Moderator: Cartographers
Hopefully you can now - having some troubles with my connection so could only upload a seriously compressed image in the end.natty_dread wrote:Can't see image.
Yeah - I think it will be - I was aiming for a warped TV-screen-styled map at one point - as if the map were on a superpowers' monitor. However, that wont really work with the inset, so I will revert back to square for the next version.CptJMoney wrote:Why is the map all warped? Can't it be a regular square?
Something to think about certainly. I'm just thinking that gameplay-wise it may work better to consider the left all-together as much as possible, to create a balance and equal value for players to focus on one (the left) or the other (NATO & allies). This also applies to regions where there was a soviet/chinese/left-wing influence/administration at some point during the cold war so that we get enough red and light-red regions for the bonus system to work (in comparison to blue and light-blue regions). So, nations that reverted from left-to-right are taken as left - kind of artistic licence for gameplay purposes.murdocho wrote:What about the Sino-Soviet rift ??? The Soviets and the Chinese were by no means some communist monolith. There was a pretty heavy falling out in the late 50s-early 60s, and some serious competition followed, including actual fighting along the border. Although rarely mentioned, the Sino-Soviet split was a pretty significant element of the Cold War.
I know you don't want to make the map too complicated, but has anyone considered factoring the split with separate China bonuses and objectives? What I'm thinking is color China completely differently and create a bonus for holding just China, to simulate independent Chinese foreign policy; a bonus for China and USSR, to simulate if the split hadn't of happened; and a large bonus for control of US and China, to simulate what a tremendous advantage it would have been if the US had exploited the rift, or won China over earlier, so to speak.
You could go farther with objectives for influence in the third world... but maybe that would be better for another map..
I'm wondering if this would do better if it was supersized a bitDJ Teflon wrote: Yeah - I think it will be - I was aiming for a warped TV-screen-styled map at one point - as if the map were on a superpowers' monitor. However, that wont really work with the inset, so I will revert back to square for the next version.
This version was mainly about getting the Europe inset right ... square update coming soon. I'm also wondering if a central america inset might be better than trying to increase its size?
That was my idea with the monitors - somehow a large monitor for the main map, smaller monitors below for the Europe inset and legend, and maybe Central America?isaiah40 wrote:I'm wondering if this would do better if it was supersized a bitDJ Teflon wrote: Yeah - I think it will be - I was aiming for a warped TV-screen-styled map at one point - as if the map were on a superpowers' monitor. However, that wont really work with the inset, so I will revert back to square for the next version.
This version was mainly about getting the Europe inset right ... square update coming soon. I'm also wondering if a central america inset might be better than trying to increase its size?![]()
If you do the supersize map, then you could do the insets as TV monitors as well. Maybe like a bank of monitors, to monitor different areas of the globe, IDK but it might work.

Yea, that's what I'd go with. and as natty said:DJ Teflon wrote:That was my idea with the monitors - somehow a large monitor for the main map, smaller monitors below for the Europe inset and legend, and maybe Central America?
This way everything would fit in nicely. Submit a request for supersize! I'd really like to see this map continued.natty_dread wrote:I think supersize would be good for this map. In fact I think it'd be pretty much necessary.

Instead, there could also be a 'Peacemakers' region, which cannot be attacked by a player holding Nuclear War and visa-versa (conditional borders), and, a decay on all geographic regions at start of turn by any player holding nuclear war (conditional decay assuming this is possible)? Rather than nuclear war being a total losing condition, it would be a major disadvantage instead (to a player that invokes it but fails to win on first strike).There's one element that I'm thinking might be really interesting to add in, that being Nuclear War. Make it border from the UN security Council and bombard every territory. Think of it as a player able to go from Soviet Union to their council seat to nuke war. BUT, if Nuke war is held then the player loses by losing conditions.
Yeah - this layout with bottom part of main globe squashed and 3 TV screens.thenobodies80 wrote:If you ask to me I prefer this layout DJ