[Abandoned] - WWIII:Pacific Conflict

[Underated]

Ini, I think this is a terrific concept for a map. I love the opposing sides. I love the adventure out into space and the muliple attack avenues.

I see the collision between the 2 maps are, WW1 beach land and USSR v USA nuke one.

I dont think the concept need change but complex attack route via the 2 opposing land masses need to be neated up. the use of artillery, naval and airforce assests is vital. How you do this, there a lots of great maps that demonstrate multiple attack route (like kings court, you favourite)
Based on that airforce can move larger distance, boats are slower but bigger to destroy, and so on...complex but simple.

On the land mass, I would love to see the technological age represented more with a difficult nuetral to pass (+50) as computer hacker sits waiting to be utilised to hit some vital elements maybe even the generators (power/production elements) on the opposing side + big bonus once owned.

As for the race the multiple attack routes would be excellent if it was more cross ladder attack into space. So both land masses can climb the ladder via the technological advances and both looking to reach the pinnacle first to gain control of the ultimate weapon.

LAZER beam....(little pinkee in mouth) that has the adavantage of being a reset or open nuetral that can hit eveything back to zero, nil, zip...

Perhaps I am being a bit Austin Powers about this, but that is what the map made me immediately think of.

Good luck with it, I hope I helped.

[initus]

Newest Version:

Click image to enlarge.

Names for seemingly unnamed territories:

The ships, subs, aircraft all have their names told in the legend, so according to that key, they will be named in the XML via "ocean, type, side" (e.g. F2 NATO Cruiser, or Western Canada SCO Bomber. Silos will also be named this way, but will not have an alliance: "Eastern Russia Silo." Ports will take the name for the land that they sit on: "Eastern US Port" or "L2 Port." The Lunar city has not been named yet but will be and is obvious(?) what it is.

interesting map. How do you plan to label it? Territories that is.

Like that . The individual units don't need labeling as their alliance and type are specified elsewhere.

I dont think the concept need change but complex attack route via the 2 opposing land masses need to be neated up. the use of artillery, naval and airforce assests is vital. How you do this, there a lots of great maps that demonstrate multiple attack route (like kings court, you favourite)Based on that airforce can move larger distance, boats are slower but bigger to destroy, and so on...complex but simple.

Thanks Under, although the map has changed a lot since you commented on it. I think I managed to clean up the map and make it easier to understand.

------------------

Alright, started almost from scratch, changed the perspective, etc. Personally, I like this a lot more than the previous versions, and it is easier on the eyes. Regions feel like they are sparser, which will aid in the shrinking of the map for the smaller version. Having a lot of trouble with the legend... I can't find an organization method that works with the information that I need to display. All of the needed information is currently on the legend in text form.

Concerns:

The NATO and SCO circles are too similar.
The current range calculations are unintuitive.
The legend... obviously.

More territories are coming for the land, space areas (you can see the blank spaces).

Okay, now back to the range calculations. As can be seen, each ship and sub got its own small region that is entirely contained by the larger, ocean region. This should help for differentiation between aircraft and ships, and also make it a little easier to understand.

An exercise that would be EXTREMELY helpful if people would do:

Find the NATO Cruiser in the ocean region F7. Now find the SCO Frigate in the ocean region F6. What do you think the legend should say for a range on the Cruiser so it would be able to bombard the Frigate? Please decide before my ramblings sway your opinion and post what you got (hopefully the most intuitive answer) and your reasoning behind it.

Currently the legend uses this method of range from the Cruiser to the Frigate: NATO Cruiser -> F7 -> F6 -> SCO Frigate, which comes out to be a range of 3. However, the aircraft need to use a different method because they don't border the ocean region they are in, however they use it for range (e.g. A range of 1 would attack aircraft in bordering ocean regions, while a range of two attacks two away). I know this is a mess, but I am not quite sure what to do...

[Nola_Lifer]

Was is this still in Melting pot. Seems like a pretty solid idea so far. Nice work Initus!!!!

[initus]

Was is this still in Melting pot. Seems like a pretty solid idea so far. Nice work Initus!!!!

Thanks Nola!

-----------------------------

New version:

Click image to enlarge.

Note: The text "P, S regions neutral reset" got lost in the update somehow, it will be back next one.

Names for seemingly unnamed territories:

The ships, subs, aircraft all have their names told in the legend, so according to that key, they will be named in the XML via "ocean, side, type" (e.g. F2 NATO Cruiser, or Western Canada SCO Bomber. Silos will also be named this way, but will not have an alliance: "Eastern Russia Silo." Ports will take the name for the land that they sit on: "Eastern US Port" or "L2 Port."

Newest Changes:

Added an internal region around each port for better understanding.
Some graphical tweaks.
Revamped the bottom left legend, hopefully is easier to understand.
Every single region can now be identified.
Added another legend to the top left.

Concerns:

The NATO and SCO circles are too similar.
The current range calculations are unintuitive.
The legend... obviously.

More territories are coming for the land, space areas (you can see the blank spaces).

[isaiah40]

[MOVED]

Looks like you have a good draft coming along, so for now I'll move it into the Drafting Room.

[AndyDufresne]

I like the new view you have going with this version---it feels a lot less chaotic than the previous version I saw. I'll be back to look at this again.


--Andy

[initus]

I like the new view you have going with this version---it feels a lot less chaotic than the previous version I saw. I'll be back to look at this again.

Thanks Andy, making it look less chaotic was certainly my goal.

[initus]

Newest Version:

Click image to enlarge.

Names for seemingly unnamed territories:

The ships, subs, aircraft all have their names told in the legend, so according to that key, they will be named in the XML via "ocean, side, type" (e.g. F2 NATO Cruiser, or Western Canada SCO Bomber. Silos will also be named this way, but will not have an alliance: "Eastern Russia Silo." Ports will take the name for the land that they sit on: "Eastern US Port" or "L2 Port."

Newest Changes:

Changes the current graphics colors to represent colors that are more natural and closer to what Earth looks like from space.
The darker theme required white units (from black).
Internal region cleanup (nicer borders).
Moon territories shuffled around.
Several territories added to space (satellites), no bonus associated with them yet (but there will be).
Reordered the legends, got rid of the third legend (the two legends will probably be increased in size next version.

Concerns:

The NATO and SCO circles are too similar.
The current range calculations are unintuitive.
The legend... obviously.

More territories are coming for the land areas.

[initus]

Going to have to put this one on vacation, this quarter's homework hit me pretty hard.

[isaiah40]

Per mapmakers request, this has been put on vacation. When the time comes to have it moved back, post a new update and let one of the CA's know.

isaiah40