Page 7 of 40
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:28 am
by EmperorOfDaNorth
EmperorOfDaNorth - I'm confused by your suggestion to get rid of all the small countries except Vatican City, as it seems contradictory.
Yes.
It was a joke, because my avatar is inspired on the flag of the Vatican.
Indeed it's contradictory and indeed I'd prefer not to see any of the tiny city-states..
Overall I think the map is morphing more and more into the current Europe map, with some added territories. In that sense I also don't mind there being a big continent in the middle, us Escalating people NEED a central place that's not heavily contested because it's impossible to hold!
Of course the current Europe map has TWO large continents that are impossible to hold, so at least this is improved by cutting up Western Europe.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:33 am
by Lone.prophet
france and spain isnt west-europe its south-europe
and what now is central-europe is west-europe
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:44 am
by EmperorOfDaNorth
True; Because it's all called Western Europe in the existing map, that's why I said 'cutting up Western Europe'.
Of course the existing Europe map is really weird in the way territories are named. Like it calls all of Holland "Belgium", all of central Europe "Germany" and so on.
I'd say in ADDITION to having this new map, the old one needs a revamp in the naming. Belgium -> 'Benelux' , 'Germany' -> Central Europe, Israel includes the lot of Jordan which I bet will raise some eyebrows in that region, etc.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:50 am
by Ruben Cassar
iancanton wrote:we now have a huge green continent in the middle which is no-one's favourite to occupy. for gameplay reasons (a larger continent in the corner and smaller one in the middle is more balanced than vice versa), i suggest a different split: belarus, ukraine and moldova to be grouped with european russia, kaliningrad and the caucasus as a cis (commonwealth of independent states) continent, while the rest of the greens remain as eastern europe. draw the impassable river prut as a border between east european romania and cis moldova, to reach the black sea.
http://www.cis.minsk.by/main.aspx?uid=3390ian.
This is a very good idea. I think you should make a continent called C.I.S. states and include: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Moldova can be left as part of Eastern Europe.
I still think you should make Cyprus as a neutral territory and Eastern Turkey and Crete as part of the Balkans.
Western Europe is not a good name for that continent. If you have to name it it should be called Franco-Iberian states or something like that.
Also as I said before it makes no sense making the islands of Spain (Balearic Islands), France (Corsica) and Greece (Crete) part of separate continents different from the mainland. They are one country.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:15 am
by MrBenn
Chirondom wrote:...It's more geographically correct, yes, but what makes it different enough to warrant its own map? It's not all that much bigger. I really think you should do more subcontinents and the like.
Hmmm... Where would the other continents come from? There is plenty of debate about about Eastern/Transcontinental Europe at the moment, and it looks like I'm not going to please anybody (probably including myself at this rate
)
Here are my current thoughts on further sub-divisions (except East/Trans.):
-Benelux is a natural division of countries, although all 3 terrs would be borders...
-I'm contemplating breaking Italy (+SM +VC) into another small continent ("Italy"), and grouping all the Meditteranean Islands together again - which might answer the following point:.
Ruben Cassar wrote:As I said before it makes no sense making the islands of Spain (Balearic Islands), France (Corsica) and Greece (Crete) part of separate continents different from the mainland. They are one country....
----------
qwert wrote:these is look better,but you still need to European Turkey put in Balkan to.
yeti_c wrote:On Turkey - I do think it looks a bit weird it being all on it's own over there!! (I still think it's weird that you've not included the whole country!)
iancanton wrote:i agree with both qwert and ruben cassar that european turkey has to be in the balkans...
My personal preference would be to have the whole of Turkey, and keep it Transcontinental, as in my original draft.
Ruben Cassar wrote:I still think you should make Cyprus as a neutral territory and Eastern Turkey and Crete as part of the Balkans.
oaktown wrote:have you considered losing the attack route from Malta to Crete? It doesn't make sense, and it results in the map basically playing like the present European map.... Trouble is, then you have a bottleneck leading to a dead end... unless you dropped cyprus...
lol - I only added the Malta/Crete route to keep the Med connected after changing Greece to the Balkans.
The Balkan Peninsular, nearby Islands and Turkey is causing me a lot of grief at the moment, and almost makes me feel like I want to give up on the whole thing.
yeti_c wrote:PS Loving this map... can't wait for a good european map to be on the site.
...But comments like that keep me going.
iancanton wrote:while on the subject of the balkans, croatia must grow in size (sorry, qwert!). the coastal part needs to be extended so that it can attack montenegro.
I will put this on my 'to do' list - I think I can do it without making Bosnia and Herzegovinia any smaller.
EmperorOfDaNorth wrote:Overall I think the map is morphing more and more into the current Europe map...
