Most commentaries say that the graphics are good, the gameplay can be good but the concept is weak. Think the concept is weak and for that reason I should leave this map and make and new one. Well, I admit that the concept can be weak, but I think the concept is the least important.
Many available maps are maps of countries. What is the concept of these maps? The truth is that are always making maps of countries in which the only difference between each other are the boundaries. Everything else is equal. Some map are repeated as is the case in South America that has already two maps and yet is about to leave one third. What is the difference between them? The concept? The borders? Everything else is equal. Look at Scandinavia. Already have a map, recently made, but are doing another. What is the difference between them? The color?
Apparently it was enough if I came here with a map of a country that has not been represented to be accepted. And there are more than two hundred countries to choose from ... So it would be very easy ...
Even some map that have a strong concept, are doomed to failure if the graphics are weak or if the gameplay is bad.
What leads a player to choose a map? The concept? I doubt it. I think it is the graphics and the special rules, different from normal, that force us to think the game differently, new tactics. Gameplay
The map that I propose has some special features that make the map much more interesting than a map of any country. I do not need to explain that. Is everething on the map.
So, it seems the decision is yours. If you want go forward with this map, I will be happy, If not, I will be hapy too. Making this map on the computer was a very quick process so I do not missed much time of my life.
PS1: Yes, there are Spitfiers. I think it is more reasonable for India to have Spitfires than having space shuttle.
PS2: This map has nothing to do with Stalingrad. Or you did not understand this map or you did not understand the Stalingrad map.
PS3: I hope my bad english is understandable
