The map formerly known as World Cities

[luxCRUSADER]

I can't wait to play on this

Great work

luxCRUSADER

[el-presidente]

lux, If that is your sig, it is way to big. If not, why post it.
Why Delhi, not like Kabul, like before or Islamabad? It is a little out of place where it is, I think. If is going to be Delhi, it should be moved a bit over to the right, but that would create an opening in the middle eastern region. IMO you should change it back to Kabul or Tehran.

[RjBeals]

just an idea
but maybe the title look something along these lines

(please ignore the graphic quality couldn't get to my photoshop computer to today)

Danyael - I like you're unique style. It always looks like your art is actually painted.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Would you consider Denver rather than Las Vegas, since you're showing Vegas where Denver should be anyway? Plus, Denver is more of an air hub anyway.

Yes, that city started as Denver and was switched to Las Vegas because someone suggested it was more of a "world city" and still close to the right geography. Looking at a map now, I see Las Vegas is too close to LA to be in the right location so I will switch it back to Denver which is still a major hub.

How disappointing. Las Vegas is just as much a major hub of travel these days; McCarran International is the 15th busiest airport in the world, compared to Denver International's 10th -- the difference is about a million passengers per year.

But what qualifies Denver as a "world city"? is it a financial, industrial, cultural capital? Not really, compared to other cities on the map that represent these things -- just within the US. Las Vegas on the other hand is unique, an entertainment capital -- the only one on the map. So what, you have to misrepresent its position a bit to fit it. You had to stretch Europe too.

Denver is bland. It could be any midwestern town: Omaha, Salt Lake City, Des Moines. Las Vegas is a much more interesting choice, and is equally realistic as a hub between cities. I vote leave it.

[captainwalrus]

Whatabout phenix? It is bigger than Denver and Las Vegas. It is the 5th largest city in the U.S. Or move it a little south east and make it Dallas or Huston?

[sully800]

How disappointing. Las Vegas is just as much a major hub of travel these days; McCarran International is the 15th busiest airport in the world, compared to Denver International's 10th -- the difference is about a million passengers per year.

But what qualifies Denver as a "world city"? is it a financial, industrial, cultural capital? Not really, compared to other cities on the map that represent these things -- just within the US. Las Vegas on the other hand is unique, an entertainment capital -- the only one on the map. So what, you have to misrepresent its position a bit to fit it. You had to stretch Europe too.

Denver is bland. It could be any midwestern town: Omaha, Salt Lake City, Des Moines. Las Vegas is a much more interesting choice, and is equally realistic as a hub between cities. I vote leave it.

It's not that Denver is more of a world city than Las Vegas, but it is a major city in a location that fits for the map. I didn't previously realize how close LV and LA are to each other. Similarly I didn't include Washington DC, Philadelphia or Boston - all cities which I would love to be included but they are too close to NY and Montreal. I suppose it could stay as Las Vegas with a little bit of shifting, but I think Denver is a large enough city to be included as well.

Whatabout phenix? It is bigger than Denver and Las Vegas. It is the 5th largest city in the U.S. Or move it a little south east and make it Dallas or Huston?

Phoenix is also too close to LA. Any Texas city would be alright, but since it also connects to Edmonton I would prefer to keep a more centralized location.

Why Delhi, not like Kabul, like before or Islamabad? It is a little out of place where it is, I think. If is going to be Delhi, it should be moved a bit over to the right, but that would create an opening in the middle eastern region. IMO you should change it back to Kabul or Tehran.

Yes, Delhi should be moved a bit to the South and the East, but it is not that far from its real location. I initially changed it from Tehran because I was going to make the new continent Europe + Middle East instead of Europe + Mediterranean, and Tehran was not a city that was supposed to be drafted.

After looking up alternatives this is what I found:

Click image to enlarge.

Not including Delhi would make it the second largest city not included, and yet it fits easily on the map. It fits just as well as Tehran and has over double the population.

