The Americas [Abandoned]

by **Spockers** on Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:37 pm

I think getting rid of the nuuk/brasillia link would tidy things up too

by **Nukora** on Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:57 pm

-Un-pixelating inland waters
-A few ferry lines taken out
-Central America Borders slightly enhances
-"Unpassable" changed to impassable.
-Great Lakes edited!

by **Qwert** on Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:05 pm

Visualy these must be much,much better. Keep working.

Website · by **Bad Speler** on Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:49 pm

Borders look pixelated
Canadian borders are way off.

by **Spockers** on Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:07 pm

I'm a bit confused.... is baja connected to sierra madre? if not, then they should be

by **wiggybowler** on Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:49 pm

Looks good keep it coming

by **Samus** on Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:21 am

Your biggest problem right now is that you've got a lot of regions that simply cannot be held in a game, either because they are too big, have too many borders, or both. These are my suggestions to combat that issue:

You need to divide the US into two regions, west and east. Rocky Mountains and SW States plus everything west of that is one, everything to the east is the other.

You also need to divide Amazonia into two regions. Guyana and all the purple territories south of that and east of Peru are one, the rest are the other.

You need to reform all of the Brazil territories. Use this as a guide (Combine the yellow and red regions into one territory):

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/1 ... ap-lrg.gif

Ignore the Spanish names they give you, just call it North Brazil, NE Brazil, etc., or find other English names.

Eliminate the connection between Hawaii and Baja.

Add mountains across the south border of British Columbia, BC now only borders Manitoba and Yukon.

Move the Manitoba/Ontario border slightly east so that it's clear Ontario doesn't border North Central.

Make it more clear that the Great Lakes divide those territories. The only connections between Canada and Eastern US should be North Central-Manitoba and New England-Quebec.

Change the river in Western US to divide Pacific US and Baja. Baja should now only border Sierra Madre.

Move the Galapagos-Guatamala connection to be Galapagos-Sierra Madre.

Eliminate the S. Georgia-Brazil connection.

Change the Nuuk-Brazil connection to Nuuk-Guyana.

Move the army circle off of the Galapagos Islands so that you can more easily see what color region it is a part of.

Are Pacific Alaska and Arctic Alaska actually divided by that river? If so, why? If not, why is that river there?

I may have more later, but that's what I see for now.

by **Nukora** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:08 pm

[quote=Samus]You need to divide the US into two regions, west and east. Rocky Mountains and SW States plus everything west of that is one, everything to the east is the other.

You also need to divide Amazonia into two regions. Guyana and all the purple territories south of that and east of Peru are one, the rest are the other.[/quote]
Um...are you saying split the US into two seperate continents, or two regions. Because two regions would be too few? Same question with your point about Amazonia.

Yes, the Yukon does seperate Alaska. I thought it would be interesting. If it's a problem, I'll take it out.

by **Spockers** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:16 pm

Nukora wrote:
Yes, the Yukon does seperate Alaska. I thought it would be interesting. If it's a problem, I'll take it out.

If the Yukon you mention is the river in the middle of Alaska, then yes, take it out, the Alaskas need to be connected.

I don't know what's going on with your other river that separates canada and USA

Victoria looks as though its surrounded by impassable borders.

map looks much better without all those Aeroplane connections.

Carribean looks messy and confusing

by **Samus** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:42 pm

Nukora wrote:Um...are you saying split the US into two seperate continents, or two regions. Because two regions would be too few? Same question with your point about Amazonia.

Right now the US is one big region with 12 territories and 7 borders, I want to split that into two regions, both with 6 territories and 4 borders.

Amazonia is probably okay now. Rather difficult to take and hold, but that's probably fine.

I noticed Galapagos Islands disappeared. I don't really have any attachment to that territories specifically, but you're down to 47 territories and need to add 1 to make it 48.

Also, am I crazy or is Victoria a different color or texture or something from the rest of Canada?

by **Nukora** on Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:18 pm

Spockers:
1. Yes, that's the Yukon River. And know it is no more.
2. What's confusing about the river seperating the US from Canada?
3. I'll see what I can do with the carribean on the next version.
4. Does Victoria look better now?