Hmmm.... game-play-wise that might be the case at the moment. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
It is not my intention to simply update the geography - and I deliberately haven't been looking at the existing Europe map during development.
I think game-play is still evolving, and will hopefully grow into something individual.
iancanton wrote:we now have a huge green continent in the middle... i suggest a different split... a cis (commonwealth of independent states) continent
Ruben Cassar wrote:This is a very good idea....
I need to have a think about this.
----------
Thank you all for your input. Some suggestions/comments are real gems - please keep them coming.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:22 am
by Qwert
I realy dont understand,why you create issue with European turkey.Hes a part of Balkan and nobody can say oposite.
I hope that you know these.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:40 am
by MrBenn
MrBenn wrote:qwert wrote:these is look better,but you still need to European Turkey put in Balkan to.
yeti_c wrote:On Turkey - I do think it looks a bit weird it being all on it's own over there!! (I still think it's weird that you've not included the whole country!)
My personal preference would be to have the whole of Turkey, and keep it Transcontinental, as in my original draft.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:44 am
by yeti_c
MrBenn wrote:MrBenn wrote:qwert wrote:these is look better,but you still need to European Turkey put in Balkan to.
yeti_c wrote:On Turkey - I do think it looks a bit weird it being all on it's own over there!! (I still think it's weird that you've not included the whole country!)
My personal preference would be to have the whole of Turkey, and keep it Transcontinental, as in my original draft.
I think that would suit a) Gameplay b) Looks & c) geographical accuracy...
a) A nice continent of few territories running down the edge of the map.
b) It won't look like you've gotten the colour wrong and also that won't confuse Colourblind people too
c) Yes - technically the european part of Turkey is in the balkans...
But also the whole country (which is bigger) is a Transcontinental country.
C.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:59 am
by Ogrecrusher
I say include the whole of Turkey too. It seems weird to cut half of it out.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:06 pm
by madsanders
Please allow me to re-introduce my idea of a continent consisting of Turkey (all of it) Greece, Crete and Cyprus - then you could also make the suggested CIS continent, or whatever you would like to call it.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:41 pm
by militant
Militant - A +2 bonus for 3 countries with 2 borders to protect doesn't seem high to me. Capturing the continet shouldn't be too difficult, but keeping it will be - Austrailia on Classic is easier to hold and has a +2 bonus....
I disagree, a plus two bonus could greatly affect gameplay in 4 player games or lower. If the map has 60ish territories then in a four player game a player would start with 15 territories, that is without neutrals, so you may get 4 armies. If you got just one territory in that continent you could take that in the first turn, which is silly because you would then get 7 armies (with the addition of 2 territorys and a bonus) Anyway, oceania is a double sided blade because you have nowhere to expand to apart from the biggest continent on the map. With this map you could easily expand into "Transcontinental" continent, although you would have to have a territory next to kalingrad.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:53 pm
by Chirondom
Hmmm... Where would the other continents come from? There is plenty of debate about about Eastern/Transcontinental Europe at the moment, and it looks like I'm not going to please anybody (probably including myself at this rate )
Break up countries into regions, and give a sub-continent bonus for holding those countries. You've already done this with the UK.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:09 pm
by Qwert
Chirondom
Break up countries into regions, and give a sub-continent bonus for holding those countries. You've already done this with the UK.
interesting idea
Well you can put european(balkan)turkey to Balkan and Asian turkey you can put with other asian european country.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:16 pm
by Lone.prophet
EmperorOfDaNorth wrote:True; Because it's all called Western Europe in the existing map, that's why I said 'cutting up Western Europe'.
Of course the existing Europe map is really weird in the way territories are named. Like it calls all of Holland "Belgium", all of central Europe "Germany" and so on.
I'd say in ADDITION to having this new map, the old one needs a revamp in the naming. Belgium -> 'Benelux' , 'Germany' -> Central Europe, Israel includes the lot of Jordan which I bet will raise some eyebrows in that region, etc.
i dont get this comment
what i said your map is wrong
what you have as central europe is actually western europe
and what you have as western europe is southern europe
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:18 am
by EmperorOfDaNorth
I don't like the name C.I.S.. CIS was a face-saving tool to have an amicable divorce between the former USSR republics. It has little meaning now, in fact a lot of the countries (Georgia) try their hardest to get as far away from it as possible.
(And besides, if you call it CIS then Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova are part of it.)
I do however like the transcontinental bit. It's the part where Europe and Asia collide, and where wars between those were fought pretty much since Alexander the Great onwards.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:23 am
by EmperorOfDaNorth
Lone.prophet wrote:EmperorOfDaNorth wrote:True; Because it's all called Western Europe in the existing map, that's why I said 'cutting up Western Europe'.
