North America 2.0 [Quenched]

wcaclimbing · Post by **wcaclimbing** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:01 pm

happysadfun wrote:And what about replacing ... ...and Missouri with Illinois...

yes

illinois =12,419,293 population
missouri =5,595,211 population

notice missouri has 6,824,082 less people than illinois ( as of 2000)

maritovw · Post by **maritovw** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:44 pm

cramill wrote:I don't know if this is too late to suggest, but seince the small map is still being worked on I assume that one small change can be made. I think Belize should be renamed Guatemala. Guatemala is a larger and more populated, and more important country than Belize.

i support this suggestion and here's why:

Code: Select all

                   :  GUATEMALA :  BELIZE
      AREA (sq km) :    108,890 :  22,966
        POPULATION : 12,974,361 : 256,062
 GDP (million US$) :     46,200 :     790

Guatemala is a larger (4.74 times), more populated (50.67 times), and economically stronger (58.48 times)country than Belize!!! in addition to that, Belize was a part of Guatemala... naming the territory Belize would be like, in some map, naming the whole ex-sovietic territory Ukraine or Belarus instead of Russia or USSR, just nonsense... so, i still don't see why this territory should be named Belize instead of Guatemala!!! anyone with me??

bottom line: name the territory Guatemala, numbers strongly support that (and numbers don't lie :wink:

)

tomatoman25 · Post by **tomatoman25** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:00 am

ok, so at what point is this map actually gonna be playable. Screw all the actual names of everything, i just wanna be able to play!

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:06 pm

It all rests on Dublin's shoulders, we are still awaiting his finished small map. And just to avoid confusion, I should've probably done this a while ago... I'm taking it out of Quenched, and putting it back in Final Forge, while we await the small map.

--Andy

Ryan7 · Post by **Ryan7** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:05 am

I really like the map!!

smiley happy winking orgy face

Molacole · Post by **Molacole** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:48 am

looks like one big cluster to me... Nevada is a mess you can't even see where the southern border ends.

Needs more spacing and detail because right now the connection routes look ugly and the words of every territory is crammed.

sportsdd2 · Post by **sportsdd2** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:05 am

cant someone else make the small map??

gavin_sidhu · Post by **gavin_sidhu** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:30 am

DublinDoogey wrote:

Here's one with gray circles, not really to my liking but if you guys think they'd be better than the white ones we'll use the gray ones.

Let me know, thanks

-doogey

Just bumping the map to this page.

sportsdd2 · Post by **sportsdd2** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:25 pm

damn i want to play this map. since dublin isnt making the map obviously cant someone just have a sign made for now???

Master Bush · Post by **Master Bush** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:08 am

Best looking map yet!

gavin_sidhu · Post by **gavin_sidhu** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:22 am

Master Bush wrote:Best looking map yet!

obviously you havent played middle earth, i dont think anything beats middle earth visually.

Master Bush · Post by **Master Bush** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:44 am

gavin_sidhu wrote:
Master Bush wrote:Best looking map yet!

obviously you havent played middle earth, i dont think anything beats middle earth visually.

Do you know what an opinion is? I have played Middle Earth before, and in my opinion, I think this is the best looking map yet.

DublinDoogey · Post by **DublinDoogey** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:28 am

The above is the small version...

Main problem, very crowded looking, especially in the very middle of the USA with Nebraska and Kansas. I have no clue as to what I can do to remedy this, any suggestions?

Also, sorry about the delay, my only excuse is burnout plus the fact that the desire for distraction is much greater during the school year than during summer.

Best looking map yet!

Thanks masterbush, it's stuff like that that restarts the desire to finish.

Oh, and just in general, as I've said before, I'm not changing any of the country names, I chose them for certain reasons, and it's my map, so they're keeping their names

-Doogey

happysadfun · Post by **happysadfun** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:33 am

how bout amalgamating kansas and nebraska like you did with the midwest? and some of the other central states too

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:34 am

Suggestion? How about do it bigger? Because I usually do the small version with 80-84% of the size of the big version. It seems you used a smaller proportion, so maybe you could do it a little bigger, huh? What the proportion you used, by the way?

happysadfun · Post by **happysadfun** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:35 am

say, do nunavut and greenland have circles?

cramill · Post by **cramill** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:14 am

DublinDoogey wrote:Oh, and just in general, as I've said before, I'm not changing any of the country names, I chose them for certain reasons, and it's my map, so they're keeping their names

That's unfortunate.

DublinDoogey · Post by **DublinDoogey** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:16 am

happysadfun wrote:how bout amalgamating kansas and nebraska like you did with the midwest? and some of the other central states too

then I'd have 59 countries, a very odd number, instead of the nice, even, easily divisable 60.

marv wrote:Suggestion? How about do it bigger? Because I usually do the small version with 80-84% of the size of the big version. It seems you used a smaller proportion, so maybe you could do it a little bigger, huh? What the proportion you used, by the way?

The large is roughly 600-650 in height, the small is 450, so i guess the proportion is roughly 66%

happysadfun wrote:say, do nunavut and greenland have circles?

Yes, but just by chance, the background colors are close enough to that of the circles that they disappear into the background, I s'pose like a polar bear might disappear in the snow.

DublinDoogey · Post by **DublinDoogey** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:45 pm

I'm just gonna throw this out there and say this too:

If you guys think that the small map is fine, I'll start on the small xml, I mean, I'm ok with it, but it's truly up to the foundry

Hoff · Post by **Hoff** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:37 pm

I think it looks good and i'm excited to play this map.

gavin_sidhu · Post by **gavin_sidhu** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:15 am

Hoff wrote:I think it looks good and i'm excited to play this map.

as i do. I want to play a three player game (how many reinforcement will i recieve per turn then?)

happysadfun · Post by **happysadfun** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:16 am

i'm gonna play it too. it may have little quirks, but all maps do so i'm not complaining.

DublinDoogey · Post by **DublinDoogey** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:53 am

gavin_sidhu wrote:
Hoff wrote:I think it looks good and i'm excited to play this map.

as i do. I want to play a three player game (how many reinforcement will i recieve per turn then?)

Well, it's a sixty country map, so on the first turn everyone has twenty countries, so six on the first turn. what's cool about sixty is that no matter how many people play, 2-6, there won't be any neutral territories.

Hoff · Post by **Hoff** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:39 pm

thats pretty sweet, i hate nuetral territories. Do up the code and get this up!

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:00 pm

DublinDoogey wrote:If you guys think that the small map is fine, I'll start on the small xml, I mean, I'm ok with it, but it's truly up to the foundry

I dont think its ok. As I said, the small version should be, heeeeh... bigger. Dont think too much about number of pixels. To people that use 800x600 resolution, we need scroll down even with the classic map. Only make it bigger, please, 80% of the big map.

North America 2.0 [Quenched]

Re: Map