World 2.0/1 Map [Quenched]

[happysadfun]

Happy; what do you think of a narrower definition of Orient, maybe a far east or some other name but with Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China? This leaves the malay penisula countries 'neutral'.

It would have to be called... um... i dunno. but the idea is good as long as it has mongolia. maybe split china into "tibet," "manchuria," and "great china?" plus nepal needs to be with the indian subcontinent.

I need to think on the northern islam suggestion.

I know there's a better name for it.

HEY!! An idea just dawned on me. Demolish the Indian Subcontinent subbonus. Make Paki and Afghan a part of north islam. make the subbobnus we were talking about earlier called north orient, then make all else in asia called south orient. then with the bangladesh country, the border disappeared. maybe merge it with that annoying little part of india that sticks out past it and call in bengalistan or bangladesh.

I'm with you that andes isn't a great name for the Argentine/Chile/Bolivia group. Marvaddin, do you have any suggestions?

I have one: add Ecuador and Peru and call it Tahuantinsuyu or Tawantinsuyu. This was the name for the inca territory.

I agree a case could probably be made for the baltics and maybe western russian membership in scandinavia, do you think Nordics would be more accurate (I'd prefer to rename versus expand the territory particularly don't want to include Moskva given it's location and strategic value)?

Hmmm... maybe split Moskva, putting an uncrossable between the new one and komi while still goving it a border with baltics, and giving the south a border with komi AND baltics. this would shut up people who are strict about scandinavian definition without losing any of moskva's strategic importance.

[gavin_sidhu]

If ur not going to add more subcontinents, get rid of the USA one. All continents have only 2 subcontinents except North America which has 3...

Also I think alot (basically all) of your subcontinents are worth too much. Andes has 3 countries and worth 3? USA has 4 countries and worth 4? If bonuses are that big it might be too easy to take out a whole continent...

[happysadfun]

If ur not going to add more subcontinents, get rid of the USA one. All continents have only 2 subcontinents except North America which has 3...

USA+Canada+Alaska=Anglo America
Caribbean area+central america=spanish north

[Marvaddin]

I dont think there is any problem in all countries belonging to a sub-continent. In fact, Im now thinking its the better thing. Most subs are very small, and I think we should have them more balanced, like the continents in classic map... some small, some medium, some big.

Plus, your ocean is ugly (my opinion), and the borders in Europe and India are invisible.

Im working in a way to split Brazil better. And I intend to post tomorrow another suggestion with all countries in subcontinents.

[gavin_sidhu]

And I intend to post tomorrow another suggestion with all countries in subcontinents.

Sounds good, but if you cant do it just give each continent the same number of subcontinents.

[SkyCaptain]

Also, just aesthetically, the line between Sakha and Alaska doesn't meet. Should be easy enough to fix, just for looks.

[spiesr]

I can't really see the borders in the blue green part of europe.

[happysadfun]

I dont think there is any problem in all countries belonging to a sub-continent. In fact, Im now thinking its the better thing. Most subs are very small, and I think we should have them more balanced, like the continents in classic map... some small, some medium, some big.

Good idea, even though i already insinuated it fifty times!

[Marvaddin]

So, heres a suggestion:


Analisys and some more suggestions:
South America, 2 continents:
Green is Amazon, 6 countries, 3 borders. A medium continent. We can also remove Equador if needed.
Yellow is Mercosur, 7 countries, 4 borders. Medium continent. We can remove Tierra del Fuego, can split Brazil once more there, and can remove Chile - Peru border, since its small and confuse (if we do, 3 borders).

North America, 2 continents:
Gray is Anglo Saxon, 9 countries, 4 borders (including Nunavut). Big continent. Here is easy to increase or decrease number of countries.
Red is Central America, 5 countries, 3 borders. Small continent. I removed caribbean - venezuela route.

