The enhancing of the existing Classic Map

Topics that are not maps. Discuss general map making concepts, techniques, contests, etc, here.

Moderator: Cartographers

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Jota should make a better looking Classic Map

 
Total votes: 0

User avatar
millej11
Posts: 773
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Post by millej11 »

Pedronicus wrote:thats a great looking map - without going mad like the World 2.0 map


exactly!
Image
User avatar
qeee1
Posts: 2904
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:43 pm
Location: Ireland

Post by qeee1 »

Don't drown the game in details. There's millions of maps and options on W@W, to the point where it just gets confusing. We don't need another world map unless it's something very different.
Frigidus wrote:but now that it's become relatively popular it's suffered the usual downturn in coolness.
User avatar
dafranca
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:04 pm
Contact:

Post by dafranca »

Oscar Wild fan,

There are same good changes:

I think this new map is more balanced... Oceania that is the best place to start, now have lots of connections and other countries.

South America is now more difficult to hold to as well as N. America.

Africa on the classic is very difficult to hold for been in the middle, now with Oceania and S. America bigger would balance the game.

I will love to play this map… I would forget about the old classic.
User avatar
everywhere116
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:37 am
Location: Somewhere on this big blue marble.

Post by everywhere116 »

i have the game at home and I saw 2 changes in that map and the map here.

1) Probably already addressed, but the G.B.-Scandinavia connection was severed, although the link is in the xml.

2)In the real map, Kamchatka borders Mongolia along the coastline, but in the map we have here, Irktusk reaches the coastline, severing the connection. The link is not present in the xml.
User avatar
Molacole
Posts: 552
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:19 am
Location: W 2.0 map by ZIM
Contact:

Post by Molacole »

that alternate map looks great and all, but for playability I think it's garbage... Whoever gets oceana basically wins.
User avatar
Lupo
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:33 pm

Post by Lupo »

Molacole wrote:that alternate map looks great and all, but for playability I think it's garbage... Whoever gets oceana basically wins.


I don't agree about your last sentence, in fact, have a look at the bonuses:

North America 6
South America 4
Europe 6
Asia 8
Oceania 4
Africa 5

PS: Actually i am winning a game holding North America and i was able to destroy my enemy strongholds in Oceania!
Last edited by Lupo on Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Nature is a temple in which living pillars
Sometimes emit confused words;
Man crosses it through forests of symbols
That observe him with familiar glances."
User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:43 am
Location: Sedalia Missouri
Contact:

Post by Kayla »

i like the new version on page 2, if we should only have two world maps it should be the one on page two and the original
User avatar
w3a2
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:12 am
Location: internet

Post by w3a2 »

Hoff wrote:we really really don't need 3 world maps.


get rid of that horrible world 2.0 map then. what a useless piece of trash
Kokunai
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:52 pm

Post by Kokunai »

Classic is a good map
Risk II Classic is also a good map more strategic options and balanced better IMHO

World 2.0 is awesome due to the scale of it but it needs to have an 8 player option.

I do not see why having 3 world maps is so bothersome to so few, it can only benefit to have quality maps I like that not every map is gonna make it through but there are a few maps that should...come on it's the world there are bound to be a few good maps of it. After all it is a place we all know well.

I still have yet to hear another reason besides a slippery slope argument and the we already have two...how about the fact that this map strategically speaking is a much different map than the other 2 world maps?

edit spelling
KEYOGI
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:09 am

Post by KEYOGI »

We have 5 maps based on North America (which is kind of ridiculous), I have no problem with another map of the world. The more maps the better in my opinion, as long as they're of a high standard.
Post Reply

Return to “Foundry Discussions”