Yes, Seoul is not included but thats because it is too close to Tokyo which is the largest city. Yes, Shanghai is not included, but Beijing is very close to the same size, its the capital, its the Olympic city - and it fits better on the map. I think there is pretty good justification for all of the cities currently included based on spacing and population/importance. If you find any errors to this please let me know, but I really think Delhi is the best choice.

[SultanOfSurreal]

How disappointing. Las Vegas is just as much a major hub of travel these days; McCarran International is the 15th busiest airport in the world, compared to Denver International's 10th -- the difference is about a million passengers per year.

But what qualifies Denver as a "world city"? is it a financial, industrial, cultural capital? Not really, compared to other cities on the map that represent these things -- just within the US. Las Vegas on the other hand is unique, an entertainment capital -- the only one on the map. So what, you have to misrepresent its position a bit to fit it. You had to stretch Europe too.

Denver is bland. It could be any midwestern town: Omaha, Salt Lake City, Des Moines. Las Vegas is a much more interesting choice, and is equally realistic as a hub between cities. I vote leave it.

It's not that Denver is more of a world city than Las Vegas, but it is a major city in a location that fits for the map. I didn't previously realize how close LV and LA are to each other. Similarly I didn't include Washington DC, Philadelphia or Boston - all cities which I would love to be included but they are too close to NY and Montreal. I suppose it could stay as Las Vegas with a little bit of shifting, but I think Denver is a large enough city to be included as well.

There are lots of large cities that deserve to be included. Look at how many people have suggested Seoul, for instance. but with limited space you have to be conservative in your choices. And the main goal is the make the map fun and interesting, both from a gameplay and theme perspective, yes?

You can fudge on the location and keep Las Vegas in the same space as Denver -- you already have LA centered closer to Tijuana and New York centered closer to New Jersey anyway, for example. There is also room to move it a bit west if you feel it's necessary though.

But the main point I'm getting at is that Denver and Las Vegas would both play the same role on the map, wherever you shift the location of the army circle -- both cities are going to have the same connections. So the only question to consider when deciding between them is, which one makes the game more fun for the player conceptually -- which fits the theme better? And looking at it that way, Las Vegas is the clear choice because it is a unique addition to the map while still being a hub of international air travel (which you seem to be concerned with as well).

[thedon5]

Looking nice. I really liked the simple title from before.

And please don't remove any Indian cities, if anything, add more .

And the flags, well... The glow coming out from their borders are nice, but the flags themselves look quite bland, and uncolourful. I dunno, maybe it's just me.

And Las Vegas over Denver would be my pick. Take it from me, I don't like in the USA, I live elsewhere; but if I were to name US states, I'd name Las Vegas before Denver, definitely, and I'm sure other people from around the world would too. And for people from US, well, it's the entertainment capital, as the guy who first suggested this said!

Auckland's circle is a little high also.

And I am in favour of removing the "To London" and "To NYC". When all the other words glow (I like this better than the coloured continents), and we have a boring piece of white there, it just makes the map look worse. I propose putting it at the bottom, or maybe brightening up the letters somehow, or putting in a plain black with a white glow, or something?

Go for New York, not NYC, and not New York City, would look great. I'm not a fan at all of the abbreviations, as I suppose you are, sully. So Los Angeles as well, would be nice.

How about Johannesburg instead of Cape Town, as well? Windhoek instead of Kinhasa?

And Cairo, well, it's African. I propose to add Dubai instead, which can be part of Europe. Quite the popular place.

And Kolkata/Dhaka for Changdu?

I'll come up with more soon, keeps getting better and better, this. I can see it filling the void that the old classic map left. I'm sick and tired of classic shapes, which is a huge borefest, and Classic Art ain't hot either .

[sully800]

Another edition with several minor updates.

Click image to enlarge.

Obviously I changed the title to something less appalling. I originally tried to do it in your style Danyael with the text above and below, but that made the title too vertical, and the space here is horizontal. Now its a compromise between your idea and my original basic font. Certainly a step in the right direction.

