grouping Romanian territories. You made one duo, which was the most unfotunate one you could have made, and then you made a Bucharest territory?!

And if political correctness is really so important, then Estonians will demand a bonus of their own and loyalists will frown at Northern Ireland being part of Ireland.
Which sounds stupid by the sound of it, but it's what your work might cause.

The only thing I liked is how you added some connections that exist in real life. If you made a UserVoice about that and included a name change (Northern and Southern Belgium should be Flanders and Wallonia) you might get my support as a map adopter.

Until then I'm afraid to say this mimicking of a classic is a waste of time as far as I'm concerned.

Domenico, Uservoice is slow and wastes Fizzer's time when there are more important things to be done.

It would have been better if you had phrased your words as improvements rather than insults. This forum is for improving the map - Political Correctness wasn't my aim at all. I do not know why you call Belgium Flanders and Wallonia on my map it says Belgium please explain...
As I said earlier the map is still very much a **draft** and aesthetics are not important until it is going to go public. As for Cyprus it would ruin either turkey or greece if I split it and made it part of them, and if I just split it, it would be a pain to cost another turn to get to greece to turkey and vice versa. I don't know if you have noticed but I have changed quite a few connections without changing territories much e.g Hungary (And have also made connections clearer as Croatia to Del Afold)

Also why is Moldova a complete miscalculation? And adding Bucharest changes Romania and makes it easier to defend/take. It also mix's it up, so it's less similar to troll's version.

I think you would have changed your wording had you known how young I am. (At my age I am not meant to know that Cyprus has a wall of division through it, it is limited knowledge anyway.)

@Richard thanks for the tip, duly noted.

Domenico, bravo for voicing everyone's opinion in the perfect way: with arguments!

Major, (almost) everyone here is young. I'm 15, and I know of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
And Belgium consists of two regions, called Flanders and Walloon. They differ in a lot of ways, language is one of them, and their border goes exactly as on Troll's (and your) map. (Actually, there are more regions and region levels, but how I described it is the simplest approximation.)

Look guys, the map isn't finished yet - the point of this thread is to change it so it is different to Troll's version. I also wasn't intending to bring out a europe map until now, it was originally going to be North Africa, Europe and Levant but now it will be both. To state again, what can I do to change it from Troll's version? I already have been suggested to split up France.

And thanks Moros - It has now been changed.

I did not insult you, but I was giving a harsh review of your work.
Actually, I wasn't so sceptical as I came across in my last post, but seeing how you responded, I strongly feel you should discontinue this particular project.

You see, with the current rating system, you will get a lot of reviews, assuming your map doesn't go unnoticed in the first place.
Seeing how much appreciation and praise the original map attracts and how much scepticism there has been when new Europe maps were introduced, those reviews will be even harsher and less constructive.

As you have shown with your reply, you got personally insulted by my critique and the crowd's reaction when seeing your map may dishearten you, which might lead to you not making a more welcome map.

Since you are the map creator, you will also be held accountable for mistakes, no matter how old you are. Believe me, if a Slovenian sees a mistake in my map, I expect them to tell me and I'll have no excuse for messing up, because I should have looked up the correct division/name/whatsoever.

Bucharest is a miscalculation because you were trying to make the bonus more appealing and isolating Bucharest doesn't help; you create a tail territory (connected to one other territory in the bonus) which makes completing the bonus harder.

Also, it is odd to give Bucharest its own territory when more defendable and independent cities like Berlin and Sankt-Peterburg are left in their regions.

I don't think this need to be as big a deal as everyone is making it out to be. Major put his own time and effort into making an adaptation of a classic map to make it more playable and interesting.
The Europe map isn't perfect - it has a rating of 4.67. There are some major issues with certain bonuses being pretty much unplayable e.g Romania and perhaps Sweden and Major risk's adaptation identifies these and attempts to create even more strategies. Again he's focusing on *playability* not pretentious politically correct details. I say keep going - he's giving something to the community.