Of course the existing Europe map is really weird in the way territories are named. Like it calls all of Holland "Belgium", all of central Europe "Germany" and so on.
I'd say in ADDITION to having this new map, the old one needs a revamp in the naming. Belgium -> 'Benelux' , 'Germany' -> Central Europe, Israel includes the lot of Jordan which I bet will raise some eyebrows in that region, etc.
i dont get this comment
what i said your map is wrong
what you have as central europe is actually western europe
and what you have as western europe is southern europe
I'm not the one making the map! I do agree with you.
What's currently Western Europe (Port. Spain, France) can be called 'South-Western Europe' if you want.
What's currentty Central Europe is Western Europe.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:03 am
by Ruben Cassar
EmperorOfDaNorth wrote:Lone.prophet wrote:EmperorOfDaNorth wrote:True; Because it's all called Western Europe in the existing map, that's why I said 'cutting up Western Europe'.
Of course the existing Europe map is really weird in the way territories are named. Like it calls all of Holland "Belgium", all of central Europe "Germany" and so on.
I'd say in ADDITION to having this new map, the old one needs a revamp in the naming. Belgium -> 'Benelux' , 'Germany' -> Central Europe, Israel includes the lot of Jordan which I bet will raise some eyebrows in that region, etc.
i dont get this comment
what i said your map is wrong
what you have as central europe is actually western europe
and what you have as western europe is southern europe
I'm not the one making the map! I do agree with you.
What's currently Western Europe (Port. Spain, France) can be called 'South-Western Europe' if you want.
What's currentty Central Europe is Western Europe.
Actually I think you are both wrong or both right according to the perspective from which you look at it.
What is currently Central Europe in fact considered as Central Europe. However when the East-West divide is used it falls under Western Europe. This breakup dates back from the Cold War.
Similarly Southern Europe like Italy is considered as part of Western Europe when the old East-West divide is used.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:08 am
by gimil
Ruben its always nice when you pop in to help out a thread
We need more people like you around these days.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:42 pm
by MrBenn
Ruben Cassar wrote:EmperorOfDaNorth wrote:Lone.prophet wrote:EmperorOfDaNorth wrote:True; Because it's all called Western Europe in the existing map, that's why I said 'cutting up Western Europe'.
Of course the existing Europe map is really weird in the way territories are named. Like it calls all of Holland "Belgium", all of central Europe "Germany" and so on.
I'd say in ADDITION to having this new map, the old one needs a revamp in the naming. Belgium -> 'Benelux' , 'Germany' -> Central Europe, Israel includes the lot of Jordan which I bet will raise some eyebrows in that region, etc.
i dont get this comment
what i said your map is wrong
what you have as central europe is actually western europe
and what you have as western europe is southern europe
I'm not the one making the map! I do agree with you.
What's currently Western Europe (Port. Spain, France) can be called 'South-Western Europe' if you want.
What's currentty Central Europe is Western Europe.
Actually I think you are both wrong or both right according to the perspective from which you look at it.
What is currently Central Europe in fact considered as Central Europe. However when the East-West divide is used it falls under Western Europe. This breakup dates back from the Cold War.
Similarly Southern Europe like Italy is considered as part of Western Europe when the old East-West divide is used.
Thanks Ruben
I'd like to add that when you look at the map, what I've labelled 'Western Europe' is to the West, and 'Central Europe' is in the middle.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:00 pm
by Lone.prophet
ITS NO REVAMP
and about western and central, because you made it so circular spain and france are way more west than they are so thats just optical i still think you should change them
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:08 pm
by MrBenn
Lone.prophet wrote:ITS NO REVAMP
I've never said it's a revamp. In fact the title of the thread is even "New Europe [NOT-a-revamp]".
Who is this comment directed to?
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:16 pm
by Lone.prophet
lol looked somewhere else and responeded here
Lone.prophet wrote:and about western and central, because you made it so circular spain and france are way more west than they are so thats just optical i still think you should change them
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:10 pm
by Ruben Cassar
gimil wrote:Ruben its always nice when you pop in to help out a thread
We need more people like you around these days.
Err well what can I say?
Thanks for the nice words, you're too kind Gimil!
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:46 pm
by gimil
Ruben Cassar wrote:gimil wrote:Ruben its always nice when you pop in to help out a thread
We need more people like you around these days.
Err well what can I say?
Thanks for the nice words, you're too kind Gimil!
May be all the help you gave in portugal made me a little biased
**off topic ends here**
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:56 pm
by MarVal
It looks its going in a real good direction. Great work for so far.
One thing I noticed and that is;
- you forgot the letter "t" in Liechtenstein.
Grtz
MarVal