I also wrote out New York and Los Angeles because everyone seemed to be in agreement about that

About "to london"-"to NYC" concern...

Why not to draw only the attack line?
You said that you have the space to write "Los Angeles" and without "to London" you can find the space to write New York City" instead NYC (obviously you have to remove the "TO NYC" near London).
Then you can explain the link London-NYC with a simple text in the lower part of your map (for example you have some space below Africa), something like "New York City and London can attack each other".

I think the best way to go is to just put the attack line as you first said. The line goes off the map and comes back on the other side. This shouldn't be hard to figure out since its a staple in that famous competitor map, and world maps are understood to be projections of globes which naturally wrap around. I put some text in the lower corner saying that they connect, but this seemed unnecessary to me. I hate when maps have lots of unnecessary text explaining the features. If you can't explain it with an arrow or a symbol it's probably too complicated IMO!

And the flags, well... The glow coming out from their borders are nice, but the flags themselves look quite bland, and uncolourful. I dunno, maybe it's just me.

Hmm, I was thinking the opposite - that perhaps the flags were too bright. After all they serve as a border and therefore should not be the graphical focus. If more people agree with you though I could try to brighten them.

And Las Vegas over Denver would be my pick. Take it from me, I don't like in the USA, I live elsewhere; but if I were to name US states, I'd name Las Vegas before Denver, definitely, and I'm sure other people from around the world would too. And for people from US, well, it's the entertainment capital, as the guy who first suggested this said!

Las Vegas will stay for now since there are people on both sides, and its easier to do nothing I don't care much because the gameplay will be the same and they are both great cities I think.

Auckland's circle is a little high also.

Fixed.

How about Johannesburg instead of Cape Town, as well? Windhoek instead of Kinhasa?

Been meaning to switch in Johannesburg for some time, thanks for reminding me.

Kinshasa has almost 30 times the population of Windhoek, so I think it should stay. Cairo is the biggest in Africa, then Lagos, then Johannesburg and Kinshasa which are close to the same size.

And Cairo, well, it's African. I propose to add Dubai instead, which can be part of Europe. Quite the popular place.

On that note, yes Cairo is African, but Dubai wouldn't belong in Europe itself any more than Cairo does. Cairo is much closer and adds another needed city to Africa (I think the spacing in V9-11 is much better than earlier versions which included Dubai and not Kinshasa). Undoubtedly Dubai is a very popular place right now, and it will be an important world city in the future. It was one of the first cities that I thought to include, but since it falls in the corner of three bonus regions I think it makes the map more confusing if it is included over the ones that I have currently put in place (and it is smaller than all the cities around it, at least for the time being).

And Kolkata/Dhaka for Changdu?

Kolkata is awfully close to Mumbai, so it would be a really tight squeeze. Additionally, China is a larger country in population and much larger in area than India, so I think it deserves to have three cities on the map. I'm glad that India now has two, I think earlier versions were lacking in that regard.

I know Chengdu is not the largest Chinese city, but I couldn't find a larger one that is in the central area of the map. Shanghai and others are all too close to the crowded coast. And since Chengdu has a population of 11 million people it is still one of the larger cities on the map.

[Danyael]

that is an awesome title i see that it would be to vert with the text i had but wow that is awesome

on a side note i'm laughing at where Toronto is placed next time i visit my friends in northern Manitoba I'm going to ask them how the sars are treating them
you don't need to change it its just funny

[the.killing.44]

Yes! That title is awesome! One thing is that I'd use the lighting effects you put on the globe over the land as well. A way to do it is, if you have the lighting on a globe layer below the land, what you could do is duplicate the layer, place the copy over the land but set the fill opacity to 0% (keeping the overall opacity whatever it was on the original), then right-click Copy Layer Style from original and right-click Paste Layer style onto the copy. Then right-click Clear Layer Style on the original. Looking sweet!

