Conquer Club

I don't see such a big deal. If we're going to mislocate tribes by such a huge degree, saying Ireland is part of the British Empire is a relatively minor inaccuracy. Since this map isn't about accuracy, it should go by how it looks, and I personally think it looks better with Ireland part of the British Isles. The random gray patch to the left of Britain would otherwise look strange.

rebelman wrote:coleman its widely accepted that the first european to land in the americas was an Irishman a missionary named Brendan (this has been historically proven)

The first Europeans were Vikings

Grtz
MarVal

MarVal wrote:

rebelman wrote:coleman its widely accepted that the first european to land in the americas was an Irishman a missionary named Brendan (this has been historically proven)

The first Europeans were Vikings

Grtz
MarVal

If iremeber correctly thats just speculation because colubus and his chums found cave paintings of white men with orange hair.

gimil wrote:

MarVal wrote:

rebelman wrote:coleman its widely accepted that the first european to land in the americas was an Irishman a missionary named Brendan (this has been historically proven)

The first Europeans were Vikings

Grtz
MarVal

If iremeber correctly thats just speculation because colubus and his chums found cave paintings of white men with orange hair.

Uh, you mean Erik The Red who was a Viking?

gimil wrote:

MarVal wrote:

rebelman wrote:coleman its widely accepted that the first european to land in the americas was an Irishman a missionary named Brendan (this has been historically proven)

The first Europeans were Vikings

Grtz
MarVal

If iremeber correctly thats just speculation because colubus and his chums found cave paintings of white men with orange hair.

WHO KNEW WICKED WAS THAT OLD.



MAP LOOKS FINE

rebelman wrote:coleman its widely accepted that the first european to land in the americas was an Irishman a missionary named Brendan (this has been historically proven)

I thought that everybody knew that Tom Cruise was the first Irishman to conquer America... they made a film about it, "Far and Away"...

MrBenn wrote:

rebelman wrote:coleman its widely accepted that the first european to land in the americas was an Irishman a missionary named Brendan (this has been historically proven)

I thought that everybody knew that Tom Cruise was the first Irishman to conquer America... they made a film about it, "Far and Away"...

well it was either him, or the vikings

bryguy wrote:

MrBenn wrote:

rebelman wrote:coleman its widely accepted that the first european to land in the americas was an Irishman a missionary named Brendan (this has been historically proven)

I thought that everybody knew that Tom Cruise was the first Irishman to conquer America... they made a film about it, "Far and Away"...

well it was either him, or the vikings

Grtz
MarVal

Some of the Native Kingdom names need to be changed. The actual territory of the Mapuche was midway down Chile, in other words, it had almost zero overlap with their territory on this map. The same goes with the Inuit, who were much further north.

I would recommend replacing Mapuche with Inca, who are not only more accurate, but also more regonizable.
I'm not sure about what the Inuit would be replaced with, but from what I've seen on different maps on the internet, it should be Athabascan (a language group in that area)
Finally, I'm pretty sure there's a better word then Comanche for the Great Plains, but I don't have any idea of what to use at the moment. One thing to keep in mind is that although the Aztec and Inca were entire civilizations, at the time, the Natives of Canada and the US were divided into hundreds of unlinked tribes, so I would probably name those areas based on their language groups.

There's a map of Native American cultures at my school that I can check on monday for more information.

Also, for the record, Ireland only became part of Britain around 1800, long after the time period of this map. But frankly I don't think it's that big a deal for it to be included as part of Great Britain

Zero_Hourglass wrote:Some of the Native Kingdom names need to be changed.

Commenting 101, telling us we need to change something isn't going to make us be nice. From what you said I can see you missed the point of this entirely... Not going for complete historical accuracy here.

Also, I thought it was Ireland finally broke away in 1800 not the other way around, but what the hell do I know... Probably not as much as I think I do.

Coleman wrote:

Zero_Hourglass wrote:Some of the Native Kingdom names need to be changed.

Commenting 101, telling us we need to change something isn't going to make us be nice.

Sorry about that, I figured that since they were literally incorrect, rather then it being opinion on my part, it would be okay to say "need" instead of "could"

Coleman wrote:From what you said I can see you missed the point of this entirely... Not going for complete historical accuracy here.

That's a different matter from simply ignoring historical errors. Take a look at Peru in the classic map, in reality, Peru is only half that size. That geographical inaccuracy is fine because it's for a specific reason: it's the only way to make South America only four territories. However, your historical inaccuracy isn't linked to the gameplay, so there isn't any reason for it.

Coleman wrote:Also, I thought it was Ireland finally broke away in 1800 not the other way around, but what the hell do I know... Probably not as much as I think I do.

I double-checked Wikipedia, which said this:

In 1800, the British and subsequently the unrepresentative Irish Parliament passed the Act of Union which, in 1801, merged the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The irish may of passed an act of union but early 1600 the king of england had ruled over ireland.

