Land and Sea [Quenched]

[gimil]

I love how the UK is part of france

[Kaplowitz]

You can add New Zealand

[edbeard]

You can add New Zealand

maybe but the space between aus and nz is a lot more than uk to france or the islands in canada or phillipines.


gimil is right. europe is comprised of three territories. east/west/north europe. buuuut, thoughts on gameplay mr. gimil?

[oaktown]

I agree, the trick will be connecting land-sea and creating impassables somehow. Otherwise every territory is a border territory and it'll just be an all-out, how gets the best dice kind of affair.

How about instead of splitting the oceans into huge territories that border everything, you create naval groups in the seas that are territories linked together and with ports via attack lines?

[edbeard]

did you perhaps miss my image?

Click image to enlarge.

[oaktown]

did you perhaps miss my image?

I saw it... I was just suggesting an alternate way to fashion the attack routes.

[edbeard]

I like treating them as regular territories better with the style of great lakes where you cannot cross from water to land except where noted.

less confusing that way.


you don't think there are too many borders right now do you? I thought that keeping each ocean whole instead of splitting them up would make this issue go away.

[whitestazn88]

i want to say that i like the idea of the map, but in reality, the current situation of sea-land connections kinda ruins the map for me.

what were the reasons that you chose the spots where land and sea connect as you did? i feel like there was no logical pattern and you arbitrarily chose places.

IMO, you should try to find places where the worlds largest rivers meet the sea, so for example, the Mississippi in southern US could connect to the closest area of the Atlantic. the same would go for the Nile, Amazon, Yellow, Yangtze, Ganges, Etc.

I just think that would make a lot more sense, because that's how people would have done it back in the day, and even now in underprivileged areas of the world.

Another idea could be to have one-way attacks or bombardments via monsoon/hurricane effects to get from places in the middle of the ocean to coasts or even parts of the inland in continents.

[edbeard]

I might've been convinced about the rivers thing but that'd only give me a few places for land to ocean connections.


I chose them based on where land-land and ocean-ocean connections occurred on the map. I thought that was fairly evident. It cuts down on the total number of borders the oceans and lands will have by herding them all into one area. I think this makes for a unique setup as four continents converge in one spot on numerous occasions.

[whitestazn88]

I might've been convinced about the rivers thing but that'd only give me a few places for land to ocean connections.


I chose them based on where land-land and ocean-ocean connections occurred on the map. I thought that was fairly evident. It cuts down on the total number of borders the oceans and lands will have by herding them all into one area. I think this makes for a unique setup as four continents converge in one spot on numerous occasions.

but based on your placements, don't you think it would be an unfair start having the arctic ocean, which gives you an incredibly bad amount of places to be attacked from?

i understand that it would be good for gameplay because there will be less bottlenecking and such. but i feel that right now there are a lot of connecting points, and they should be reduced, especially in the central america/northern south america area.

and do you know how many territs you want? because my opinion on the matter might change if there are a lot more territs you know?

[edbeard]

well the arctic is a bit deceiving at the moment without names. There's only four territories in it and only two of those are border territories. One of the border territories connects across the map. When names and circles are there, this confusion will be done.

The same goes for a few pacific ocean territories.

The only place I fuddled this up was in Antarctica. There's meant to be four territories but using the logic of the other areas, I've only made three.


edit I missed your point:

I don't think six is too huge a number. But, not every dot has to be used. EG: you can attack from Alaska to the pacific but not to the arctic and so on

[whitestazn88]

well the arctic is a bit deceiving at the moment without names. There's only four territories in it and only two of those are border territories. One of the border territories connects across the map. When names and circles are there, this confusion will be done.

The same goes for a few pacific ocean territories.

The only place I fuddled this up was in Antarctica. There's meant to be four territories but using the logic of the other areas, I've only made three.


edit I missed your point:

I don't think six is too huge a number. But, not every dot has to be used. EG: you can attack from Alaska to the pacific but not to the arctic and so on

i didn't realize that the one border territ in arctic connected across the map.

as for the dots not having to be used... then how do you decide which ones get to go where? they just seem way too arbitrary.

it would be fine if you just were like... these are areas that have ports, therefore, they will have access to the water, and design little ports to put on certain places, but at this point, i don't know why alaska should have a connection to the ocean more than california should.

[edbeard]

i don't know why alaska should have a connection to the ocean more than california should.

