AtWar World War II Maps Discussion/Suggestions

Some WWII maps are historically innacurate. A major issue is that the units given are not historically accurate. Russia is a prime example. People try to give Russia large thousands units armies when we all know that Soviets did not have that much power against Germans. Germans had tons of troops and more advanced weoponry. Soviets on the other hand won in the Moscow front because of cold weather a.k.a nature froze many Nazis to death due to Hitler's poor decision. Therefore, instead of giving the USSR those massive troop stacks we should design barriers or special winter units that have bonuses against the Nazis. Another innaccurate thing in WWII Europe maps is the fact that half the time Yugoslavakia is not a playable selection. Now onto another stage in WWII. The Asian stage. Imperial Japanese Kamikazes should have more damage judging by accounts recorded of the terror they did in the Pacific. Kamikazes and other planes did major damage to destroyers and other naval crafts so they should have a bonus against ships. Japanese infantry and militia should have a slight power boost because of their effectiveness and willingness to fight for the cause. Singapore, a Southeast Asian British colony, should be armed with free shore guns/anti-naval guns to be historically accurate. Asian colonies were very profitable so they should have more income. China should have KMT infantry and PLA infantry. Tanks in China should only be available in certain cities since PLA did not have tanks and that PLA and KMT temporarily united to fight Japan. China should have more infantry stacks and a steady stream of infantry coming in to be historically accurate since China had many troops willing to die for the cause. Chinese troops should also be stationed in places like Malaysia since the Chinese PLA were the ones that fought guerilla to liberate other countries down in South Asia. The USA should also have a Manhattan project as well in later turns to develop the A-bomb. Countries should have events to make this a more accurate map. Thank you for reading this. This is an article to speak out what should be added to WWII maps to make them more accurate and historical.

Ww2 from aetius and pyrphus needs some srious adjustment in east front units are op with retarted attack 1 light tank kills like 20inf

लिखा द्वारा Diedra, 25.06.2015 at 03:01

Some WWII maps are historically innacurate.

A map being playable > A map being historical.

But yeah making it more historical while also making it playable won't hurt

The amount of maps where Konigsberg and Danzig are called Kaliningrad and Gdansk is too damn high

More historical selections would make WWII maps even funner and harder to win.

----

लिखा द्वारा Diedra, 25.06.2015 at 13:10

More historical selections would make WWII maps even funner and harder to win.

----

You could always make your own fucking map? You damn kids bitch and compliance and don't even relies how mush effort goes into map making and we do it for free, my thinking is if you don't make maps you don't have an opinion.

I'd really love to see a good 1936 Europe map, complete with real-life orders of battle (one unit can represent one regiment or something) and impassable mountain ranges.

Matching LT vz. 35s against Panzer IIs! It will be epic.

I'd make it myself, but I can't afford premium...

लिखा द्वारा Diedra, 25.06.2015 at 03:01

Some WWII maps are historically innacurate. A major issue is that the units given are not historically accurate. Russia is a prime example. People try to give Russia large thousands units armies when we all know that Soviets did not have that much power against Germans.

You say you want realistic WW2, but you make simple mistakes like calling USSR, Russia. Russia died in 1917 and didnt exist in WW2.

USSR's Red Army mobilized 30 million troops, thats half of Nazi Germany's population. They had more numbers than all other countries combined.

Red Army destroyed 80% of Wehrmacht, which mean it did had power, more power than Wehrmacht since it defeated it.

Soviet weaponry was inferior from 1941 to 1943, but from 1943 to 1945 it was superior than German counterparts.



List of weaponry:

T-34 had better armor and was more agile than Panzer IV, but Panzer IV had stronger gun. Later version of T-34-85 had superior gun(85mm).

BT-7 was same as Panzer III

IS tank was superior from Tiger tank, it had 122mm gun versus German made 88mm. It was faster and had stronger armor.

German made Panther tank was good, Soviets didnt had counterpart, they used T-34-85 in numbers to compensate.

IS-3 was simply better than Tiger II because it was operational, Tiger II had mechanic problems because wasnt tested before deployment.

Kar98 and Mosin-Nagant were same.

Luger and Makarov(TT) was almost the same.

MG42 was sligthly better than Dektyarev MG.

PPsh and Schmeiser were same.

Messerschmit was superior than Shturmovik, but Soviets soon replaced it with Yak-3, Germans didnt replace Messerschmit 109.

Germany artillery was accurate and efficient, but low range(10km), Soviet Katyusha Rocket Artillery fired rockets instead granades on 40km.

लिखा द्वारा Skanderbeg, 30.06.2015 at 16:52

लिखा द्वारा Diedra, 25.06.2015 at 03:01

Some WWII maps are historically innacurate. A major issue is that the units given are not historically accurate. Russia is a prime example. People try to give Russia large thousands units armies when we all know that Soviets did not have that much power against Germans.

Messerschmit was superior than Shturmovik, but Soviets soon replaced it with Yak-3, Germans didnt replace Messerschmit 109.

You're ignoring the Focke Wulf 190 and Me 262, both of which were superior to the Yak-3

Many admit that Spitfire was better than Focke 190, but they also claim Yak-3 is better than Spitfire, which mean Yak-3 can be better than Focke 190. Also, Focke 190 is made in 1941, Yak-3 is made in 1944 which is 3 years difference, thats alot in military age.

Me 262 would be probably the best WW2 plane, but it didnt had a chance to fight because war ended in 1945 (4 months after order to deploy it to luftwaffe). So dont know if it would be better than Yak-3, Yak-3 had mass production, but Soviets had better planes on blueprints and prototypes just like Germans had Me 262.

लिखा द्वारा Skanderbeg, 01.07.2015 at 05:46

Many admit that Spitfire was better than Focke 190, but they also claim Yak-3 is better than Spitfire, which mean Yak-3 can be better than Focke 190. Also, Focke 190 is made in 1941, Yak-3 is made in 1944 which is 3 years difference, thats alot in military age.

Me 262 would be probably the best WW2 plane, but it didnt had a chance to fight because war ended in 1945 (4 months after order to deploy it to luftwaffe). So dont know if it would be better than Yak-3, Yak-3 had mass production, but Soviets had better planes on blueprints and prototypes just like Germans had Me 262.

Theres just as many people that would claim that the Fw 190 was better than the Spitfire, especially considering the 190 had a positive kill ratio over the Spitfire.

And as good as it was I don't know if I would say the Me 262 was the best plane of the war considering the P-51 had a better record, but that may be just because by the time the 262 came into production all of Germany's best pilots were dead

...expertise to the experts.

But you Second World War armament historians should consider the fact that pages of unintuitive units make a map basically unplayable.

A few choice units, real symbols of the war, if you will, will be better than pages and pages of similar units that are slightly better or worse than other units.