Samus:
1. The US was like that because I wanted it to be the equivalent of Asia on Classic which has 12 territories, but five borders. So yes, if I keep it the way it was (which I'd like to do), then I will have to take some borders away. Also, I think 8 continents is a little too many. *shrug*
2. Oh heh. I guess I'll find a territory to add.
3. As far as I can tell Victoria's the same color and texture as the rest of Canada. I dunno why it looks different to you.

by **Nukora** on Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:05 pm

1. Carribean changed a bit.
2. Amazonas split into Amazonas and Rio Negro to make 48 territories.

by **Samus** on Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:05 pm

Nukora wrote:

Samus:
1. The US was like that because I wanted it to be the equivalent of Asia on Classic which has 12 territories, but five borders. So yes, if I keep it the way it was (which I'd like to do), then I will have to take some borders away. Also, I think 8 continents is a little too many. *shrug*

Well, any region over 9 territories is basically unholdable in most situations. That doesn't mean they don't have their place, but you certainly don't see players fighting over Asia. They fight in it, around it, and through it, but no one is really trying to take and hold Asia for the bonus. One region like this can be a good "neutral fighting ground," but if two of them are like this, they take up a significant number of your territories. Which means the battlefield of regions players are actually fighting for is proportionally smaller.

I think 8 regions is the right number for a map with 48 territories. Classic is 42, so with more territories you should obviously have more regions.

3. As far as I can tell Victoria's the same color and texture as the rest of Canada. I dunno why it looks different to you.

Not sure what it was, I can still see it on that iteration of the map, but it's gone in the newest two, so I guess it's nothing to worry about now.

by **Nukora** on Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:34 pm

Samus wrote:
Nukora wrote:

Samus:
1. The US was like that because I wanted it to be the equivalent of Asia on Classic which has 12 territories, but five borders. So yes, if I keep it the way it was (which I'd like to do), then I will have to take some borders away. Also, I think 8 continents is a little too many. *shrug*

Well, any region over 9 territories is basically unholdable in most situations. That doesn't mean they don't have their place, but you certainly don't see players fighting over Asia. They fight in it, around it, and through it, but no one is really trying to take and hold Asia for the bonus. One region like this can be a good "neutral fighting ground," but if two of them are like this, they take up a significant number of your territories. Which means the battlefield of regions players are actually fighting for is proportionally smaller.

I think 8 regions is the right number for a map with 48 territories. Classic is 42, so with more territories you should obviously have more regions.

3. As far as I can tell Victoria's the same color and texture as the rest of Canada. I dunno why it looks different to you.

Not sure what it was, I can still see it on that iteration of the map, but it's gone in the newest two, so I guess it's nothing to worry about now.

Your right. Amazonia is more of the big continent in this map.

by **Kaplowitz** on Mon May 21, 2007 6:43 pm

Why is Western US worth more than Eastern US?

by **Spritzking** on Mon May 21, 2007 7:15 pm

cuz of alaska i think

by **plysprtz** on Mon May 21, 2007 9:27 pm

this seemes like one of those maps that it someone holds all of north america naad you hold all of south america you to could just sit there forever getting bigger and bigger. it seems silly to be able to hold the entire america by only fortifying 2 countries. seems allittle easy are you going to add docks\airports\something?

by **Shacekenhall** on Thu May 24, 2007 12:33 pm

Hey Greetings,

Nice work on the development of your map,

I only have one thing to say, there's a Country named Ecuador in case you don't know.

Even when we considder Southamerican as brothers, I feel that is an insult to put us as part of Peru. I have nothing against peruvians, but we are not part of Peru, even in colonial age, we were an independent territory from Peru and Colombia.

So it will be nice, even if we have no armies or anything, to draw our borders in the map.

Thank you

Regards

Shace

by **unriggable** on Thu May 24, 2007 3:16 pm

Kaplowitz wrote:Why is Western US worth more than Eastern US?

Islands.

by **gimil** on Thu May 24, 2007 6:05 pm

Shacekenhall wrote:I only have one thing to say, there's a Country named Ecuador in case you don't know.

that could be your 48th country

by **The Random One** on Fri May 25, 2007 6:00 am

Colombia is mispelled, as is Guatemala.

As a Brazilian, I can say that a more fitting name for E. Brazil is NE Brazil (as we refer to that area as the Northeast), like in World 2.0. (Paraná is also wildly innacurate, but I can't think of a better name so I won't nag.)

Other than that, looks good. I don't like the US being two separate continents, but I understand there are gameplay reasons, so keep up.