RE: Europe map? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

hakon -> RE: Europe map? (3/25/2008 10:42:13 AM)

Hmm, looking at Google Earth, the Lübeck crossing to Denmark seems to be clearly the longest of any of the crossings. If you count the distance from the Lehman island, you should probably count Saltholm between Denmark and Malmö, too. And more importantly, the Copenhagen Malmö crossing is really only the secondary crossing point into sweden, with Helsingborg/Helsingør being the primary.

To me, it seems like the Danish crossing arrows have been very well thought out, as it is. And since this is part of the WIF FE european maps, I doubt that any kind of changes will even be considered.

I kind of support the Öland-Kalmar crossing arrow, though. There clearly should be one, judging from the distance (only about 4 km at various spots). It was probably left out because it is not likely to be used, ever, and printing it would clutter the map a bit. I don't see that it would add to the game very much.

As for scapa flow, I don't see the need for a change, either. The area is by far easiest to access from the sea, both for supply and invasion purposes.

Hakon



Froonp -> RE: Europe map? (3/25/2008 11:27:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Fisher
also, i worry about scapa flow. surely the base for the main battle fleet had rail supply. according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_North_Line there is a railway that ended at thurso on the coast opposite, with a ferry to the islands and "The line did become strategically important during World War I and World War II as part of a supply route for Scapa Flow, Orkney: Jellicoe's Express linked Thurso directly with London (Euston) and Portsmouth". there is probably a case for putting in the rail line from inverness to thurso and a crossing arrow from the mainland to scapa flow/orkneys.

I would have thought that Scapa Flow should have a land supply route (having the major British naval base in a place that is so easily out of supply seems bizarre), and what you say shows that one seems to have existed through this railway.

However, in WiF, the nearest supply source is Glasgow & Edinburgh which are 6 hexes from Scapa Flow (though the would be Strait arrows), so even with the railway & strait, Scapa Flow would not be in supply except if an HQ was placed near it.
Aberdeen could have been made a city too, it had 167k inhabitants during WW2 (from Collier Atlas), but Aberdeen is 5 hexes from Scapa Flow, so it looks like even with the railway and the crossing arrow and a city in Aberdeen the best supply route to Scapa Flow is still from the Sea.



Plainian -> RE: Europe map? (3/25/2008 11:42:28 PM)

Yes Aberdeen should be on the map as a minor port. In fact the main supply route to Scapa was from Aberdeen. My father sailed it many times and he said it was pretty rough journey. You might find it strange that there wasn't a shorter route but I'm told that the waters which separate Orkney (Scapa) and mainland Scotland (John o Groats) are very treacherous. (Pentland Firth)

Incidentally there is not much at Scapa. Its just a big natural harbour. No ship building or repair should be allowed there.....but thats for MWIF vers 2.

Of course living in Dundee I'd prefer Dundee to be on the WIF map. I'm pretty sure we based a destroyer flottila or two here including the Polish DD's which escaped from Poland. Possibly why we have a large Polish section in the city today.



marcuswatney -> RE: Europe map? (3/27/2008 9:13:14 PM)

I would feel more comfortable if it were normal to supply Scapa Flow overland.  However, we always have to be aware that if you make a place too easy, the enemy tends to use it against you.  In Third Reich, Scapa Flow was connected to Scotland by a crossing-arrow, and all this did was to encourage a Sealion paradrop against Scapa Flow!

As Lerwick is not a two-front port, I do think the zone boundary should run at least one hex east of the Shetlands to underline this fact.



Froonp -> RE: Europe map? (3/27/2008 10:35:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

I would feel more comfortable if it were normal to supply Scapa Flow overland.  However, we always have to be aware that if you make a place too easy, the enemy tends to use it against you.  In Third Reich, Scapa Flow was connected to Scotland by a crossing-arrow, and all this did was to encourage a Sealion paradrop against Scapa Flow!

As Lerwick is not a two-front port, I do think the zone boundary should run at least one hex east of the Shetlands to underline this fact.

