Question about Maps & Scenarios

[Canuck21]

In the first built in CMFB scenario I've started playing, as with all the inherent scenarios (I've not yet played 3rd Party scenarios - they may well be equally as good), I found the various maps that go with the scenario extremely well done. They are clear, not cluttered and easy to read. I've looked for maps for my possible future scenarios and have relied on Google Earth and Google Maps, but of course, those are for 202x, not 194x and thus are waaaay out of date and not accurate for what was around back then. My question is, is it ok to make a fictional battle with a fictional map as long as the situation is plausible and reasonably realistic? By that I mean that I wouldn't use Sicily type scenery for a battle in the Ardennes (even if I could), but if I were basing a CW scenario that took place in the Netherlands, is it ok to make up some terrain that may or may not have been in that location? For example, if I wanted to put in a wetland or series of canals close to where my battle is going to take place, is that ok even if it's not quite accurate for how things are today? For historically accurate battles, I'll try to get as close as possible to what was actually there, naturally, but how far can you go if building a fictional scenario (again, within reason)? Thanks a bunch as always  .

Edited May 15, 2021 by Canuck21

[Combatintman]

Its your scenario mate - do what you like with it.  Period maps for a lot of the bits of Europe that were fought over during WW2 certainly exist and if you can't find one then the usual technique is to use Google Earth and lop off the outer suburbs of built-up areas and replace them with fields or suchlike. 

If you don't feel up to making a fictional, representative map then just find a real piece of ground that you think would make a really interesting tactical situation/problem and model that.  Call the place something entirely fictional and Bob's your uncle.  I personally prefer the real ground approach because making maps using the overlay feature is a lot easier than agonising over where the church should go and whether the place should have a railway station or not etc.  The other reason I advocate this approach is because a lot of fictional maps that I see are decidedly average generally because the map maker has absolutely no concept of scale or concept of those things that exist in areas where humans live like where do people drink, where do they buy stuff, where do they worship, where are their dead buried, where do the kids go to school etc.  Most 'villages' I see on such maps actually wouldn't warrant a cartographer unscrewing the lid from their pen to scrawl a name on the map.  Four buildings is an average-sized farm, not a village.  In fact generally, if the place doesn't cover a good proportion of a grid square (1km x 1km) in the modern era it is a small village - it is certainly not a town.

[sburke]

8 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Its your scenario mate - do what you like with it.  Period maps for a lot of the bits of Europe that were fought over during WW2 certainly exist and if you can't find one then the usual technique is to use Google Earth and lop off the outer suburbs of built-up areas and replace them with fields or suchlike. 

If you don't feel up to making a fictional, representative map then just find a real piece of ground that you think would make a really interesting tactical situation/problem and model that.  Call the place something entirely fictional and Bob's your uncle.  I personally prefer the real ground approach because making maps using the overlay feature is a lot easier than agonising over where the church should go and whether the place should have a railway station or not etc.  The other reason I advocate this approach is because a lot of fictional maps that I see are decidedly average generally because the map maker has absolutely no concept of scale or concept of those things that exist in areas where humans live like where do people drink, where do they buy stuff, where do they worship, where are their dead buried, where do the kids go to school etc.  Most 'villages' I see on such maps actually wouldn't warrant a cartographer unscrewing the lid from their pen to scrawl a name on the map.  Four buildings is an average-sized farm, not a village.  In fact generally, if the place doesn't cover a good proportion of a grid square (1km x 1km) in the modern era it is a small village - it is certainly not a town.

so what you are saying is I need to add a cemetery to Venafro?  

[Combatintman]

8 minutes ago, sburke said:

so what you are saying is I need to add a cemetery to Venafro?  

You need somewhere to bury the pixeldudes that will get slotted ...

[Canuck21]

@Combatintman - thanks for this. I do prefer the realistic ones as well, but I'm guessing for fictional scenarios, you probably need a fictional map. I'm working on the overlay thing and hope to get that sorted out shortly. Your points are well taken and duly noted and I think we're largely on the same page here. Thanks  .