Land and Sea [Quenched]

[gimil]

in the white are where the title is, i think it should be a different color, i don't know, the white just detracts from the colorfulness of the rest of the map, i think i diff. color would be better suited

I disagree. When you are playing on this map it will be sitting ontop of a white background which it will fit better into.

[tlane]

Eu8 - na4

the only concern i have as of now is the wraparound. it is completely unnecessary in my opinion.

actually it's completely necessary. the map represents the world which is a globe. this means there's only one side and no "ends". It would be a huge error in logic to NOT have the ocean wrap around

yeah, I like the wraparound effect and it might be interesting to connect EU8 and NA4 via arrows.
Also is there a background behind the legend if so it looks like the exact same color as the website back ground or is it just text with nothing behind it(cant tell from the pic), either way i would change it.

sorry if this has been said before, and i will be back later
tlane

(if you did not understand that, i am sorry, i cant figure out a better way to word what I am saying)

[tlane]

sorry about that, i was writing the post and while i was, some people posted and addressed one of my issues

tlane

[barterer2002]

Ed I apologize for coming in late to this one and usually I'd try to read the thread to see if you'd discussed things but unfortunately I don't have the time this evening to read the 26 pages plus do the other things I want to do before heading to bed. Thus I'm making my comments without having checked to see if they've already been discussed.

My first issue is the Pacific Ocean. Its the largest ocean in the world, and larger than any continent. It seems to me that it ought to have the highest bonus. Now I know that there is a formula that you all use as mapmakers to determine how high any particular bonus should be but the Pacific Ocean being a lower bonus than the Atlantic Ocean just strikes me immediately. As such I went and counted and it seems that the Pacific can be attacked from more terts than the Atlantic can. I realize you've divided the Atlantic into 7 terts and the Pacific into 6 but really I'm not as sure that makes sense either given the size of the two oceans. Wait, never mind I just figured out the arrows tell me where the land and sea can attack each other but I'm still feeling that the Pacific is getting the short shift.

The second issue is the decision to use Eurasia rather than splitting the two continents. The map contains all 4 oceans and 6 continents. I'm not sure why there aren't 7 continents (Europe could easily be a 3 tert 2 bonus tert)

Truthfully these are a bit nickpicky and I wouldn't bring them up at this point if I wasn't asked to comment. I look forward to playing it.

[edbeard]

Depending on where you live, you were taught that there are either 7, 6, or 5 continents in the world. Some people learn that America is one continent. Some learn that Eurasia is one continent. No other map has Eurasia. We already have four mini-continents. Another one doesn't serve any general gameplay need. Not sure if you're a jury member but you've made no argument to have Europe and Asia other than "I want it" and for this type of situation, that only works if you're the mapmaker. The same really goes for the Pacific comment.

[oaktown]

Not sure if you're a jury member...

The jury system died with the last map we tried it on... members of the Foundry have been alerted to the fact that this map is nearing the Final Forge (thus the flurry of activity), but I will be stamping it myself.

[mibi]

Can PA2 attack IN1?
It looks that way.

[edbeard]

Can PA2 attack IN1?
It looks that way.

I think you mean PA1 and IN2 ?

The answer is yes they can attack each other. The arrow does indeed connect those territories.

[Premier2k]

So I assume seas can attack connecting seas, for example AT2 -> AR2?

I like this map, especially the bright colours. It has a cartoon feel to it!

Premier2k

[NemesisChild]

Just a quick question

why are there 2 arrows showing that NA1 can attack PA4?
Same for EU9 top PA1
only minor points but it looks a little odd!

Other than that it looks good

Nem

[Premier2k]

Just a quick question

why are there 2 arrows showing that NA1 can attack PA4?
Same for EU9 top PA1
only minor points but it looks a little odd!

Other than that it looks good

Nem

There isn't mate, the other one is showing PA4 -> AT3. A little confusing yes.

Prem.

[thenobodies80]

I can't find anything wrong on this map.
If I have to find a something to critic , i don't like very much attack arrows, but it's only a personal choice.
Bonuses are small but they are all balanced.

Finally we have a valid second choice to world 2.1

Good Work!

[yeti_c]

There doesn't appear to be a border between AT1 & AT2 on the small map.

C.

[mibi]

I don't like how PA1 can attack IN2 and PA4 to AT3. It seams that there is enough openess in the map already that you don't really need to attack over a land mass. And if there is canals there, then Ms shold be able to attack IN1.

Further more, what is the point of the arrows? Why restrict the land/sea launch points? It seems random and not a reflection on anything in reality. New York, the worlds busiest port for the better part of this century is inaccessible by sea. Nor is the netherlands. If I want to sail from South America, I shouldn't have to go around the tip of South America, that shit just doesn't make sense.