Zero_Hourglass wrote:

Coleman wrote:From what you said I can see you missed the point of this entirely... Not going for complete historical accuracy here.

That's a different matter from simply ignoring historical errors. Take a look at Peru in the classic map, in reality, Peru is only half that size. That geographical inaccuracy is fine because it's for a specific reason: it's the only way to make South America only four territories. However, your historical inaccuracy isn't linked to the gameplay, so there isn't any reason for it.

dude stop being a jerk, and READ THE FIRST COUPLE POSTS!!!! practically all of you issues that you have have been talked about on pages 1-10



so learn to read those pages

Zero_Hourglass wrote:Some of the Native Kingdom names need to be changed. The actual territory of the Mapuche was midway down Chile, in other words, it had almost zero overlap with their territory on this map. The same goes with the Inuit, who were much further north.

I would recommend replacing Mapuche with Inca, who are not only more accurate, but also more regonizable.
I'm not sure about what the Inuit would be replaced with, but from what I've seen on different maps on the internet, it should be Athabascan (a language group in that area)
Finally, I'm pretty sure there's a better word then Comanche for the Great Plains, but I don't have any idea of what to use at the moment. One thing to keep in mind is that although the Aztec and Inca were entire civilizations, at the time, the Natives of Canada and the US were divided into hundreds of unlinked tribes, so I would probably name those areas based on their language groups.

There's a map of Native American cultures at my school that I can check on monday for more information.

Also, for the record, Ireland only became part of Britain around 1800, long after the time period of this map. But frankly I don't think it's that big a deal for it to be included as part of Great Britain

I do like the idea of naming by language family. I know this map isn't going for historical accuracy (at all, in fact), but that doesn't mean better names can't be found.

Also, I can't remember if this was discussed already (I haven't read this thread in a while), but I do remember wondering why Mapuche instead of Inca or Maya. Any good reason for that?

cause the continent names or whatever are hardly readable, they NEED to be set to a higher opacity

dude stop being a jerk, and READ THE FIRST COUPLE POSTS!!!! practically all of you issues that you have have been talked about on pages 1-10

so learn to read those pages

The only time historical accuracy was discussed was on the first response. However, the issues discussed there were a different matter, because dividing the Aztec into Aztec and Maya would have made them both too small, changing France's Empire would have unbalanced it, and giving three European nations an additional territory on the coast of Brazil would have horribly complicated the game. In those situations, ignoring historical accuracy makes sense, because it simplifies the game, however, when implementing historical accuracy doesn't alter the game, you only stand to gain by changing it.

Other then that, the only time I can remember historical accuracy coming up in the first ten pages was when the name Iroquois was corrected.

Take a look at how other inaccuracies were dealt with in this thread: in addition to the name Iroquois being changed, France and Spain's ports were put on the Atlantic Ocean, and Holland was resized to reflect it's historical size. When it doesn't effect gameplay to fix historical inaccuracies, there's no reason not to.

That's why I'm fine with Ireland being included in Britain: there's a reason behind it, which overrides historical accuracy.

Small:


Large:


Neutrals:


to do:

-Forge
-Fix Home-Land
-Answer Concerns

If I start at Comanche or Aztec, I'm going to try and take over that HomeLand. It's a risky move, but I'll bet that when I do this successfully, I win a good amount of the time. Enough to offset the times where it doesn't work and I die when my opponent comes back at me.

I think the amount of times this will happen is not what you want out of this map.


edit: poorly phrased sentences above aside, I think a couple solutions. Increase neutrals in between these places. Or, move one of the Homelands further away. Probably the Aztec one.

Another solution that just came to mind, have each homeland start with a higher number of armies which id now possible with the new XML.

gimil wrote:Another solution that just came to mind, have each homeland start with a higher number of armies which id now possible with the new XML.

Agree, 8 instead of 3?

do the europe homelands also get the +4?

Wow this map looks really good.

Coleman wrote:

gimil wrote:Another solution that just came to mind, have each homeland start with a higher number of armies which id now possible with the new XML.

Agree, 8 instead of 3?

I think that sounds reasonable, will you run some play testing when you get the time?

gimil wrote:

Coleman wrote:

gimil wrote:Another solution that just came to mind, have each homeland start with a higher number of armies which id now possible with the new XML.

Agree, 8 instead of 3?

I think that sounds reasonable, will you run some play testing when you get the time?

Just to bring it to colemans attention

alright, for the last time clean up your grammar and I may give this my stamp.

• are you going to capitalize "Landing Point" or aren't you? you have "Landing Points" and "landing points" and even "landing Points" !!!!
• "bombard any other territory within their colony" - elsewhere you call it an empire, so I'd change colony to empire.
• "Only ports on the same ocean" etc... drop "only." Because neighboring territories can attack them as well.