A new look at the same picture.

Greenland being too close to Canada.  It is actually less than 40 KM away from Canada’s ellesmere island, though that is much further north than shown on the map.   From the look of the gamemap it looks like the Canuck territory Nunavut is shown next to greenland, in that case its about 325 KM away, about the same width (east-west) of Lake ontario or erie.

Now as far as being able to draw a straight line from Greenland to Chicago, can’t you draw a straight line between any to places on a map?  wg  Now if you drew a line straight north of Chicago to the north pole it would cut Hudson’s bay roughly down the middle.  It also come within about 325 KM from the western tip of Greenland.

Projecting a curved surface onto a flat one always makes the northern territories distorted (northern hemisphere anyways).   The map is a bit off but not too bad really.

I can’t see what roundel Newfoundland has but it should be British.  Newfoundland was a British territory until 1949 when it joined Canada.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Greenland being too close to Canada.  It is actually less than 40 KM away from Canada’s ellesmere island, though that is much further north than shown on the map.   From the look of the gamemap it looks like the Canuck territory Nunavut is shown next to greenland, in that case its about 325 KM away, about the same width (east-west) of Lake ontario or erie.

Now as far as being able to draw a straight line from Greenland to Chicago, can’t you draw a straight line between any to places on a map?  wg  Now if you drew a line straight north of Chicago to the north pole it would cut Hudson’s bay roughly down the middle.  It also come within about 325 KM from the western tip of Greenland.

Projecting a curved surface onto a flat one always makes the northern territories distorted (northern hemisphere anyways).   The map is a bit off but not too bad really.

I can’t see what roundel Newfoundland has but it should be British.  Newfoundland was a British territory until 1949 when it joined Canada.

Thats dumb, Nunavut shouldn`t be a territory, it was part of Northwest Territory till 1999.

I didn’t mean to imply nunavut was a territory then…  I was merely pointing out where the relative positions were using todays geographical terms.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I didn’t mean to imply nunavut was a territory then…  I was merely pointing out where the relative positions were using todays geographical terms.

Is Northwest Territory in, because they put freaking Yukon in.

Bulgaria and Yugoslavia look like neutrals, like Yugoslavia pro-ally and Bulgaria pro-axis? Romania and Hungary are for sure German, Finland is hard to say. From other topics Iraq sounds pro-axis and Iran sounds pro-ally.  :-)

@Dylan:

@SAS:

Look at you being all clever! 8-)  Pretty sweet!

was that an insult towards him, like look at you being clever like it`s like your like wow he did something clever :-P

No, I was genuinely impressed with rotating and shifting the image to make it easier to see the map itself, since the unit setup is fudged.

It’s hard to tell from the picture, but it looks as though Norway goes all the way to the top of the map, without any sea space connecting the Norwegian Sea to the Barents Sea, which would mean no possibility of naval movement between Britain and Russia.

There’s probably a small strait that connects them

Can anyone see if Norway has a boundary with USSR; historically there should be a small strip of Finland between them.

Tough to see with those Russian units in the way, but it looks like the two are not connected to me.

How many territories will French North Africa have, I wonder?

@UN:

How many territories will French North Africa have, I wonder?

I see Morroco, Algeria, and Tunisia.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@UN:

How many territories will French North Africa have, I wonder?

I see Morroco, Algeria, and Tunisia.

Same here…

IPC values: Algeria 2, Tunis 1, Morocco none (or 1 if Larry’s feeling generous)?

@UN:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@UN:

How many territories will French North Africa have, I wonder?

I see Morroco, Algeria, and Tunisia.

Same here…

IPC values: Algeria 2, Tunis 1, Morocco none (or 1 if Larry’s feeling generous)?

Are those guesses or do you see the ipc values?

@calvinhobbesliker:

@UN:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@UN:

How many territories will French North Africa have, I wonder?

I see Morroco, Algeria, and Tunisia.

Same here…

IPC values: Algeria 2, Tunis 1, Morocco none (or 1 if Larry’s feeling generous)?

Are those guesses or do you see the ipc values?

Guesses. Though now that I think about it, I think it should just be Algeria 2, Tunis 1…

So we were told previously that France will have 17 IPCs to start with, so those 17 will be split between the territories.  That leaves 14 IPCs after Africa, and FIC is 2, right?  So 12 left between the mainland Europe French territories?

@SAS:

So we were told previously that France will have 17 IPCs to start with, so those 17 will be split between the territories.  That leaves 14 IPCs after Africa, and FIC is 2, right?  So 12 left between the mainland Europe French territories?

It’ll have 17 in Europe, not Global, and you forgot French West and Equatorial Africa

@Imperious:

Greenland looks ridiculous. its too close to Canada. Its nearly so far west that i think you can draw a straight line from it to Chicago.

Just checked my Cold War Era Atlas…(  :-D )

You actually can draw a straight line North from Chicago and hit Greenland.

See the British Empire map in the post above?  Greenland appears so far East because of the distortion that comes from trying to make the surface of a sphere flat.  In some maps, Greenland is bigger than Africa.

All global maps must distort the poles.

This map is actually the most accurate representation of Greenland’s size and location I’ve seen outside an actual globe.

Anything is in a straight line from anything else. The issue is Greenland directly above Chicago and the map is Mercator projection. They should have just had the tip of Greenland and maintain the spacial relationship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mercator-projection.jpg

hmmm…well,

If you draw a straight line north, you do hit Greenland, but just barely.

However, on the map, the southern tip of Greenland is north of Chicago, when it should be over Newfoundland.

That is, Greenland should be 1 sea zone over from where it is now.

So, I stand corrected, sort of.

And yes, aesthetically, it looks really dumb.

Game play wise, the way it’s positioned, I can’t see how it can play any significant role……crap, now I’m hating this map, as my denial slowly melts away…curse you WOTC, curse you.