Well, I'm reluctant to have the Sea Area Boundary between the North Sea and the Faeroes Gap moved west, because it would put Bergen too near the Faeroes Gap. On the WiF FE map, Bergen is 7 MP from the Faeroes Gap. Now it is 6 MP. I the Sea Area Boundary is moved, it becomes 5 MP. Condors in Bergen would patrol the Sea Box Section 4 of the Faeroes. On the WiF map, or on the MWiF map as it is, they can "only" patrol the 3 Section.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Europe map? (3/27/2008 10:39:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

I would feel more comfortable if it were normal to supply Scapa Flow overland.  However, we always have to be aware that if you make a place too easy, the enemy tends to use it against you.  In Third Reich, Scapa Flow was connected to Scotland by a crossing-arrow, and all this did was to encourage a Sealion paradrop against Scapa Flow!

As Lerwick is not a two-front port, I do think the zone boundary should run at least one hex east of the Shetlands to underline this fact.

Yeah, the zone boundary offers the opportunity for players to get confused.

But in addition to Patrice's comments about Bergen, moving the sea area boundary would put Lerwick itself farther from the North Sea, so air units based there would take an extra movment point to patrol the North Sea. Changing game play to avoid visual confusion would need a lot of justification.



marcuswatney -> RE: Europe map? (3/28/2008 9:37:58 PM)

Does Lerwick even need to be a port?  The Shetland Bus set off from there, but precious little else.

The problem is that the zone boundary as presently placed looks totally artificial.  To avoid the accusation of a fudge, zone boundaries either need to steer clear of island groups entirely (as with the Faroes) or make them two-zone land-masses (like the Orkneys).  Having Scapa Flow look two ways but Lerwick only westwards is, from the cartographic point of view, inconsistent.

If Lerwick were deleted as a port, then the zone boundary could pass through the centre of the Shetlands, making much more sense.

Secondly: why is there a political boundary between Northern Ireland and Britain?  Northern Ireland is not a territory, but an integral part of the United Kingdom, just as Alaska is an integral part of the United States.  The full title of the state is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and since the map has United Kingdom in big red letters, then Northern Ireland needs to be included.  If for some reason you insist on treating Northern Ireland as a separate territory, then the mainland should be re-designated Great Britain, and, for consistency, Scotland and the Isle of Man should be created as separate territories too.

Likewise, ownership of Shetlands and Orkney would be better described as UK rather than Gbr.



Taxman66 -> RE: Europe map? (3/28/2008 9:41:02 PM)

It does look a bit silly, but on the other hand it reduces the value of the port, which is probably a good thing. If you delete it as a port, the boundry really doesn't matter all that much, except as an airbase for Nav.

There is a USE option for the CW to turn Northern Ireland over to the USA.  I doubt it's ever used much unless the US is desperate for Tension markers (having failed to move enough with poor rolls).



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Europe map? (3/28/2008 11:03:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Does Lerwick even need to be a port?  The Shetland Bus set off from there, but precious little else.

The problem is that the zone boundary as presently placed looks totally artificial.  To avoid the accusation of a fudge, zone boundaries either need to steer clear of island groups entirely (as with the Faroes) or make them two-zone land-masses (like the Orkneys).  Having Scapa Flow look two ways but Lerwick only westwards is, from the cartographic point of view, inconsistent.

If Lerwick were deleted as a port, then the zone boundary could pass through the centre of the Shetlands, making much more sense.

Secondly: why is there a political boundary between Northern Ireland and Britain?  Northern Ireland is not a territory, but an integral part of the United Kingdom, just as Alaska is an integral part of the United States.  The full title of the state is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and since the map has United Kingdom in big red letters, then Northern Ireland needs to be included.  If for some reason you insist on treating Northern Ireland as a separate territory, then the mainland should be re-designated Great Britain, and, for consistency, Scotland and the Isle of Man should be created as separate territories too.

Likewise, ownership of Shetlands and Orkney would be better described as UK rather than Gbr.

I totally agree with your last sentence. I keep thinking it refers to Gibraltar.[:D]

TaxMan66 explained the reason for the boundary for Northern ireland.



Froonp -> RE: Europe map? (3/29/2008 10:55:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Does Lerwick even need to be a port?  The Shetland Bus set off from there, but precious little else.

