Greenland is not part of N. America [Rejected]

[delilahplay2]

I've done a quick search to see if this topic has come up before and haven't found it. Nonetheless my apologies if it has. Its more of an observation...



N. America Bonus

• Greenland is taken to be part of N. America in the Classic Map- but it's part of Europe (Iceland), and is only connected to America through the Arctic (like most of Scandinavia). I understand Central American countries being counted as part of N. America, because officially they are of the same land mass.

Specifics:

• Why not instead make occupation of Greenland count towards the Europe bonus, or toward no bonus at all (i.e. strategic only).

[Sir. Ricco]

You can't change that! That is part of the RISK game. That is the history of Risk. Bad Idea!
Mods please reject!

[yeti_c]

I've done a quick search to see if this topic has come up before and haven't found it. Nonetheless my apologies if it has. Its more of an observation...



N. America Bonus

• Greenland is taken to be part of N. America in the Classic Map- but it's part of Europe (Iceland), and is only connected to America through the Arctic (like most of Scandinavia). I understand Central American countries being counted as part of N. America, because officially they are of the same land mass.

Specifics:

• Why not instead make occupation of Greenland count towards the Europe bonus, or toward no bonus at all (i.e. strategic only).

This argument has raged in the upcoming "europa" map... in the map foundry...

It depends on what you see as part of North America...

Tectonically - Greenland is part of North America...
however
Politically - Greenland is often considered part of Europe...

C.

[lozzini]

greenland = north america


as it is in risk

this is not a political map but a graphical one

if it was political then every country would be on there

please dont do this lol

[Simon Viavant]

I'm sure the makers of Risk carefully thought that out when they made the game. They decided that, for the bonus given, North America should have three borders and nine territroties. The map was made more based on strategic locationing than real world correctness. You could go on for pages about the innaccuracies in the risk map. Mods, please reject this.

[lancehoch]

After the fiasco of changing the army circle colors, I highly doubt that the cartographers or mods will ever go near the Classic map again.

[Astoria]

but it's part of Europe (Iceland)

Well, since you started this thread you should look at World Map or TextBook or just google it, - you will see that actually Greenland is Autonomous province of the Kingdom of Denmark.

When speaking of Greenland and Classic Map on CC we can see that bonuses here are given by Continents(which is original idea by Developer of the board game ) and not by Countries. Therefore there is no way it could be considered as part of Europe.

[BeakerWMA]

but it's part of Europe (Iceland)

Well, since you started this thread you should look at World Map or TextBook or just google it, - you will see that actually Greenland is Autonomous province of the Kingdom of Denmark.

When speaking of Greenland and Classic Map on CC we can see that bonuses here are given by Continents(which is original idea by Developer of the board game ) and not by Countries. Therefore there is no way it could be considered as part of Europe.

[delilahplay2]

As I did say, it was more of an observation... and I sympathise with your attachment to the current map with all its limitations, it is pretty. However, I doubt that it would present the most complex of problems to make such a change- and just because people are happy with the structure of something (as I gather from all your wails of "please mods! reject this! waaaa") does not automatically veto the possibility that it is wrong and should be changed, sheesh.

...and my apologies, Greenland IS part of Denmark, but in my defense this was only established officially relatively recently (1950s) and before all the Scandinavian countries were fighting over it according to my atlas.
...In fact I've just looked at its Wikipedia entry and the USA tried to buy it from Denmark for 100 mill! so maybe the map represents more American wishful thinking and less political/historical accuracy...

[lancehoch]

As I did say, it was more of an observation... and I sympathise with your attachment to the current map with all its limitations, it is pretty. However, I doubt that it would present the most complex of problems to make such a change- and just because people are happy with the structure of something (as I gather from all your wails of "please mods! reject this! waaaa") does not automatically veto the possibility that it is wrong and should be changed, sheesh.

It is not just us. Link This was the last change made to Classic. As you can see, it went over like a lead balloon and all that was changed was the color of the little circles behind the army numbers. People went ape. You are now suggesting that someone change a strategic part of the map (what countries belong in what continent). If this were to be implemented, I have no doubt that your inbox would be flooded with PMs from people on this site. That map is sacred on this site. The cartographers probably will not bring a 10 foot paintbrush anywhere near that map right now. lack did not give away the name of the person who coded the last change for fear of retribution, and that was not even the person who made the suggestion, just the person who implemented the change.

[chipv]

It's all been said, but Greenland is part of the geographical continent of North America.
Therefore Greenland counts towards N.American continental bonus.

It's completely irrelevant who owns it, as the owner might well be on the opposite side of the planet.(Take French Polynesia)

[delilahplay2]

That map is sacred on this site.

LOL!

[delilahplay2]

It's all been said, but Greenland is part of the geographical continent of North America.
Therefore Greenland counts towards N.American continental bonus.

According to whom? Europe, Russia and Asia are also part of the same geographical continent, but politics and history determines who owns what- not the presence of an American missile base

It's completely irrelevant who owns it, as the owner might well be on the opposite side of the planet.(Take French Polynesia)

Its not completely irrelevant- in this case it proximity to Europe, its connection to Europe through the Arctic archipelago, and its ownership by a European country aren't things that can be completely disregarded just because someone might write me a nasty PM... if it was on the other side of the world granted this wouldn't be an issue- I'm not advocating that parts of the carribean in the World 2.1 map be part of the French or British bonus- because that WOULD be ridiculous.

[Simon Viavant]

Actually, I think the plates shift along the Ural mountains.

[Ditocoaf]

You're not serious, are you?

This map isn't supposed to be used for political/geographical accurate navigation or even grade-school reports. It's a game board.

