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.

Not discontinue simply change it enough to not be considered a new map with some familiar bonuses but a different version - with France, Germany, Ukraine,Romania and spain all split up into North/South ect
Do you think that is a big enough change?

You could probably mix up the Balkans, Poland and Russia too.

Your bonus boundaris don´t have to be equal to those of modern day europe likes Trolls, you could use a different era as a basis to split countries.

Major, I think that would be a big enough change to differentiate your map from the existing one.

I haven't compared them side by side so this may be moot but I'd try to make the bonus colors sufficiently different to make them visibly different. Maybe an easier way to do this would be by moving the bonus links and/or using different shapes (circles or triangles instead of squares) so that the maps are easily distinguishable. Don't want people joining a game expecting one map and getting a different one and then flooding the forum to complain... could definitely see that happening if you submitted your current version as is

I'm just saying what was so bad about the last erurope map, all you did was remove territories, add a little more sea attacks and up the bonuses on places like france, which havent changed a bit on the map, copy maps are pointless, you couldve just messed with the bonuses when you create the gaame

*I'll try to phrase all of the following as neutrally as possible.*

## Regarding political / geographical correctness
Playability is certainly a very important factor for a map. However, you are basing this map on a real-world situation (one in which a whole lot of us happen to live and which some of us may have strong feelings about). I'd advice you to keep political and geographical accuracy in mind whenever it is at all possible. (If you really hate it that much, it might be a good idea to use a fictional settings for your next project.)

## Relation to / differences from Troll's version
The question "why are you making this map at all?" has been asked a few times; I have not really seen an answer. While in general I think "Because I can!!" is a great answer, it doesn't apply all that well to making a slightly modified copy of an existing map... especially if that existing map just happens to be the top-rated map on WL; people might think you're trying to score a cheap success over Troll's back (I'm really sorry, but I can't think of a more polite way to say it).
Or look at it another way. Let's say I create a game on your map and invite some other players. If one of them asks me "Aww, why do you want to play this version, let's just play the original!", what do you propose I should answer?

Another problem is that I highly doubt you've asked Troll's permission to do this. Like it or not, you are basically stealing his work (you traced over a screenshot of his map, and copied his territory names, bonuses, etc., didn't you?). When you upload a map, you are confirming you have all the necessary permissions to do so, which is not the case here.
Looking at [Troll's profile](http://warlight.net/Profile.aspx?p=78456200), I notice a few things:

- Invited to WarLight by Fizzer
- Currently playing in 12 multi-player games
- No "inactive for x days" message

The second and third item mean he's still active on WL, so it's entirely possible to ask his permission, just invite him for a game. (Who knows, he might have some useful suggestions for you which he himself never got around to!) The first one means that pissing off Troll might very well piss off Fizzer. Now, I'd prefer you asking Troll's permission because it's the right thing to do, but I'll settle for you asking his permission because it's the smart thing to do. (And, look on the bright side, if he's okay with it, he just might send you his original SVG.)

Hurricane wrote:
|> The Europe map isn't perfect - it has a rating of 4.67.

And that puts it in the number one position of all 440 maps on WL. (And don't try "statistical anomaly" or anything like that; it's based on just about 600 rating!)

Major Risk wrote:
|> Uservoice is slow and wastes Fizzer's time when there are more important things to be done.

Actually, to me it appear as though (an additional suggestion on) UserVoice doesn't cost Fizzer any time at all. Besides, he himself has repeatedly requested people to make suggestions through UserVoice.
More importantly though, I have to disagree with your (implicit) assumption that making this map will not cost Fizzer any time. You see, WL has a feature which lets people report one another. If you click on the "Report" button at the bottom of any player's profile you'll see a page asking the following question:

http://warlight.net/Report.aspx wrote:
|> Please select the reason you wish to report this player:
|> They booted me or another player
|> They aren't taking their turn
|> They're slow to take their turn
|> I think they hacked the game or cheated
|> They broke a truce, lied or backstabbed me
|> They made a secret pact or colluded
|> They won't vote to end even after I asked
|> They surrendered when I didn't think they should
|> They won't accept a surrender I think they should
|> They have named themselves after a world leader I don't like
|> Other

Choosing any of those reasons (except "other") displays a message which essentially says "That's not against the rules, you can't report someone for that".

Let's just say I'd hate for Fizzer to have to add an option "They invited me for a game on the Europe map, but it was not really the Europe map." (If [this page](http://wiki.warlight.net/index.php/Cheaters#Check_the_game_settings) on the WL Wiki is necessary, I'm sure people will misunderstand what's going on when connections are suddenly different than what they're used to.)

So, if you decide to go forward with this map, please make sure that (even at first glance!) it's incredibly obvious to everyone it is NOT the original Europe map; otherwise you'll cause a flood of bogus reports which all need to be processed.

RvW wrote:
*Hurricane wrote:

The Europe map isn't perfect - it has a rating of 4.67.

And that puts it in the number one position of all 440 maps on WL. (And don't try "statistical anomaly" or anything like that; it's based on just about 600 rating!)*

I know it's a great map, but it is by no means perfect just because it has a number 1 spot. Surely you can see room for improvement.

I'd agree that it needs a clear differentiation to the original though.

Luxemborg----> to Rhineland-Pfalz
Moldova----->Chernovtsy
both in EUROPE
also Murmansk to karelia in Europe Borders

Also look what we are down to copying maps instead of making original maps you should be ashamed even a slight bit.

also i wish it was possible for troll to sue you copied most things especially border colors.
Copyright issues blah blah blah

And uhm... Flanders should be the northern part, not the southern. Quickly change it before you angry 11 million people! (I did the same with the Albanians one time, I thought they were part of Yugoslavia :) )

I suggest you could next time say the idea and describe it before the guys on the forum cut it down, but for the most part they are right. Its a good idea, but not very unique or different from the other maps, make it different.