Africa, 3 continents:
Red is South Africa, 7 countries, 4 borders. Medium continent. Maybe we can remove South Africa route to Antartic.
Green is Central Africa, or we can call it something related to Nile river or something. 7 countries and 5 borders (difficult medium continent, like Europe in classic map). I merged Kenya and Somalia, and changed Chad -Lybia border, so now Sudan is not in border.
Light blue is North Africa, Mahgreb or something. 9 countries, 5 borders. I removed Cote Divoire, Senegal and Tunisia, and Italy - Africa route. We also can merge Niger and Nigeria (so 4 borders), and maybe use one of the removed countries if wanted.

Europe, 2 continents:
Brown is Western Europe, 6 countries, 4 borders. Medium continent.
Yellow is Eastern Europe, 11 countries, 4 borders (10 and 3 if Poland merged with Austria like last version). Maybe rename Austria to Bulgaria or Hungary. Its a gigantic contienent. Maybe we can have Scandinavia as a tiny independent continent here.

Asia, 4 continents:
Russia, but we need change it, because actually it has 5 countries and 5 borders.
Pink is Middle East, 5 countries and 3 borders, a small continent.
Gray is Asian Southeast, I removed Malayisia, Taiwan and Java as countries; now it has 8 countries and 4 borders, its a medium.
Orange is Main Asia, or something, I dont have a good name. Now, a gigantic with 11 countries and 6 borders. Gigantic one. We can change easily the number of countries, removing stans, for example, or splitting China.

Oceania, one continent, 6 countries (with Australia splitted in 3), 2 borders. Maybe we can add one more border connecting Sumatra to Australia, or Australian Claim to there.

About Antartic, I think it should be one continent, not only neutral countries. I would also remove the route to Africa.

So, its a new suggestion. Im looking for the best way to split Brazil.

[wcaclimbing]

is it just me or is it impossible to read half of the text with it recolored the way it is?

[AndyDufresne]

Marv's version isn't for 'true clarity', it's just to show a rough outline of what he thinks the overall world looks like.


--Andy

[coup]

moska and baltics are kind of scandinavian

no, they are not scandinavian. Scandinavia is Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland. And sometimes not even Finland or Iceland, but it depends on who you're asking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia


I might be picky, but hey, I'm from Norway, so I'm allowed to

[Handsome Josh]

That would be a sweet map but it would need more than six players and a long time to play. I think one game alone would be a tournament.

[sfhbballnut]

8 player games, this would be the first map capable of handling them

[cowshrptrn]

well, you woudl get mroe armies each turn in the beginning, probably around 5 or so instead of 3, that woudl make it go a bit faster, you jsut would do more each turn, which i think woudl make the game go faster, instead of conquering one or two coutnreis each trun in the beginning you can go for 3 or 4, which woudl really help you concentrate guys. PLus the larger number of continents makes it easier in general to hold smaller ones which makes this a very, very offensive map (those seem like a lot more fun to play!)

sorry for the longwinded post, short version:

This map owns

[happysadfun]

is it just me or is it impossible to read half of the text with it recolored the way it is?

it's a suggestion map, not the real one.

[happysadfun]

moska and baltics are kind of scandinavian

no, they are not scandinavian. Scandinavia is Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland. And sometimes not even Finland or Iceland, but it depends on who you're asking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia


I might be picky, but hey, I'm from Norway, so I'm allowed to

Estonia sometimes considers itself to be a Scandinavian country by virtue of its cultural heritage and close linguistic links to Finland, although normally Estonia is regarded as one of the Baltic countries. All Baltic states have shared historical events with the Scandinavian countries during the centuries.

It still works.

And my suggestion map. Forgot to label Denmark

[cowshrptrn]

i must commend you on the amazing quality of that map, its so amazingly good i can't tell what's going on in it at all! what exactly do all those triangles, circles, and squares mean anyway?

[AndyDufresne]

I believe he's pointing out what the names should be for the subcontinent regions...and people usually understand things better when they see it visually, than written out in words in paragraph.


--Andy

[reverend_kyle]

POC, its not australasia unless it has indonesia and actually ASIAN countries in it.

