Moderator: Cartographers
losrivas wrote:Would there be a way to make Egypt part of the Middle East AND Africa? Egypt is ideologically and geographically close to the Middle East, and it would create an interesting dynamic, like in the Space map, where opponents must perpetually go back and forth on a territory since it belongs to two continents simultaneously.
I also agree that another East-West connection is necessary.
AndyDufresne wrote:As for the poll, you'd need to delete/edit the poll and make it different. Unable to have two polls running in the same thread.
--Andy
happysadfun wrote: This is how i would split south america, if three subbonuses would be possible.
zarvinny wrote:besides alaska to kamchatka and the antartica connections, i belive there should be at LEAST 1 more connection from east to west. Perhaps australia to argentina, or japan to united states. I think that this would increase the mobility on the map
ttocs wrote:Yeah, i would like to see another east west border too, mabye add a hawaii territory linking us to japan (pearl harbor)
ttocs wrote:losrivas wrote:Would there be a way to make Egypt part of the Middle East AND Africa? Egypt is ideologically and geographically close to the Middle East, and it would create an interesting dynamic, like in the Space map, where opponents must perpetually go back and forth on a territory since it belongs to two continents simultaneously.
I also agree that another East-West connection is necessary.
I do agree with you on the idea of east west, but the egypt border thing would probably mess up the africa bonus, because then it makes the middle east part of africa, which we probably dont want.
zim wrote:Maritovw, I presume you mean for the Plata area as currently shown? If so I think Plata is a more interesting name and but I'm open to persuasion, show me a reference or two for South Cone and I'll think on it.
maritovw wrote:Actually, it is Southern Cone. it should be formed by: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay. In addition, you could add Parana and Tierra del Fuego, as it is part of Argentina & Chile.
Marvaddin wrote:maritovw wrote:Actually, it is Southern Cone. it should be formed by: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay. In addition, you could add Parana and Tierra del Fuego, as it is part of Argentina & Chile.
Hey, do you think Argentina is larger than Brazil???
Seriously, Parana is part of Brazil.
Agree with these two statements. I like how there are very few neutral countries in South America and there locations are not together and are in strategically important places (Norht East Brazil connecting to America).Marvaddin wrote:I think South America is now perfect,
I believe South America is done, we can now discuss another continent
maritovw wrote:Marvaddin wrote:maritovw wrote:Actually, it is Southern Cone. it should be formed by: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay. In addition, you could add Parana and Tierra del Fuego, as it is part of Argentina & Chile.
Hey, do you think Argentina is larger than Brazil???
Seriously, Parana is part of Brazil.
sorry if i did not explain myself right. i meant Tierra del Fuego is part of Argentina & Chile. of course i know Parana is part of Brazil! i mean, wasn't it a brazilian final last year in Copa Libertadores when Sao Paulo trashed Atletico Paranaense?!?!? ... ademas, como no voy a conocer la geografĆa de Latinoamerica si soy de Guatemala?!
and btw, don't you like Southern Cone??
Marvaddin wrote:VocĆŖ sabe o nome em inglĆŖs da Bacia Platina, que eu chamei de "Plata"?
I think it would work either way but chilean posessions were relatively important and did include santiago, renamedf by the spanish conquistadores.zim wrote:happysadfun wrote:n"] This is how i would split south america, if three subbonuses would be possible.
Happy; Let me make sure I've got your suggestion. Plata remains as currently drawn (Parana, Paraguay, Urugauy, and Argentina). Amazon shrinks to Colombia, Venezuala and Amazonas (and not sure if you mean to include Guyanas?). Tawantinsuyu is added containing Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Chile. Leaving NE Brazil, TdelF (and maybe Guyanas) neutral. If I've got the plan correct let's see what people think versus Marvin's suggestion (which is what is currently in the map). If we were to go forward with your approach I'd argue for Guyanas to be neutral given that it doesn't contain much of the Amazon forest and isn't part of the river system. I'd also maybe keep Chile as a neutral given the it was only the northern part of it was ever Incan and then only briefly (25 years or so). What do you think?
Those were mine.Zim with Edits wrote:I think Hawaii could be done, it would wind up being aligned with Mexico (or maybe the us I mean connect it to the us) in the east and Japan in the west. Comments?
losrivas wrote:Would there be a way to make Egypt part of the Middle East AND Africa? Egypt is ideologically and geographically close to the Middle East, and it would create an interesting dynamic, like in the Space map, where opponents must perpetually go back and forth on a territory since it belongs to two continents simultaneously.
