Conquer Club

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:11 am**

Don't forget Bramutia(not sure if thats the right spelling).

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:44 am**

this would be in addition to other maps ,not in place of? if so it looks great!

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:49 am**

what a god damned joke. stop trying to play it off as classic 2.0. at least change the name of the map.

secondly, please give at least classic seats of power. what the f*ck is riverland?

ps. twill please dont get mad for my excessive use of crude/explicit language

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:32 am**

whitestazn88 wrote:what the f*ck is riverland?

Mmmm...don't know of a Riverland in Eastern Oz...possibly a term to describe Renmark :roll:

but...I can't see it's relevance....perhaps put Sydney in there or at least Canberra. :wink:

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:37 am**

whitestazn88 wrote:what a god damned joke. stop trying to play it off as classic 2.0. at least change the name of the map.

secondly, please give at least classic seats of power. what the f*ck is riverland?

ps. twill please dont get mad for my excessive use of crude/explicit language

hmm, if gimil got after me for doing something like this at another idea...

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:28 am**

i think you should put in new zeeland and delete the cities

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:59 pm**

Additions and Changes to the Classic Map:
*Nunavut
*Sri Lanka
*Svalard
*Philippines
*Falkland Islands
*Hawaii
*Columbia
*Galapagos
*Caribbean Islands
*Scandinavia-->Norway
*Sweden
*Finland
*Chile
*Korea
+*Sahara Desert
_____________________
56 Territories (14 more than Classic)

bold: This update

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:08 pm**

i still think it is a bad idea and all your time would be better spent on a fresh map not this

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:12 pm**

DiM wrote:i still think it is a bad idea and all your time would be better spent on a fresh map not this

i really wouldnt be talking. all of the AoR trilogy are the same territory setup with different bonuses.

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:15 pm**

DiM wrote:i still think it is a bad idea and all your time would be better spent on a fresh map not this

I happen to be very good at making maps that no one likes :lol:

I started NYS on 18 July 2007. The poll that i made on July 18 has 27 votes. I started this a couple of days ago. This already has over 40 votes.

Although i would much rather play on my Archery map than this one, this is getting more views and care. Plus, im working on xml for archery....and im too lazy to do that right now.

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:15 pm**

the_fatty wrote:
DiM wrote:i still think it is a bad idea and all your time would be better spent on a fresh map not this

i really wouldnt be talking. all of the AoR trilogy are the same territory setup with different bonuses.

unlike this idea all of the maps in the trilogy have had lots and lots of support. :wink:

that's the most important aspect of any idea. support.

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:15 pm**

the_fatty wrote:
DiM wrote:i still think it is a bad idea and all your time would be better spent on a fresh map not this

i really wouldnt be talking. all of the AoR trilogy are the same territory setup with different bonuses.

I dont agree with that at all.

edit: why odes it say DiM posted last if i did?

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:30 pm**

Kaplowitz wrote:

Additions and Changes to the Classic Map:
*Nunavut
*Sri Lanka
*Svalard
*Philippines
*Falkland Islands
*Hawaii
*Columbia
*Galapagos
*Caribbean Islands
*Scandinavia-->Norway
*Sweden
*Finland
*Chile
*Korea
+*Sahara Desert
The more you add the more I like it! 56 territories seems to be a happy medium between the old Classic and World 2.1. I will personally guarantee you receive great honor if this map comes to fruition!

Is there some reason you gave Africa two extra armies instead of one as the other continents?
_____________________
56 Territories (14 more than Classic)

bold: This update

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:32 pm**

No, not really. It would always an argument as to whether or not Africa should get much more, so i pushed it up 1 more.

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:07 pm**

premio53 wrote:
Kaplowitz wrote:

Additions and Changes to the Classic Map:
*Nunavut
*Sri Lanka
*Svalard
*Philippines
*Falkland Islands
*Hawaii
*Columbia
*Galapagos
*Caribbean Islands
*Scandinavia-->Norway
*Sweden
*Finland
*Chile
*Korea
+*Sahara Desert

_____________________
56 Territories (14 more than Classic)

bold: This update

When you come to a finished map you might make sure that Continents such as Australia and Asia contrast so there is no confusion as to what part Sri Lanka is aligned with. It would be hard to improve on what you already have.

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:15 pm**

premio, please stop quoting the big image all the time

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:39 pm**

hmm. Still tied....

to me, tied is okay becuase it shows that at least there is some interest in the map. I dont really care about the no's, i just care about the yes'.

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:09 am**

Kaplowitz, what is your verdict? If you don't pursue it somebody else may take your excellent idea and claim it for themselves.

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:50 am**

Australia should not be the same bonus as S.A because it has less borders and less territs. S.A for 4 armies

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:54 am**

I just noticed it seems there are 2 attack lines between Southern Europe and Sahara Desert.

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:20 pm**

MPL wrote:Australia should not be the same bonus as S.A because it has less borders and less territs. S.A for 4 armies

I agree. Maybe leave 3 for Australia and give 4 to South America.

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:26 pm**

-SA to 4
-Took out extra attack line

Anything else?

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:12 pm**

i personally dont think this is worth the time. the regular classic is just fine, especially w/ the touch up coming, and if anyone wanted a bigger or complicated map, theyve got world 2.1

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:15 pm**

Well, I'm supportive simply because 50 users stopped by to take a look and half of them liked it.

I get that it is barely different then what we already have, but many people like small changes in play. A lot of our maps are classic clones, this may be bumping right up against the line of just how far you can take that, but I don't believe it's crossed it.

I'll probably move this tomorrow when I can really take a good look at what has happened.

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:42 pm**

I say do we really need a third classic map?

I mean i love this map but this should be more of an option when choosing classic do you want the extra territorys or not

Conquer Club

Classic 2.0 (v11)--56 Territories--PAGE 12 [Abandoned]