[Rook38]

great map, would love to see it in use

[zim]

I also attempted resizing to 600 pixels while keeping the text larger. It needs some tweaking but per Andy's advice I wanted to make sure I wasn't setting myself up for a tonne of rework...



Happysadfun wrote:

...plus nepal needs to be with the indian subcontinent....

Done.

Gavin_sidhu wrote:

If ur not going to add more subcontinents, get rid of the USA one. All continents have only 2 subcontinents except North America which has 3...

Also I think alot (basically all) of your subcontinents are worth too much. Andes has 3 countries and worth 3? USA has 4 countries and worth 4? If bonuses are that big it might be too easy to take out a whole continent...

Gavin, I've added a fourth subcontinent to Asia so we have Asia with 4, NA with 3 and all others with 2. I think this is a reasonable balance in terms of number of subcontinents. On the armies I'm also not sure what the right answer is. I built a spreadsheet using the borders/territory counts from Classic as a baseline and then applying the average of these to my map the results (rounded) are what you see on the map. I could halve the amounts maintaining the ratio with a few additional roundings, do you think this would be better? I'm frankly not sure what the right answer is myself, I'm not aware of a map of this scale in use so I don't know whether the bonuses are too big or just right or maybe even too small (though I doubt the last).

Happysadfun wrote:

USA+Canada+Alaska=Anglo America
Caribbean area+central america=spanish north

Happy; why create uncommon or unconventional groupings where their are existing countries (USA, Canada) or standard geo-political terms (Central America) for a region? I'm aiming for the most accurate/contemporary representation I can achieve within the 600/800 pixel constraint.

Marvaddin wrote:

Plus, your ocean is ugly (my opinion), and the borders in Europe and India are invisible.

Marv; I've tried a different water background. Let me know if you like this one.

Skycaptain wrote:

Also, just aesthetically, the line between Sakha and Alaska doesn't meet. Should be easy enough to fix, just for looks.

Fixed.

Spiesr wrote:

I can't really see the borders in the blue green part of europe.

Spiesr, I've changed the shade of green to try and get more contrast, let me know what you think.

Marvaddin wrote:

I dont think there is any problem in all countries belonging to a sub-continent. In fact, Im now thinking its the better thing. Most subs are very small, and I think we should have them more balanced, like the continents in classic map... some small, some medium, some big.

And then posted a suggested lay out for a map with all territories as part of a subcontinent.

and

Happysadfun wrote (some in very small type):

Good idea, even though i already insinuated it fifty times!

And then posted a map with all territories as part of a subcontinent.

Marv/Happy; first thanks for taking the time to think through versions with every territory part of a subcontinent and a 'full' continent. I appreciate the energy and the effort but, I fundamentally disagree. The concept of the subcontinents is meant to give some areas of the map greater strategic significance not to water down or replace the function of the full/traditional continent. I think having every territory part of a subcontinent would be much less interesting than the current approach which has only some territories as parts of one. I'm happy to discuss changing the composition of the subcontinents in order to achieve optimal game play or the differences between them can be solved by adjusting the bonus army counts.

Marvaddin wrote:

About Antartic, I think it should be one continent, not only neutral countries. I would also remove the route to Africa.

Marv; not 100% sure what you meant here. Did you want Antarctica to have a bonus like any other continent (I think this is what you meant) or did you want it to become a single territory? If the former I could do this though I like the no bonus idea. If the latter I disagree it needs to be multiple territories. On the route to Africa I think it makes Africa a more interesting continent.

Cowshrptrn wrote:

Short version: This map owns

Thanks!

And thanks again everyone for your comments, suggestions and support.

Cheers,

Zim

[maritovw]

Peru and Ecuador should deffinitively be part of Andes, this mountain range (the Andes) goes thru all Peru (and Ecuador, if i'm not mistaken), and besides, i think the amazonia doesn't reach Peru nor Ecuador..

it's Colombia, not Columbia

does Tierra de Fuego belong to Andes? i think it shouldn't

[Marvaddin]

Marv/Happy; first thanks for taking the time to think through versions with every territory part of a subcontinent and a 'full' continent. I appreciate the energy and the effort but, I fundamentally disagree. The concept of the subcontinents is meant to give some areas of the map greater strategic significance not to water down or replace the function of the full/traditional continent. I think having every territory part of a subcontinent would be much less interesting than the current approach which has only some territories as parts of one. I'm happy to discuss changing the composition of the subcontinents in order to achieve optimal game play or the differences between them can be solved by adjusting the bonus army counts.