If you want to make a change to how the game is played, don't argue about how Greenland is in real life. You'd need to somehow show that strategically, in the game, it is better to have Greenland as part of the Europe "continent". Just because the game board is made roughly to look like a map of the earth, doesn't mean that's the most important part of the game. Without Greenland outside of NA, the game's strategy would be completely screwed up in that area. North America would have 4 borders and 8 territories, and Europe would have two more countries that can attack it -- making it even harder to hold.

And don't even think about insisting Greenland should be "neutral"... that's not part of the game. In the basic, risk-style map, all "territories" are part of a "continent". "Continent," not meaning "a geographic region of earth", but meaning "a group of territories that render a bonus when held".

But then again, why are we even commenting here? This will never pass, so it's just one more thread cluttering up suggs+bugs, forcing all the good suggestions to page 2.

[hatterson]

Greenland is in North America

http://blog.acton.org/uploads/RiskInPlay.jpg

QED

[delilahplay2]

You're not serious, are you?

(etc. etc. etc)

But then again, why are we even commenting here? This will never pass, so it's just one more thread cluttering up suggs+bugs, forcing all the good suggestions to page 2.

That's hardly a fair statement Dito, I respectfully accept that you don't agree with me but I made a valid suggestion to the map that was factually based, and I defend my right as a CC member (premium even) to post it on this forum. Please tell me why was that wrong?

Anyway that said...Your spiel about how the risk map is different from a real world map is irrelevant. The whole idea of risk is that it mimics real events no? even if it makes things difficult. Fog of war for instance- I can't stand it and frankly it irritates me when i accidentally join a game with it on... but it's realistic. The World 2.1 map has strategic countries that don't contribute to area bonuses, and in some of the WWII maps some countries can't be conquered and are logistically hard to hold/reach. But that's the idea. Neutrality for Greenland is a great way of resolving the US border problem- despite your oh so penetrating argument that "That's not part of the game". So why not this small change to the classic map? Believe me a fairy will not die.

[The Viking]

Tectonically - Greenland is part of North America...
however
Politically - Greenland is often considered part of Europe...

C.

Correction: Politically - Greenland is always considered part of Europe.

[Thezzaruz]

So why not this small change to the classic map? Believe me a fairy will not die.

Because the map has looked that way for 50 years or so when playing risk. It is one of the basic premises of playing risk just as the 3v2 dice and it's also a great balance for the map.
But if you think it messes so much with your life then by all mean develop a new map (call it World 1.1 or something) with this minor change (might wanna move indonesia to the asian continent too for the same reasons) and try to get it approved. I can't see you getting it passed but you're welcome to try...

[Ditocoaf]

You're not serious, are you?

(etc. etc. etc)

But then again, why are we even commenting here? This will never pass, so it's just one more thread cluttering up suggs+bugs, forcing all the good suggestions to page 2.

That's hardly a fair statement Dito, I respectfully accept that you don't agree with me but I made a valid suggestion to the map that was factually based, and I defend my right as a CC member (premium even) to post it on this forum. Please tell me why was that wrong?

Anyway that said...Your spiel about how the risk map is different from a real world map is irrelevant. The whole idea of risk is that it mimics real events no? even if it makes things difficult. Fog of war for instance- I can't stand it and frankly it irritates me when i accidentally join a game with it on... but it's realistic. The World 2.1 map has strategic countries that don't contribute to area bonuses, and in some of the WWII maps some countries can't be conquered and are logistically hard to hold/reach. But that's the idea. Neutrality for Greenland is a great way of resolving the US border problem- despite your oh so penetrating argument that "That's not part of the game". So why not this small change to the classic map? Believe me a fairy will not die.

Your condescension is appreciated, but my concern has nothing to do with fairies. It's the fact that the strategy of that game board will be ruined. And the idea of risk isn't that it mimics real life -- this is hardly an accurate representation of war. It's fun to play on a board that looks like a world map, but it could be played on anything, as some of the available game boards show.

It's great that the WWII maps are more complex and more realistic than Classic. But Classic is supposed to be the basic, no-nonsense map. If you want to develop a map that plays the way you want it to, go ahead. But trying to change a fundamental part of the gameplay, simply because it's more in keeping with real life, will hardly fly.

[Simon Viavant]

North America would have 4 borders and 8 territories, and Europe would have two more countries that can attack it -- making it even harder to hold.

You mean N. America would have two more borders, right. North America would have five borders and eight territories. Europe wouldn't be effective. Otherwise, great point, that's exactly what we were trying to tell delilah

[Simon Viavant]

Believe me, when I started playing world 2.1 I was tempted to say that Alaska is not part of Canada.

[Ditocoaf]

right. It's not accurate, but it makes the game better strategically. Who would want a territ off separated from the rest of the country? Well, it could be cool, but not if it only occurs one time on the entire map

Similarly, having neutral, strategic-only territories might be fun, but if it's only one innocuous territory on the map, which is supposed to be the most basic game board on CC... then it's just out of place.

Also, the faeries would die.

[hatterson]

Tectonically - Greenland is part of North America...
however
Politically - Greenland is often considered part of Europe...

C.

Correction: Politically - Greenland is always considered part of Europe.

Nah, sometimes it's just straight up ignored

[delilahplay2]

Sorry, Dito, I wasn't trying to be patronising I promise. Though dismissing my suggestion out of hand was not very nice...
Although I know I'm correct on this... I respect the majority of responses- and even agree to some extent- that the Classic map, being based on the original board game (i think?) is best left alone. Though it would be lovely if people changed their minds...
Otherwise watch this space, a historically and politically accurate world map (c2008) is coming!