Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:31 pm**

Boxcutta wrote:I haven't read the thread, but S. Greenland and Labrador should be linked IMO.

and artic circle should be a 4.

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:56 pm**

Boxcutta wrote:I haven't read the thread, but S. Greenland and Labrador should be linked IMO.

But if you did that then 4 of the 5 territories in that continent would be borders. It would be better to link it to Nunavik, which is already a border.

I actually like it the way it is tho, looks great Dublin.

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:03 pm**

Looks great, can't wait to play it

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:50 pm**

I'm not sure about the name of Kansas being split up...even though there is little room. Try to fiddle with the placement of everything, to make it uniform and easily read.

As for Quenching, we'll see. Post a link to both the large and small versions of the map. Also, provide two images (one of each) with army coordinates aligned in the army shadows. If they are not centered, I will have to wait til they are. Once we get this done, we'll see how it all goes!

--Andy

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:34 pm**

AndyDufresne wrote:I'm not sure about the name of Kansas being split up...even though there is little room. Try to fiddle with the placement of everything, to make it uniform and easily read.

--Andy

As far as that goes, there's nothing that can be done, I spent a few hours trying to figure somethin out, but on the small version there just isn't room for it, at all. It's frustrating, but i guess certain things have to be tolerated?

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:56 am**

AK_iceman wrote:
Boxcutta wrote:I haven't read the thread, but S. Greenland and Labrador should be linked IMO.

But if you did that then 4 of the 5 territories in that continent would be borders. It would be better to link it to Nunavik, which is already a border.

I actually like it the way it is tho, looks great Dublin.

great point, I second.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:57 am**

I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:56 am**

reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.

I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:40 pm**

DublinDoogey wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.

I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?

Greenland seemed to small, but looking at other maps you're right.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:46 pm**

reverend_kyle wrote:
DublinDoogey wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.

I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?

Greenland seemed to small, but looking at other maps you're right.

ok

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:50 am**

DublinDoogey wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:
DublinDoogey wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.

I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?

Greenland seemed to small, but looking at other maps you're right.

ok

You left off the islands that are around greenland and it threw me off.. but I think tis better w/o them.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 3:13 am**

reverend_kyle wrote:
DublinDoogey wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:
DublinDoogey wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.

I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?

Greenland seemed to small, but looking at other maps you're right.

ok

You left off the islands that are around greenland and it threw me off.. but I think tis better w/o them.

yup, thanks too. it was too messy lookin with them, and it allowed me to move greenland closer to canada to keep my map from being too tall. i guess in that respect, the scale is a little bit off.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 3:31 am**

DublinDoogey wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:
DublinDoogey wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:
DublinDoogey wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.

I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?

Greenland seemed to small, but looking at other maps you're right.

ok

You left off the islands that are around greenland and it threw me off.. but I think tis better w/o them.

yup, thanks too. it was too messy lookin with them, and it allowed me to move greenland closer to canada to keep my map from being too tall. i guess in that respect, the scale is a little bit off.

all necessary too. How long til thsi suckers quenched.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:30 am**

the mountains are a tad hard to see. and the actual name for the region you call ottawa is the golden hoseshoe. it's a little bigger, but would still work.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:55 am**

happysadfun wrote:the mountains are a tad hard to see. and the actual name for the region you call ottawa is the golden hoseshoe. it's a little bigger, but would still work.

I think it's alright for it to stay Ottawa. Even I didnt know that's what the region is called, and I'm from Ottawa!

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:43 am**

DublinDoogey wrote:Here's the latest version:

I believe that it *might* be ready, and then I'll begin work on the xml.

From version one, i've added non-crossable boundries using the plethora of mountains and rivers available in North America. My goal with these is to create bonus areas that are obtainable, but a challenge to do so, in the middle of the map. Basically, becuase it's a larger map than what we've seen, it will be inevitable that some of the bonus areas are extremely difficult to hold.

I've also checked spelling, but it's possible that some mistakes have slipped through.

Anyway, lets discuss borders, bonuses and anything else!

That map looks cool. Along It makes it a challange to conquer all territorys its find to me.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:45 am**

DublinDoogey wrote:
...
As for my opinion, I think it is ready

No, this is the latest version.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:04 pm**

Nfld could be separate from Labrador and be connected to Nova Scotia... and S greenland to Nunavik...

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:54 pm**

The circle in Mexico City really dominates that country. Maybe you could do something about it, because it is really hard to tell its borders.

Posted: **Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:51 am**

Hard to tell its borders?? :lol:

That was a good joke, gavin :lol:

Posted: **Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:42 pm**

Large with numbers (was already given the thumbs up a few pages back):

Small with numbers:

Posted: **Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:35 pm**

looks awesome to me!

lets play!

Posted: **Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:52 pm**

on the small i think kansas looks horrible sepertated like that maybe you can move missouri and its army shadow up more and moves kansas and its army shadow alittle left and let it run into colorado and missouri a little more but otherwise i cant wait to play it

Posted: **Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:12 pm**

The small one looks terriblly crowded and confusing. Lucky im going to play with the large one. Can u change the connecting lines to anything other than your current black lines?

Posted: **Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:12 pm**

I could move missouri up, but then it'd be level with Nebraska.

I've tried tweaking it, i might be able to figure something out though, i'm gonna try a bit more

Conquer Club

North America 2.0 [Quenched]

Re: North America 2.0 [Final Forge]