I'll leave it here as it is, trusting the original CWiF map maker. I prefer staying minimalistic with the changes.

quote:

The problem is that the zone boundary as presently placed looks totally artificial.  To avoid the accusation of a fudge, zone boundaries either need to steer clear of island groups entirely (as with the Faroes) or make them two-zone land-masses (like the Orkneys).  Having Scapa Flow look two ways but Lerwick only westwards is, from the cartographic point of view, inconsistent. If Lerwick were deleted as a port, then the zone boundary could pass through the centre of the Shetlands, making much more sense.

It is consistent with the logic that Scapa Flow was a strategic port, and that Lerwick was not.
If I'd put Lerwick (even without a port) on the sea area boundary, it could receve supply from the North Sea, and you'd immediately see the German conquer it to base a NAV here. WiF don't have that (an "easy" to get and "easy" to supply air base on the Faeroes for the Germans, and I don't want to add one.



Stabilo -> RE: Europe map? (5/19/2008 10:11:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Germany and the Netherlands.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/FBBF4E1B199848ED9B77774E6A3A3D3D.jpg[/image]



I would like to see "Rheine" as the name of the railroad crossing north of Essen and Hanover. It was one of the five main targets of the allied air offensives 1944 on German traffic facilities. Perhaps you can add the name on a higher resolution map.



marcuswatney -> RE: Europe map? (5/20/2008 12:43:42 AM)

And I'm still begging for the hex NE of Liege to be shown correctly as part of the Netherlands (with the resource shifted to Dusseldorf).

To illustrate just how seriously wrong the map is at present: in reality Aachen is on the triple border between Germany, Begium and the Netherlands!!!



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Europe map? (5/20/2008 3:32:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

And I'm still begging for the hex NE of Liege to be shown correctly as part of the Netherlands (with the resource shifted to Dusseldorf).

To illustrate just how seriously wrong the map is at present: in reality Aachen is on the triple border between Germany, Begium and the Netherlands!!!

I don't see this proposed change affecting Germany's invasion of Belgium or the Netherlands. Or am I missing something?

On the other hand, Germany does own 3/4rds of the land between the Rhine and the Maas. The problem is that the hexgrid is too coarse to model these country borders well.



wosung -> RE: Europe map? (5/20/2008 10:49:55 AM)

Marcus is right about the triple border near Aachen.

Now something completely different: The tiny island between the harbor Rostock and the island Rügen in the Baltic Sea: "Wollin" could be replaced by "Usedom", which is the much more known Western island. (Ehrm, I never heard of Wollin and I'm German.) Besides, the Heeresversuchsstelle Peenemünde was on Usedom, not on Wollin. And: The shape of the island could be more lengthy. Actually Usedom and Wollin nearly cover the whole Bay of Stettin (Kleines/Großes Haff).

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peenemuende

Regards



marcuswatney -> RE: Europe map? (5/20/2008 10:57:50 AM)

If it is agreed that the change will not significantly affect play, can we please do it?

As a Briton who has worked extensively in the Netherlands, this error is as irritating to me as my drawing Alaska without its long tail stretching down towards Vancouver would be to an American.

The reason the fort was built at Eben Emael was that it (and Liege) guarded the only easy avenue of attack for invading German forces, between the rough terrain of the Ardennes and what-was-expected-to-be-neutral Netherlands.  As the map stands at the moment, this strategic imperative is completely absent.

By shifting the resource one hex east so it is still German, and then giving the vacated hex (Maastricht) to the Netherlands, you will also be giving Germany back the tactical incentive to attack the Netherlands in 1940, as was done historically.

When I am considering whether to buy a game, the first thing I look at is the map.  Its accuracy gives me an indication of the likely level of research  throughout the game.  That in turn guides my buying decision.  So it is not just a matter of chrome.



Peter Stauffenberg -> RE: Europe map? (5/20/2008 1:02:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

If it is agreed that the change will not significantly affect play, can we please do it?

As a Briton who has worked extensively in the Netherlands, this error is as irritating to me as my drawing Alaska without its long tail stretching down towards Vancouver would be to an American.