Well, if you want give some areas greater strategic significance, you can simply make them more easily holdable. Like Asia in classic map, some areas will not have that interest. If you think its more interesting like it is now, it can be discussed, maybe a poll can help us. But I want expose my reasons about this.
1) I really dislike the way the non-in-sub countries are dispersed. No problem have some sparse, but they are connected and concentred in areas that looks like subcontinents. And look at the area near Middle East, really a subcontinent desert, the same problem as Scorba said some time ago... a great area that will be useless, almost without fights.
2) I dislike the way almost all subs are small and easy to hold. Many, many areas with 3 countries, and 4. Only a few with 6 countries or more. This way you are limiting strategies, no slot for try a more difficult area. However, many of them are poor designed, like Russia and USA, all countries in the borders. And you should remember, the original continents are almost useless, because they are very difficult to hold. How many time you imagine until Africa (for example) being taken? Ok, so Africa is very difficult... And Europe? And North America? By the way, you want North America as the best place, because while you expand to the real continent, you can get 3 small bonuses. This is not balanced. But anyway, the real continent should complement the subs, not the contrary, in my opinion. Simple: the great ones are almost impossible.
3) Making all countries part of a sub, it would make easier to understand the map. Europe, for example, that non-sub area looks like a sub. Same with Asian Southeast, that area in South America... The thick borders suck, and they are ugly, look at Japan, or Indonesia. And remember, with numbers over it, no one can tell to what subs (or non sub area) countries like Taiwan, Malaysia and Tunisia belongs.

You can consider the idea of make a poll, but even if you dont, we need change many things, because the actual sub system is terrible (my opinion).

[gavin_sidhu]

Gavin_sidhu wrote:

If ur not going to add more subcontinents, get rid of the USA one. All continents have only 2 subcontinents except North America which has 3...

Also I think alot (basically all) of your subcontinents are worth too much. Andes has 3 countries and worth 3? USA has 4 countries and worth 4? If bonuses are that big it might be too easy to take out a whole continent...

Gavin, I've added a fourth subcontinent to Asia so we have Asia with 4, NA with 3 and all others with 2. I think this is a reasonable balance in terms of number of subcontinents. On the armies I'm also not sure what the right answer is. I built a spreadsheet using the borders/territory counts from Classic as a baseline and then applying the average of these to my map the results (rounded) are what you see on the map. I could halve the amounts maintaining the ratio with a few additional roundings, do you think this would be better? I'm frankly not sure what the right answer is myself, I'm not aware of a map of this scale in use so I don't know whether the bonuses are too big or just right or maybe even too small (though I doubt the last).

First of all your sea is terrible, i feel like im on the edge of a nice calming pond. War (and Risk) isnt nice and calming.

I think halving the bonuses would be a good thing, as currently there is no real advantage of owning the whole continent rather than just the subcontinents (for your latest sub-continent, Orient you have 3 countries with 2 borders worth 3, South America in the real map is worth less and has more territories! should be worth 1). In Africa you only get an additional bonus of two if you take out all those non-subcontinent territories, people are unlikely to do this and will just go for more subcontinents.

Agree with Marv, North America and South America are going to be the easies and most likely continents to be taken. In north America you have 4 non-subcontinent territories at all different parts of the map; for South America you have 3 non-subcontinent territories. For Africa you have 9 non-subcontinent territories (nobody is going to go for the whole african continent).

If you do not wish to make all territories a subcontinent the solution would be not to have subcontinents of different continents bordering each other, but having the non-subcontinent territories break them up. (you pretty much have this except for North-South America, Maghreb-Amazonia and Maghreb-West Europe).