Conquer Club

I was thinking it to be more dramatic...like this, but better...

ru serious?

i'm blind

thats just... great

It's starting to look really good but it still needs work I'm afraid. For example, I disagree with the 7 armies for Africa. Yes it may be split but it has only 3 borders. Antartica could be worth an extra army - almost every territory is a border. Also, some of the names aren't too clear and are the circles big enough? Despite this the map is looking good and has a lot of potential.

its getting alot better

i still need some feedback on exactly what you guys think the bonuses should be.
in the update, i changed them, but im still not sure

all of europe is under water but Bermuda is still kickin it? lol

u cant get bloody rid of the triangle!!

mibi wrote:all of europe is under water but Bermuda is still kickin it? lol

that's explained here

pepperonibread wrote:

Lt. Valerian wrote:Wait, floating cities? What is this, Water World? Also, who would expend the resources in this post-apocalyptic world to build these things especially in the South Indian Ocean?

first of all, its not a post-apocalyptic world. this amount of global warming would take place over hundreds of years, so its not like there are gonna be giant tidal waves that flood the coasts. and dont you think humans would EVENTUALLY see the threat and adapt a little? people could build off previously flooded islands so they wouldnt have to make the ports floating or start building off the ocean floor. and these ports wouldnt be huge cities or anything. they would be international ports for ships and aircraft. so, for my map, i took current, centralized islands and turned them into ports. and finally, in response to the comment about moscow being gone, cities like that could be saved, i just didnt see the point in putting a bunch of little major cities off the coast of every continent

and about playability. without the ports, it would just look even more like the classic map. thats actually the reason i put the ports and the uninhabitable zone in, so it would be different from classic

-I think the uninhabitable zone is a little too drastic and red...Id try to tone it down...it is really distracting...

-the submerged effect doesnt look quite right...those areas are now underwater, but they are 3d raised above the ocean...shouldnt they be below sea level? and the raised effect should be applied to the continents?

johloh wrote:-I think the uninhabitable zone is a little too drastic and red...Id try to tone it down...it is really distracting...

i guess i could tone that down more, if everyone wants me to

johloh wrote:-the submerged effect doesnt look quite right...those areas are now underwater, but they are 3d raised above the ocean...shouldnt they be below sea level? and the raised effect should be applied to the continents?

this part is sort of like the elevation map i posted a few pages back. here, there's the regular ocean floor and the submerged areas, and then the regular continents. the submerged areas are elevated above the ocean floor, but not above the continents (so they're still below sea level), like the continental shelves in the elevation map. however, i wasnt sure how good these submerged areas looked, so they could be taken off if no one likes them

pepperonibread wrote:

johloh wrote:-I think the uninhabitable zone is a little too drastic and red...Id try to tone it down...it is really distracting...

i guess i could tone that down more, if everyone wants me to

johloh wrote:-the submerged effect doesnt look quite right...those areas are now underwater, but they are 3d raised above the ocean...shouldnt they be below sea level? and the raised effect should be applied to the continents?

this part is sort of like the elevation map i posted a few pages back. here, there's the regular ocean floor and the submerged areas, and then the regular continents. the submerged areas are elevated above the ocean floor, but not above the continents (so they're still below sea level), like the continental shelves in the elevation map. however, i wasnt sure how good these submerged areas looked, so they could be taken off if no one likes them

to answer your question, they look pretty cool...

almost impossible to tell where one continent begins and ends

boberz wrote:almost impossible to tell where one continent begins and ends

are you talking about the red map?
cause if you are, thats not the map

pepperonibread wrote:i still need some feedback on exactly what you guys think the bonuses should be.
in the update, i changed them, but im still not sure

My opinion:

N. America: 6
S. America: 2
Antartica: 6
Europe: 4
Africa: 6
Asia: 6
Australia: 2

However, I do realise this leaves a lot of very even continents

thanks

I will note something that is scientifically incorrect with your map. If there was no ice in Antarctica, you would see something quite different than you see here. Antarctica is divided into two parts under the ice. Once the Ice melted away, Antarctica would look something like this satellite image: http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/micha ... urface.jpg

in my map, antarctica is actually based on that image
if you took your image and changed it from a polar, circular view to a mercator projection, my map would correspond with it

So, here's how the infamous formula scores your regions:

N. America: 4.83
S. America: 1.58
Europe: 4.08
Asia: 5.67
Australia: 1.75
Africa: 3.75
Antarctica: 4.33

I ran into problems because most regions don't directly border other regions in most cases, they have a port between them. So for my calculations, I considered any region within 2 steps to be "neighboring."

Asia, Europe, S. America, and Australia all came out right, and I don't think anyone was disputing those anyway.

Antarctica is close. It seems like more because of all the lines down there, but it's actually only 4 borders to 3 regions. The biggest reason I would say it should be 4 instead of 5 is that Antarctica and Australia together can be held with 3 territories.

I'm not sure what to tell you about N. America. With 9 territories and 4 borders, 5 seems right to me. Maybe other still disagree.

Obviously Africa isn't going to be represented properly because it's split. But even if we include both Tristan de Cunha and Bermuda, bringing it to 9 territories and 4 borders, it still only comes out to 4.92. I don't really think you can justify more than +5.

cool, thanks

pepperonibread wrote:in my map, antarctica is actually based on that image
if you took your image and changed it from a polar, circular view to a mercator projection, my map would correspond with it

In the image what you have labeled Sincana and Maudmark would be divided into two islands.

you mean right here?

pepperonibread wrote:

you mean right here?

While you guys debate where the polar ice caps are going to map, ill be ranting about the Antartica bonus: rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant,

wrightfan123 wrote:

pepperonibread wrote:

you mean right here?

While you guys debate where the polar ice caps are going to map, ill be ranting about the Antartica bonus: rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant,

?