The reason the fort was built at Eben Emael was that it (and Liege) guarded the only easy avenue of attack for invading German forces, between the rough terrain of the Ardennes and what-was-expected-to-be-neutral Netherlands.  As the map stands at the moment, this strategic imperative is completely absent.

By shifting the resource one hex east so it is still German, and then giving the vacated hex (Maastricht) to the Netherlands, you will also be giving Germany back the tactical incentive to attack the Netherlands in 1940, as was done historically.

When I am considering whether to buy a game, the first thing I look at is the map.  Its accuracy gives me an indication of the likely level of research  throughout the game.  That in turn guides my buying decision.  So it is not just a matter of chrome.


I agree with Marcus here. Maybe we should contact Harry Rowland in ADG and ask what he thinks. I think this change should become a part of the WIFFE map errata similar to the change we already did with the Cernauti hex in Romania. If we get Harry's permission to give the hex NE of Liege to Holland and move the resource to Düsseldorf then it will become an official part of WIFFE and not only MWIF.



cockney -> RE: Europe map? (5/20/2008 4:13:45 PM)

I also agree, as the movment of the Dutch border don't affect game balance but does give the Germans more of a reason to invade Holland.



composer99 -> RE: Europe map? (5/20/2008 5:03:04 PM)

As a WiF player I am not so keen on making that change unless it has been assented to by ADG - Harry Rowland can read maps as well as anyone else, and if he & anyone else involved in making the WiF:FE maps have left that border that way since those maps came out in 2000, there must be a good design and/or balance reason for it.

Personally, I think that hex is the way it is because Germany is nerfed by the game mechanics (namely Zones of Control) into being unable to perform its historical push through the Ardennes, and the extra hex on the Belgian frontier is a compensation.



Norman42 -> RE: Europe map? (5/20/2008 8:00:42 PM)


quote:

If it is agreed that the change will not significantly affect play, can we please do it?


It very much affects play.

It makes the German push into the Low Countries and France much harder. It guarantees the Allies the Dyle river line in force and probably a defended Maas river line too, and also makes Brussels hold out for easily 1 or 2 more impulses. Germany also loses the only airbase hex that a 109 can intercept over Antwerp/Rotterdam/Amsterdam until they can rebase forward(do not underestimate this impact). All this could add a full turn or more to the conquest of France, a domino effect from making Germany crack one more extra river/city line of defences with less air cover.

What this does is *force* Germany into a 1939 DoW on the Netherlands, just to try to get to its normal start line for 1940 Belgium, giving France much more breathing room. The Western Campaign is already rather skewed to the Allies; France is way too strong in 1940. Yes, the map in that area isn't perfect, but making it even harder on Germany is definitely not the direction that needs to be pushed.

A Low Countries DoW in J/F40 is common (3 months earlier then historical) and yet France more often then not still lasts past J/A 1940 (a month or more later then historical). The French defence does not need strengthening.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Europe map? (5/20/2008 9:01:38 PM)

I have to strongly agree with Norman on this issue!!! His analysis is dead on. If a map change is made that gives Netherlands that hex, then Germany would need to be compensated with???...at least an extra O-chit, and probably more. I do agree with Aachen though...it should be in that clear hex in question. A replacement city would also need to be put into the hex that Aachen is currently in.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Europe map? (5/20/2008 9:39:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42


quote:

If it is agreed that the change will not significantly affect play, can we please do it?


It very much affects play.

It makes the German push into the Low Countries and France much harder. It guarantees the Allies the Dyle river line in force and probably a defended Maas river line too, and also makes Brussels hold out for easily 1 or 2 more impulses. Germany also loses the only airbase hex that a 109 can intercept over Antwerp/Rotterdam/Amsterdam until they can rebase forward(do not underestimate this impact). All this could add a full turn or more to the conquest of France, a domino effect from making Germany crack one more extra river/city line of defences with less air cover.

What this does is *force* Germany into a 1939 DoW on the Netherlands, just to try to get to its normal start line for 1940 Belgium, giving France much more breathing room. The Western Campaign is already rather skewed to the Allies; France is way too strong in 1940. Yes, the map in that area isn't perfect, but making it even harder on Germany is definitely not the direction that needs to be pushed.