Just open that map up, that's purpose of this map right? Plus the arrows are amateur anyways.

Also, you should consider putting a neutral count on all the sea territories. This seems logical as no one should really start in the middle of the ocean, but if you want to open up an ocean route, you can do so by slogging through a few neutrals, say 4 per territory. This would also open up 'shipping lanes' as certain routes would be preferred if they were already conquered and had 1 army on it. Or a player could chart their own course at their own expense.

I think this would give the gameplay a better feel, and reinforce the logical notion that we are primarily land bound.

[barterer2002]

Depending on where you live, you were taught that there are either 7, 6, or 5 continents in the world. Some people learn that America is one continent. Some learn that Eurasia is one continent. No other map has Eurasia. We already have four mini-continents. Another one doesn't serve any general gameplay need. Not sure if you're a jury member but you've made no argument to have Europe and Asia other than "I want it" and for this type of situation, that only works if you're the mapmaker. The same really goes for the Pacific comment.

Ed, there really isn't a need to be prickly with me here, I was asked to come and give some thoughts and I tried to do that. It seems silly to me that the world's largest ocean isn't treated as such but you're right I'm not the mapmaker. (although to dismiss the argument as "I want" is condescending and ridiculous). I'll accept your argument for Eurasia as being taught in other parts of the world as one continent-not a fact that I was aware of. I can certainly see why, however, people don't bother to come into the foundry because when they do you jump down their throats. My apologies for trying to contribute as I was asked, I'll be happy to spend my time over in tournaments instead.

[edbeard]

yeti sorry I didn't update the first post. Here are the newest images. please remove the images from your post.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

I don't like how PA1 can attack IN2 and PA4 to AT3. It seams that there is enough openess in the map already that you don't really need to attack over a land mass. And if there is canals there, then Ms shold be able to attack IN1.

Further more, what is the point of the arrows? Why restrict the land/sea launch points? It seems random and not a reflection on anything in reality. New York, the worlds busiest port for the better part of this century is inaccessible by sea. Nor is the netherlands. If I want to sail from South America, I shouldn't have to go around the tip of South America, that shit just doesn't make sense.

Just open that map up, that's purpose of this map right? Plus the arrows are amateur anyways.

Also, you should consider putting a neutral count on all the sea territories. This seems logical as no one should really start in the middle of the ocean, but if you want to open up an ocean route, you can do so by slogging through a few neutrals, say 4 per territory. This would also open up 'shipping lanes' as certain routes would be preferred if they were already conquered and had 1 army on it. Or a player could chart their own course at their own expense.

I think this would give the gameplay a better feel, and reinforce the logical notion that we are primarily land bound.

1. MS can attack IN1.

2. neutral on ALL sea territories goes against what I'm trying to do with this map. That would make about 31 starting territories which is not something I want this map to be. I want it to be a slightly larger than classic map. the idea sounds like a good one for another map though.

3. the land/sea restriction is for gameplay purposes. having everything able to attack everything is not a good idea because continents would be WAY too hard to hold for the gameplay I want.

Depending on where you live, you were taught that there are either 7, 6, or 5 continents in the world. Some people learn that America is one continent. Some learn that Eurasia is one continent. No other map has Eurasia. We already have four mini-continents. Another one doesn't serve any general gameplay need. Not sure if you're a jury member but you've made no argument to have Europe and Asia other than "I want it" and for this type of situation, that only works if you're the mapmaker. The same really goes for the Pacific comment.

Ed, there really isn't a need to be prickly with me here, I was asked to come and give some thoughts and I tried to do that. It seems silly to me that the world's largest ocean isn't treated as such but you're right I'm not the mapmaker. (although to dismiss the argument as "I want" is condescending and ridiculous). I'll accept your argument for Eurasia as being taught in other parts of the world as one continent-not a fact that I was aware of. I can certainly see why, however, people don't bother to come into the foundry because when they do you jump down their throats. My apologies for trying to contribute as I was asked, I'll be happy to spend my time over in tournaments instead.

wow. I wasn't being prickly at all. how you read that as prickly I don't know. Your points DO come down to "I want" though because they represent your point of view of the world and had zero gameplay reasoning behind it. as for "jumping down your throat", I was just refuting your point which is a necessary part of the map making process if I want it to proceed to final forge. someone makes a point and you have to either comply with it or give a reason why it's not viable. it's either refute your points like a debate or get told I haven't answered / commented on everything and have the map stay in the main foundry.

[mibi]

2. neutral on ALL sea territories goes against what I'm trying to do with this map. That would make about 31 starting territories which is not something I want this map to be. I want it to be a slightly larger than classic map. the idea sounds like a good one for another map though.

Thats it? You just want a more territories? Seems like a poor reason to sacrifice a fantastic gameplay opportunity.