I also agree that another East-West connection is necessary.
happysadfun wrote:losrivas wrote:Would there be a way to make Egypt part of the Middle East AND Africa? Egypt is ideologically and geographically close to the Middle East, and it would create an interesting dynamic, like in the Space map, where opponents must perpetually go back and forth on a territory since it belongs to two continents simultaneously.
I also agree that another East-West connection is necessary.
Total AgreeingNess. The mideast would not have to be part of africa, just keep Egypt in africa and mideast but not in asia, and keep the rest in asia but not africa. you can do that with xml.
gavin_sidhu wrote:Africa is unplayable.
zim wrote:gavin_sidhu wrote:Africa is unplayable.
Everyone; I think South America, North America and Oceania
(with the exception of the newly added Hawaii whose Asian and North American connections are very much open for discussion).are "done" from a continental perspective (lots of debate still to be had around bonuses) are you all aligned? Yes, but still think you should link Carrabien to Guyanas to make Guyanas more valuable.
Still to be discussed/debated;
Final tweaks on Asia:
I think we're close; two unresolved issues,
a) should Pakistan be part of Indian subcontinent?
I think not as it's not part of the Indian continental plate and given the India/Pakistan conflict I think it's more accurate they remain seperate.Do you mean Afghanistan? Pakistan is definately indian subcontinent. Now that youve added Iran to Middle East dont think you its necessary to add Afghanistan to Indian Subcontinent, could work either way though
b) should Egypt be part of the (mostly Asian) Middle East sub-contient while remaining part of the African full continent? No, that would be confusint and stupid (in my opinion anyway). Turkey should be part of Middle East though, would help improve Europe as well.
I'm reserving judgement on this pending any larger rework of Africa as whole. Africa needs another subcontinent
Europe:
Lots of early comments/discussion on this region but nothing lately are we aligned that it works as is? if you add Turkey to Asia and Middle East Europe aint that bad, maybe add Baltics to Scandnavia and have a connection from Baltics to Finland, do these and i believe Europe will be good.
Thanks as always.
Cheers,
Zim
Marvaddin wrote: its strange having a Western Australia, a Central Australia, and then, "New South Wales".
gavin_sidhu wrote:Yes, but still think you should link Carrabien to Guyanas to make Guyanas more valuable.
gavin_sidhu wrote:Do you mean Afghanistan? Pakistan is definately indian subcontinent. Now that youve added Iran to Middle East dont think you its necessary to add Afghanistan to Indian Subcontinent, could work either way though
gavin_sidhu wrote:Africa needs another subcontinent
Sully800 wrote:Africe has 32 countries. It would be simply impossible to capture. Break that up into 3 seperate continents and it MIGHT be feasible. This would also let you have more borders for some continents.
Scorba wrote:I would like to see at least two sub-regions in each continent (three in Asia and Africa)
and this was also suggested by Happy in an earlier version.gavin_sidhu wrote:Turkey should be part of Middle East though, would help improve Europe as well.
maritovw wrote:i'd connect Hawaii to a country in Oceania (Philippines?) and also to Japan; not Taiwan. here are my reasons:
- first of all, geographically, Hawaii is an island of Polynesia, which is a part of Oceania. in your map, judging by the color, Hawaii is part of Oceania, but it is not connected to any other Oceania country...
- during the US' WW2 Pacific Ocean campaign, the battles with Japan were to gain control of many islands of Oceania. by controlling this islands, the US' troops wolud be closer to Japan. since this little islands are not in this map, a connection between Japan and Hawaii would be historically accurate.
marvaddin wrote:Also, I agree about one more West - East connection, but this Hawaii - Taiwan isnt the best idea, I think. Is Hawaii in its real position? Anyway, it should be part of North America, of course, not Oceania.
marvaddin wrote:I think Oceania should be Australia, Caledonia, New Zealand, and Papua... Indonesia, Philippines, Brunei... c'mon, these countries are Asian. Australia would be so the single subcontinent of the area, but we could try another names, its strange having a Western Australia, a Central Australia, and then, "New South Wales".
marvaddin wrote:About North America, the little continent with Mexico is ok, but the others suck. All countries in borders. The best would be put USA and Canada in same subcontinent, and including Alaska, but not Greenland. Maybe we can think about split Mexico, and remove Cuba - Mexico route (not needed).
zim wrote:Philippines, Brunei, etc. are definitely Oceania.
zim wrote:I know the continents in North America are 'border rich' however making them otherwise would require changing the nature of the countries and I don't want to do that. I think the continents are workable given that NA isn't much different in size from Classic Asia in terms of territories and borders; it will be hard to acquire but relatively easy to hold once acquired as long as the bonus is rich enough... Let discuss...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users