A Low Countries DoW in J/F40 is common (3 months earlier then historical) and yet France more often then not still lasts past J/A 1940 (a month or more later then historical). The French defence does not need strengthening.

I am not so sure about all that. I do agree that it forces Germany to DOW the Netherlands. But then doesn't Germany have to do that anyway?

As I understand it, the general consensus for best play is that Germany DOWs the Netherlands an impulse before it DOWs Belgium. If that is the case, then whether Germany of the Netherlands owns this hex before the DOW on Belgium makes no difference. Germany will ocuupy it during the impulse of its DOW on the Netherlands and have the same starting position for its DOW on Belgium as it does now.

Here is a screen shot I created last August to discuss the best (or alternative) defense position for the Dutch and Belgian units. The reserve units (R in upper right corner) are not available until the Turn following the DOW, so they are unlikely to make it onto the map.

The Dutch have one unit, which needs to set up in Amsterdam. Doesn't it? I guess Rotterdam is an alternative, but either way ownership of the hex west of Dusseldorf is irrelevant.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/02D6DFDD4BF940B2951A1ADEE487C1B3.jpg[/image]



lomyrin -> RE: Europe map? (5/20/2008 10:05:34 PM)

I have to agree with Norman and Jagdtiger that changing the map at the Netherlands border causes a large change in play and most certainly changes the map from the Boardgame one - and that ought not to happen all by itself.

Fairly often Germany just bypasses the Netherlands instead of DoWing it.  It deprives the CW of a number of convoys early on and if the DoW eventually is simultaneous with Japan's DoW on the Netherlands, it nakes it easier for Japan to take over the NEI with surprise and no CW involvement for a while. With this change Belgium will likely hold out much longer if the Netherlands is bypassed and this play will be less often used.

Lars




marcuswatney -> RE: Europe map? (5/20/2008 10:27:04 PM)

I haven't played recently enough to hold a valid opinion on the tactical implications of the change, but are there not attractive strategic implications favouring Japan if the Netherlands remain neutral?  With the map as it is at present and when playing the Axis, the control of that extra unhistorical hex would sorely tempt me to take the long view, leave the Netherlands alone and accept that defeating France was going to be just a little bit tougher.

With the clear hex returned to the Netherlands, helping Japan in this way becomes much less attractive ... and the standard approach of a DoW on the Netherlands the impulse before the DoW on Belgium is strengthened.

Also, please note that the rail-line between Dusseldorf and Antwerp does cut across the Netherlands in real-life.  It could not be used without declaring war on the Netherlands ... which reinforces my belief that this whole thing was an oversight on Harry's part (like Cernauti), not a subtle design fudge.



Froonp -> RE: Europe map? (5/20/2008 10:32:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung
Now something completely different: The tiny island between the harbor Rostock and the island Rügen in the Baltic Sea: "Wollin" could be replaced by "Usedom", which is the much more known Western island. (Ehrm, I never heard of Wollin and I'm German.) Besides, the Heeresversuchsstelle Peenemünde was on Usedom, not on Wollin. And: The shape of the island could be more lengthy. Actually Usedom and Wollin nearly cover the whole Bay of Stettin (Kleines/Großes Haff).

First thing, the shape of the coastlines of Europe were taken directly from WiF FE without modifications.
In the Stettin bay, there were 1 island, to the east.
On this 1944 map, I see that Wollin is the island to the east. I assumed that Usedom (that is more to the west) was melted in the coastline by the map designer. That's why I located Peenemünde on this coastline (In reality, this is an island, I know) and labeled the east island as Wollin. I think I'm not that wrong.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/F01D82615F864FCCB25FE1D637405E54.jpg[/image]



Norman42 -> RE: Europe map? (5/20/2008 11:08:47 PM)


quote:

I do agree that it forces Germany to DOW the Netherlands.


This alone should tell us this isn't a map change to be taken lightly. Germany's options become very limited with this change. They now *must* attack Holland or they will not break through the Belgian/French front.