.44

[ender516]

that is an awesome title i see that it would be to vert with the text i had but wow that is awesome

on a side note i'm laughing at where Toronto is placed next time i visit my friends in northern Manitoba I'm going to ask them how the sars are treating them
you don't need to change it its just funny

I think the new title is great, too, and I was going to comment on Toronto, but was afraid you might remove it altogether. It's hard to tell without the Great Lakes (which maybe should be there, considering the bodies of water in Asia?), but to me, it looks like Toronto has been dropped somewhere between Cochrane and Moosonee on the route of the Polar Bear Express. You could move it closer to New York, but that might just make the link between them less visible. It's really not a big deal in my mind.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Liking the new title, but the globe is pretty gratuitous since there's two more right below it. How about a sunset or something behind the skyline instead?

[Echospree]

I like the visual play caused by the three globes in an equilateral triangle formation, but a sunset might look good, too.

EDIT:

On second thought, the fact the globe is basically a copy of one of the other globes doesn't fit right, to me.

[RjBeals]

Hmm.. the more i look at it, the more i really don't like the new title, or the flags on top & bottom. Sorry. Maybe it's the globe behind the buildings.. dunno - just don't like it.

[thenobodies80]

Hmm.. the more i look at it, the more i really don't like the new title, or the flags on top & bottom. Sorry. Maybe it's the globe behind the buildings.. dunno - just don't like it.

Yes, i agree.
The third globe is a bit redundant.

[whitestazn88]

i just wanna say that the gameplay so far looks fantastic... it has a very... natural feel to it, something familiar in how the bonuses etc are formed. and i love it

as for the graphics, i am also not a big fan of the current title. the globe seems superfluous, and the cities are too plain compared to the map i think. i like the text though

[LED ZEPPELINER]

i just wanna say that the gameplay so far looks fantastic... it has a very... natural feel to it, something familiar in how the bonuses etc are formed. and i love it

It has the same Gameplay as Classic.

as for the graphics, i am also not a big fan of the current title. the globe seems superfluous, and the cities are too plain compared to the map i think. i like the text though

For the globes/Bonuses, maybe you could do a map kinda like this. (if i new the name of this kinda map, i would say it)

[whitestazn88]

i just wanna say that the gameplay so far looks fantastic... it has a very... natural feel to it, something familiar in how the bonuses etc are formed. and i love it

It has the same Gameplay as Classic.

as for the graphics, i am also not a big fan of the current title. the globe seems superfluous, and the cities are too plain compared to the map i think. i like the text though

For the globes/Bonuses, maybe you could do a map kinda like this. (if i new the name of this kinda map, i would say it)

lol, i know it has the same gameplay, but before it wasn't exact i don't think. i vaguely remember at one point that like africa had 7 territs.. or maybe i'm crazy.

[thedon5]

I'm satisfied mate! Finally a map I can play that isn't AoR 3!

Hmm, and with the flags, I do agree actually. I think my eyes may've been playing up on me at the time. But it looks great actually .



Edit: One thing though. I see both Africa and South America are worth 2 armies. I see Africa has 2 borders, and South America has one, making it amazingly easy to defend on an unlimited. I suggest maybe an extra South American territory; Santa Cruz?

[Bruceswar]

Get rid of Las Vegas ... Add in Dallas... Better fit for this map. Las Vegas has a million people or so, Dallas Metro is 6+ million and a more central location in the USA.

[Moneymatt]

i dont know if you have thought about it or if it has been said but for new zealand, would wellingotn be better since it is the capital?

[LED ZEPPELINER]

I am just concerned how it will look when you expand it for the large map. I know that it's not a big deal, but i just think that its going to loose a lot of its quality.

[JoshyBoy]

I would love to play on this map.

Keep working on it sully.

[thedon5]

i dont know if you have thought about it or if it has been said but for new zealand, would wellingotn be better since it is the capital?

It was Wellington at first, but me and a few other guys agreed on Auckland. It's bigger, it's the more well known city (in NZ atleast, it's all over the news), it is home to many more and there are more flights coming and going in Auckland.

Wellington is just capital.

So Auckland is the much better choice.