"Lucky Charms" vs "Works of Art"!oaktown wrote:so, it's Lucky Charms Classic vs. Post-Modern Classic in a fight to determine the future of the map. May the best abstract interpretation win!
C.
Moderator: Cartographers
"Lucky Charms" vs "Works of Art"!oaktown wrote:so, it's Lucky Charms Classic vs. Post-Modern Classic in a fight to determine the future of the map. May the best abstract interpretation win!



I didn't understand. What does this mean?mpjh wrote: the ability to pass armies through your own territory (at a loss of some armies of course).
As much as I appreciate the effort, there is no reason on God's earth (no pun) why we can't have a REAL world map. Hasbro cannot claim ownership of the layout of the continents. The issue has got to be with the division (and perhaps to a lesser degree the naming) of territories.Pedronicus wrote:I was moaned at the other day by MB for not being constructive.
Here is me being constructive.
I've searched the internet for a Parallel Earth and come up with this...
Dragon Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_World
map
this map could be bastardised to suit the classic gameplay, you call it Parallel Earth and rename 'zones'
a) It didn't appear to be an announcement so much as a vote on another interim mapMrBenn wrote:If you haven't seen the site-wide announcement, head this wayhttp://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... =6&t=67126
Any action can only be judged a fiasco if we know what the intent was... let's just say that this morning's poll was unique.Optimus Prime wrote:After the fiasco with the poll this morning, I doubt they are even going to have a competition.
I think you just skimmed over my post.samuelc812 wrote:The new cassic can't be of World continents, so wouldn't tracing the Classic map be pointless???
Yes, it can be the world, and it can have the same world continents. No one can claim ownership of the layout of the continents, nor of representing that in a graphic. The only claim can be in the combinations (map + territories + names + gameplay) that are uniquely Risk.samuelc812 wrote:The new classic can't be of World continents, so wouldn't tracing the Classic map be pointless???
no... this is incorrect.delahoc wrote:Yes, it can be the world, and it can have the same world continents. No one can claim ownership of the layout of the continents, nor of representing that in a graphic. The only claim can be in the combinations (map + territories + names + gameplay) that are uniquely Risk.samuelc812 wrote:The new classic can't be of World continents, so wouldn't tracing the Classic map be pointless???
So a sufficiently different world map should be fine. Again, all of this (in fact all of this thread) is purely conjecture until we are told what is acceptable and what isn't - as I first said right at the start.
Indeed it is wrongdelahoc wrote:Yes, it can be the world, and it can have the same world continents. No one can claim ownership of the layout of the continents, nor of representing that in a graphic. The only claim can be in the combinations (map + territories + names + gameplay) that are uniquely Risk.samuelc812 wrote:The new classic can't be of World continents, so wouldn't tracing the Classic map be pointless???
So a sufficiently different world map should be fine. Again, all of this (in fact all of this thread) is purely conjecture until we are told what is acceptable and what isn't - as I first said right at the start.
samuelc812 wrote:I am pretty sure the aim is to have the revamped classic, with the same gameplay as the old one with different graphics....