[edbeard]

2. neutral on ALL sea territories goes against what I'm trying to do with this map. That would make about 31 starting territories which is not something I want this map to be. I want it to be a slightly larger than classic map. the idea sounds like a good one for another map though.

Thats it? You just want a more territories? Seems like a poor reason to sacrifice a fantastic gameplay opportunity.

there's a HUGE difference in playing a map with 31 starting territories vs 52 starting territories. completely different maps. I wasn't looking to make a small map. Why would I change that now? I don't think I'm missing out on anything there.

[oaktown]

just read a few of the recent comments, and like everybody else i have some opinions...

I like AT3 connecting with PA4 - panama canal and all that. I think those arrows are clear.

The comment about AT1 and AT2 having an invisible border is a very astute observation. The borders in that part of the map can all be tweaked a little - without changing gameplay - to make that particular border more clear. For instance, AT2 can hit N. America farther south, giving more room for that arrow. And if AT2 hit Africa a bit farther south it would give more space for those arrows.

Neutral seas? This could be interesting, but on this particular map I think you'd see the seas go untouched until somebody dominated one of the land hemispheres. This gameplay idea might work better with a conquest-like map, where players start on smaller landmasses and have to take to the seas to conquer the world.

I said way back when that it would be more logical if the land/sea connections were to jive with real-life major seaports; that said, I don't think there are any gameplay problems with the current set-up, so this one can go down as mapmaker's preference.

The stripes in the Red Sea are fine, but they flow right into a border line in Africa - a border that is already partly covered by an army circle on the small map.

Quick thought on army circles; in my experience army circles make the counts easier to read both because they provide a solid background and because they provide greater contrast with the black outline of the CC army counts. These army circles are darker than the surrounding colors, and thus may actually make the colors harder to read, as was the case in the original classic map. I could never read the blue counts against the blue parts of the classic map. Maybe this one is fine though - is there a version with counts somewhere in the depths of this thread?

[yeti_c]

Neutral seas? This could be interesting, but on this particular map I think you'd see the seas go untouched until somebody dominated one of the land hemispheres. This gameplay idea might work better with a conquest-like map, where players start on smaller landmasses and have to take to the seas to conquer the world.

Someone bring back Pixel Earth!!!

C.

[yeti_c]

yeti sorry I didn't update the first post. Here are the newest images. please remove the images from your post.

Done - but as Oaky mentions - I think the point is still valid?

C.

[edbeard]

yeti sorry I didn't update the first post. Here are the newest images. please remove the images from your post.

Done - but as Oaky mentions - I think the point is still valid?

C.

your words after but don't match with the done and my words so I don't know what you're talking about. no time to investigate. have to go to work.



RE: army circles, the XML is done (see previous page). if someone can host it and post up the XML images I'd appreciate it. As I said, I don't know why they took away the "browse" option for the map inspect but unless there was some issue, it's quite the horrible idea which makes me think there WAS some issue because yea that'd be REALLY dumb to take it away for no good reason. Anyway, so if someone can host it and post the images, we can really talk about how it looks but this is a FF topic I think


the AT1-AT2 border is 100% clear to me. I don't how you wouldn't see it.

[cairnswk]

...
The comment about AT1 and AT2 having an invisible border is a very astute observation. The borders in that part of the map can all be tweaked a little - without changing gameplay - to make that particular border more clear. For instance, AT2 can hit N. America farther south, giving more room for that arrow. And if AT2 hit Africa a bit farther south it would give more space for those arrows.
...

I agree with oaktown on this one.
That border will likely cause some issues because it is almost invisible, and could be made clearer. This is one of those that will likely come back to bit you after quenching because players will simply not see it.

[oaktown]

At this point I'm just looking for cosmetic changes more than significant gameplay changes... border clarity, army circles, etc. In looking at the At1-At2 border, the arrow right below AT1 looks funny the way it changes color over the land... is that arrow more transparent than the others?

I've put the XML file up on fileden so folks can use it with Map Maker...
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/30/2026929/las.xml

I find that they aren't terrible, but the darker colors (blue, green, red) are kinda muddy. Mediterranean is the worst for me; between the business behind the circle and the dark color of the circle that territory could be easily overlooked. In my humble opinion the best looking counts are those in the Antarctic - any thoughts of removing the fill entirely, and just letting the army counts sit on the solid background colors within a circle? That or making the fill color lighter than the surrounding colors.

[edbeard]

pm sent to giml about this stuff. in short, I agree about army circles (I probably have stronger feeling than you about it (especially on MS)), disagree about the arrow (which I think looks different from the others because of the dark sea and the lighter green, btw) and the border (AT1-AT2) but am I talking to gimil about him doing it so please wait for another post on these three issues before posting about those things.


huge. thanks btw on hosting the file.



edit: gimil expects an update tomorrow