[pursuivant]

There are two maps that I'd like to have. One is of the Caucasus and the other is of east-central Texas.

I'd go for the Caucasus myself, just because the terrain would be more interesting and it would be easier to populate the map because you can use existing objects and textures. I also believe that the area is relatively thinly populated and hasn't changed that drastically in 60 years, which also makes populating the map easier.

If you do decide to to do Central Texas, you've got a real chore ahead of you. You'd need to do custom ground textures to get those rectangular American fields to look right, and you'd need to make a whole bunch of custom objects to make the buildings look good.

Even worse, you'd run up against the problems which I believe led agracier to abandon his map of the Low Countries - that is, lots of relatively flat terrain, lots of towns (and other ground objects) and a landscape which has radically changed over the last 60 years. While you might have plenty of access to local historical data, you'd have to spend a lot of time looking at 1930s and 40s Jeppson charts and survey maps if you wanted to recreate World War 2-Era Texas. If you want with 2009 Texas, you've got the whole problem of putting in highways, skyscrapers, modern airport facilities and so forth, which makes object creation and map population even worse.

The only way out of all those boxes would to be to go with a "fictional" Texas which looks like someplace in Europe, Russia or East Asia. Personally, I'd find that unsatisfying. But, were you to do a 1945-era Dallas-Fort Worth map, and do it right, it would be a masterpiece, and it would open the door for all sorts of other North American maps. That would provide grist for all kinds of "Axis Triumphant" and "Cold War Gone Hot" scenarios, which I'd personally find interesting.