Lord Crayfish wrote:
This is a bit of a bugbear of mine, but nothing really that bad. This is about Tasmania.
Pretty much everything about it is wrong. Geographically, the Tasman Peninsula is depicted as an island. Bruny Island does exist for once (it's a bit far south, but let that slide), but the Bass Strait islands — King Island and the Flinders Island group — do not. I get that there are limits to the cartography, but these would be just as easy to put in as Bruny island.
Strangely enough, the West Coast is plains. Of all the places they had to put plains, they chose the hilliest part of the state. It's only flat to about Sheffield, and then it really ought to be mountains. For that matter, the southern part, where Hobart is, should probably be forest if it's not city. If it is city, the western side should be part of Strahan. Lots of evergreen temperate rainforest down there, and most of it is denser than Hokkaido or Sakhalin. "Devonport" should be plains.
The province names themselves are strange. Strahan, fair enough, and Hobart, fair enough, but Devonport? So far as I know, the largest and most important city — and in the 1940s, the largest port and producer of textiles — in Northern Tasmania is Launceston. Why name it after the second-most populous city in the region? Might as well call Tokyo Yokusuka.
For that matter, why is it the capital, or even a city at all? Ever since settlement at Risdon Cove in 1803, Hobart has been the capital. For a brief period in the 1840s, and again in the 1890s, Launceston looked like becoming more influential, but Hobart has always been the seat of Parliament. If anything, it should be plains. Hobart should be the capital, which would also present more of a challenge to New South Wales invading it.
In World at War, Tasmania adhers to the Axis Doctrine. This is interesting, and adds a bit of flavour to the pan-Asian and Allied-dominated Pacific. Given the large population of Germans who moved there after WWI, it makes sense; but if so the same should then be true of Central Australia.
Finally, in the 1939 Historic World War map, it appears that while New Guinea of all places is a Core Province of Australia, Tasmania is not. This seems ridiculous to me given that New Guinea, like the Northern Territory, was a non-integrated territory of Australia between 1918 and 1949. By comparison, Tasmania was a full-fledged state with all the same rights as Western Australia or Victoria. I believe that, in the interests of historical accuracy, Tasmania should be comprised of core provinces and New Guina treated as a colony.
Now I know that this is a relatively minor thing, and certain aspects of, say, Korea will probably be equally odd. But nevertheless, I think it's worth mentioning ■
New Zealand-occupied Tasmania, with Queensland attacking. Does not show capital's erroneous position.forum.callofwar.com/index.php?attachment/16295/
More Islands for sure. New Zealand? pretty large land mass to miss. lol