That is different from the current possiblilities, where Holland is often left for later to coincide with Japans attack, or where Holland is attacked in conjunction with Belgium (ie the historical attack). Losing that hex unhinges any attack on the two combined countries, and pretty much forces Germany into an even earlier attack on Holland in 1939 to secure the approaches to Belgium, or they will be facing a double stack of British or French in Brussels, safely behind the Dyle river, and a possible 1941 conquest of France.




Froonp -> RE: Europe map? (5/20/2008 11:28:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen
I agree with Marcus here. Maybe we should contact Harry Rowland in ADG and ask what he thinks. I think this change should become a part of the WIFFE map errata similar to the change we already did with the Cernauti hex in Romania. If we get Harry's permission to give the hex NE of Liege to Holland and move the resource to Düsseldorf then it will become an official part of WIFFE and not only MWIF.


Except that the Cernauti errata came from him to us, and that it suffers absolutely no contradiction. Here, we would need an hexgrid half the size of ours to make the change. The area that belongs to Holland in this area is tiny. I agree that it is good that it increases the necessity for Germany to DoW the Netherlands, but this is a too ENORMOUS change to do it without Harry and all his advisors to agree.



Froonp -> RE: Europe map? (5/20/2008 11:54:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen
Maybe we should contact Harry Rowland in ADG and ask what he thinks.

I've done that. I've copied him most of your comments, both the Pros & Cons (Edit : and also gave him the direct link to this forum in case he wants to come and comment directly -- I've already done that dozens of times, and am still dreaming).

Personnaly I have no real opinion about that, slightly prefering to let things the way they are because I think that Geography is best served by being depicted this way, considering the size of the hexgrid and the small size of the bit of land that is Dutch, but the argument that I like in the pros is that it helps avoiding that the Germans ignore the Dutch, which is too easy IMO in WiF.



lomyrin -> RE: Europe map? (5/21/2008 12:11:52 AM)

If the map is changed and the Netherlands gains the hex in question it would channel Germany to a DoW on Netherlands as an esential play in the game. This removes a variable from the game and also removes the Japanese gambit on NEI.  Keep  in mind that if Japan could DoW Netherlands and get the surprise on NEI it would accelerate US entry by an extra chit per turn. It would also give the CW an opportunity to DoW Japan, sink Japanese convoys  and garrison Rabaul and add defense to Singapore with a lessened impact on US entry. This would be the risk Japan had to take.  It is not a one sided result.

Of course it would be less historical, but then WiF is a game and not a rigorous historical replay. The variability and different strategic approaches one can take to the game is a good part of what makes it so replayable over many years without tiring of it.

Lars




Joshuatree -> RE: Europe map? (5/21/2008 12:13:53 AM)

[img]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/16701/02D6DFDD4BF940B2951A1ADEE487C1B3.jpg[/img]

From a dutch point of view I do have a question about this map. You are using the name "Zuider Zee" (offically written as "Zuiderzee") The dike itself was finished at may 1932, and opened to the public at sept. 1933.
On 20 sept. 1932 the name "Zuiderzee" was history, from now on it was a lake called "IJsselmeer"

IJsselmeer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IJsselmeer

So yeah, from '32 on it was "IJsselmeer" --->IJsselmeer (sometimes translated as Lake ¨¦ssel, alternative international spelling: Lake Yssel



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Europe map? (5/21/2008 12:21:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joshuatree

[img]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/16701/02D6DFDD4BF940B2951A1ADEE487C1B3.jpg[/img]

From a dutch point of view I do have a question about this map. You are using the name "Zuider Zee" (offically written as "Zuiderzee") The dike itself was finished at may 1932, and opened to the public at sept. 1933.
On 20 sept. 1932 the name "Zuiderzee" was history, from now on it was a lake called "IJsselmeer"

IJsselmeer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IJsselmeer

So yeah, from '32 on it was "IJsselmeer" --->IJsselmeer (sometimes translated as Lake ¨¦ssel, alternative international spelling: Lake Yssel

I learn something new every day. Thanks.

But I wonder if the Dutch still refer to IJsselmeer as Zuiderzee every so often.



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625