I chose them based on where land-land and ocean-ocean connections occurred on the map. I thought that was fairly evident. It cuts down on the total number of borders the oceans and lands will have by herding them all into one area. I think this makes for a unique setup as four continents converge in one spot on numerous occasions.

anything I do is FAR from arbitrary

[whitestazn88]

so i finally understand what you meant about the minimizing borders and stuff, but you still don't explain what you would do to minimize the multiple connections.

as you said, alaska could attack pacific or w/e but not necessarily arctic. how will you choose that?

the river idea is well suited for this map, and i agree, there arent that many, and there would be fewer connections, but i think there are other things we could look at for this.

maybe the great barrier reef could be a point where water and land meet, and the ice shelves in antarctica. you could take it to the extreme and say something like the gold/ivory coasts are literally giant coasts which connect africa to the water

[edbeard]

nothing is really set in stone but you haven't convinced me that six places to be attacked is too many for the arctic so I don't really have to make that decision at this moment. if there is a decision to be made, it'll be done with the intention of making the best gameplay for the map. you can't really make one decision at a time. you have to say well if alaska is connected to the pacific then maybe the pacific shouldn't connect to argentina and then the atlantic shouldn't connect with south africa etc...


I don't see any benefit to this river idea when there's probably only three major rivers where this would/could change things on the map. If you consider that ocean-ocean and land-land borders have to be borders for logical and gameplay reasons, there is a benefit to adding other borders (ocean-land) in the same spots so as to not make the map have too many borders for each continent to hold. There's no benefit to saying well the ice shelves make a connection here and the barrier reef makes another one here and finding things to create reasons for gameplay changes.


there's no graphical work occurring on the map at the moment and I suspect that with the Brazil Revamp competition coming up there won't be many artists wiling to work on a new map. So, how these connections will be physically done is up for grabs and I'll probably leave this up to whoever does the graphics. Rivers and canals make for 'nice' ways to say why these connections occur, but when you consider the scale of the map, it might be best just to do double arrows like the Great Lakes map.

[whitestazn88]

so i suppose all this supposing was useless without a real working image?

[edbeard]

well if you were only concerned about graphics then yes it was a waste of your time. I did say on the map itself that these weren't the real graphics and me asking for an artist on there as well is another clue about that.

the draft was done to talk gameplay which we've done a bit. the discussion has affirmed my belief in the gameplay setup though. but, you're only one person and more minds are needed to settle it.

[oaktown]

personally I never like it when folks put the arctic/antarctic in their maps... when has a nation ever used the south pole to transport armies, or given a rat's ass about controlling it? e.g. World 2.0.

[whitestazn88]

personally I never like it when folks put the arctic/antarctic in their maps... when has a nation ever used the south pole to transport armies, or given a rat's ass about controlling it? e.g. World 2.0.

technically, its world 2.1...

secondly, it may never be used to transport armies, but many countries nowadays put a big stake in both poles for the research, although thats not really part of the gameplay of this map.

they are also important if you want to have a real map, as edbeard says he does

[edbeard]

well the arctic was important to the soviets and their submarines. Didn't you watch 'The Hunt for the Red October' ?


Antarctica isn't really important but it'd feel like a waste not having it. It'd cut down on southern borders for oceans though. It's only included on two of the four 'world' maps we have here. It makes sense in both Extreme Global Warming and World 2.1 for different reasons. EGW because it'd be habitable after the extreme warming. World 2.1 because you NEED a southern attack route (I don't get the 0 bonus though).

Here it's not needed but I think it's a nice touch. Another small continent and if I'm including every other part of the world, why not Antarctica?



The 'real world' title was both used as a way to get people to look at the thread and to describe the lack of a map utilizing both land and sea on the whole world scale. It's not technically meant to say I'm making a 'real' map of the world.

[whitestazn88]

any updates coming soon?

[Androidz]

You must add big Greenland to your map:O

[edbeard]

You must add big Greenland to your map:O

it's there. it's the big green mess northeast of North America

it's based on this map http://www.fabiovisentin.com/world_map/ ... ld_map.jpg

[Androidz]

You must add big Greenland to your map:O

it's there. it's the big green mess northeast of North America

it's based on this map http://www.fabiovisentin.com/world_map/ ... ld_map.jpg

hehe i didint see it on your map but now i do:D. im must be blind anyway when giveing bonus for greenland make sure it is a part of denmark;)

[whitestazn88]

so, we getting any updates soon ed?