Please stop suggesting amendments to the HWW map.

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Please stop suggesting amendments to the HWW map.

      As somebody who's done this myself. Recently the fad on the forums of pointing out historical inaccuracies on the Historic World War map, and proposing changes up to and including balkanising China.
      It is true that some aspects are inaccurate but none are egregious.
      Just because they recently edited Dili doesn't meant Goa, Haifa, Andora, independent Philippines, Warlord cliques, etc. will be added. Many of them have no real purpose.
      I have no right to tell people not to. But I just think it's pointless.
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

    • Personally I've always disliked Sinkiangese independence in the game for a number of reasons, but it is sort of justified and at least it works for the game.
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

    • I personally see nothing wrong with it. As a history buff, one reason I joined this game was for a way to play countries historically and change history. It’s why historically accurate maps are my favorite. These suggestions don’t hurt anyone as they can just be ignored. I like to use them as a platform to nerd out and debate history, and see how the game can be made funner. Even if Bytro ignores them at least they provide an aspect of fun, no?

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      I personally see nothing wrong with it. As a history buff, one reason I joined this game was for a way to play countries historically and change history. It’s why historically accurate maps are my favorite. These suggestions don’t hurt anyone as they can just be ignored. I like to use them as a platform to nerd out and debate history, and see how the game can be made funner. Even if Bytro ignores them at least they provide an aspect of fun, no?
      Panjim makes sense though
      The Saviour

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      I personally see nothing wrong with it. As a history buff, one reason I joined this game was for a way to play countries historically and change history. It’s why historically accurate maps are my favorite. These suggestions don’t hurt anyone as they can just be ignored. I like to use them as a platform to nerd out and debate history, and see how the game can be made funner. Even if Bytro ignores them at least they provide an aspect of fun, no?
      That's true, and I too like the Historicity of the 1939 map, but some of the proposals are untenable or unrealistic in themselves. I see nothing wrong with it, but I don't see the point either, and it's filling the "Hot Threads" and "Newly Created" panels on the forums.
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

    • Lord Crayfish wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      I personally see nothing wrong with it. As a history buff, one reason I joined this game was for a way to play countries historically and change history. It’s why historically accurate maps are my favorite. These suggestions don’t hurt anyone as they can just be ignored. I like to use them as a platform to nerd out and debate history, and see how the game can be made funner. Even if Bytro ignores them at least they provide an aspect of fun, no?
      That's true, and I too like the Historicity of the 1939 map, but some of the proposals are untenable or unrealistic in themselves. I see nothing wrong with it, but I don't see the point either, and it's filling the "Hot Threads" and "Newly Created" panels on the forums.
      in that case the best thing to do is ignore it. While some are crazy, that’s what you’ll get with a multiple of anything. Best we can do is try to ignore or quickly debunk those, and have the interesting discussions on the decent ideas.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Lord Crayfish wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      the decent ideas.
      Although I'd count this as minor changes like the Portugal/Dili thing, not major changes that radially alter the gameplay.
      True, minor changes in provinces that don’t mess things up too much are east to implement ideas. As for larger ones well they can depend. Even if they are good though most just sadly can’t be implemented.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      Lord Crayfish wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      the decent ideas.
      Although I'd count this as minor changes like the Portugal/Dili thing, not major changes that radially alter the gameplay.
      True, minor changes in provinces that don’t mess things up too much are east to implement ideas. As for larger ones well they can depend. Even if they are good though most just sadly can’t be implemented.
      Panjim won't hurt though
      The Saviour