[Official] Classic Revamp [Quenched]

[sdhillson]

Why not? I'm really confused about this mentality. If you insist of having a city in China represent a territory on a different map that is called China, then with that same brush you will also lose Beijing and Chicago and add unknown cities to Canada and Eastern Russia and Madagascar and other places that would make the map much less enjoyable to play (because searching for territories in drop down boxes is not fun for anyone).

Following this line of argument, why use a map of the world at all, why not just keep it numbered shapes or random artists. After all, it's just the arrangement of territories that matters.
Let me put it this way: It's not about the old map, it's about the real world. That's why I have no objections about N America, Europe or Oceania - those are changes from the old map that make a lot of sense and will make for better gameplay (in S America and Africa I have very minor qualms and am fine with the way you have it now).

On the other hand, China and SE Asia have way too much history for China to have to go through Delhi to attack Bangkok (in addition to China's growing status in the world). I know if I were a Chinese general, I would not go on a 4000 mile jaunt to scale the Himalayas and the Bay of Bengal to get there, I would just cross the Mekong or go through the South China Sea. I realize this means having more cities in northern or eastern Russia, but the world is a big place and if you want to conquer it all you have to go to some pretty remote and unknown places. Plus, N Russia is pretty empty on the board right now. Last I checked, Russia still has nukes there and there's been a lot of talk lately about the Artic opening to mineral exploration. Just because those cities are not as well known does not mean they have no value.

To conclude, I realize I was throwing out a lot of changes in my previous post and sorry for that. I appreciate the work you've done thus far and look forward to playing the board when it's done. Here is the simplest way to change the map I can think of: Delhi to Hong Kong, Hong Kong to Beijing, Beijing to Yakutsk, and Yakutsk to Norlisk (pretty much due north of Novo). If you decide to make these changes, then the final debate about exact cities can be had and I'll chime in again with comments, but nowhere near as adamantly.

I did a very crude mock up of what the map will look like (with Caracas, Kinshasa, Lahore, and Petropavlovsk). Thanks again for seriously considering this input.

[Robinette]

Gee Sully...
you deserve TWO special medals,

One for creating this map.




And a 2nd medal for putting up with all of us...

[WidowMakers]

This whole discussion of switching names is really crazy (IMHO).

1) Not everyoen is going to be happy
2) There is nothing wrong with what Sully has now
3) There are no inherent issues with ANY of the layouts therefore....
4) Sully should get to decide what he wants.

Here is my suggestion.
Version 5 layout and version 2 legend. Done and ship.
GREAT map Sully. You have done a superb job.
V5

V2

[Premier2k]

I agree with Widowmakers, I love the legend on the V2 and V5 map looks great.
You're not going to please everyone!

I cannot wait to play this!!!

Premier2k

[Emmdizzle]

Looks great Sully. Excellent effort...now let's play!

[AndyDufresne]

I like v5 with v2 legend.

However, I think the compass would look much better as a shadow/faint/background type image---rather than a bold image that makes it looks a little like an island in the ocean.

I'm not sure I've made myself clear...hm, I can't quite describe it.


--Andy

[Premier2k]

I like v5 with v2 legend.

However, I think the compass would look much better as a shadow/faint/background type image---rather than a bold image that makes it looks a little like an island in the ocean.

I'm not sure I've made myself clear...hm, I can't quite describe it.


--Andy

You mean like a watermark?

[ender516]

I like v5 with v2 legend.

However, I think the compass would look much better as a shadow/faint/background type image---rather than a bold image that makes it looks a little like an island in the ocean.

I'm not sure I've made myself clear...hm, I can't quite describe it.


--Andy

You mean like a watermark?

A watermark would be entirely appropriate for a compass using the CC star, since it would serve mostly to identify the originator of the document, which is what watermarks do best.

[Peter Gibbons]

Although I really would like to debate the Asian cities to see if some better combination could be hashed out, I'm fine with the V5/V2 compromise. My only strong argument, though, would be that New Zealand should at least show up on the map. Other than that, I've got nothing to add if the consensus is to kill the city debate. Gameplay, layout and graphically, I think we're good to go...

[AndyDufresne]

I like v5 with v2 legend.

However, I think the compass would look much better as a shadow/faint/background type image---rather than a bold image that makes it looks a little like an island in the ocean.

I'm not sure I've made myself clear...hm, I can't quite describe it.


--Andy

You mean like a watermark?

A watermark would be entirely appropriate for a compass using the CC star, since it would serve mostly to identify the originator of the document, which is what watermarks do best.

Right, I think that is the sort of compass that I'd like to see---one that is slightly less prominent and colorful on the map.


--Andy

[jiminski]

rough obviously

[sully800]

Why not? I'm really confused about this mentality. If you insist of having a city in China represent a territory on a different map that is called China, then with that same brush you will also lose Beijing and Chicago and add unknown cities to Canada and Eastern Russia and Madagascar and other places that would make the map much less enjoyable to play (because searching for territories in drop down boxes is not fun for anyone).

Following this line of argument, why use a map of the world at all, why not just keep it numbered shapes or random artists. After all, it's just the arrangement of territories that matters.
Let me put it this way: It's not about the old map, it's about the real world. That's why I have no objections about N America, Europe or Oceania - those are changes from the old map that make a lot of sense and will make for better gameplay (in S America and Africa I have very minor qualms and am fine with the way you have it now).

On the other hand, China and SE Asia have way too much history for China to have to go through Delhi to attack Bangkok (in addition to China's growing status in the world). I know if I were a Chinese general, I would not go on a 4000 mile jaunt to scale the Himalayas and the Bay of Bengal to get there, I would just cross the Mekong or go through the South China Sea. I realize this means having more cities in northern or eastern Russia, but the world is a big place and if you want to conquer it all you have to go to some pretty remote and unknown places. Plus, N Russia is pretty empty on the board right now. Last I checked, Russia still has nukes there and there's been a lot of talk lately about the Artic opening to mineral exploration. Just because those cities are not as well known does not mean they have no value.

To conclude, I realize I was throwing out a lot of changes in my previous post and sorry for that. I appreciate the work you've done thus far and look forward to playing the board when it's done. Here is the simplest way to change the map I can think of: Delhi to Hong Kong, Hong Kong to Beijing, Beijing to Yakutsk, and Yakutsk to Norlisk (pretty much due north of Novo). If you decide to make these changes, then the final debate about exact cities can be had and I'll chime in again with comments, but nowhere near as adamantly.

I did a very crude mock up of what the map will look like (with Caracas, Kinshasa, Lahore, and Petropavlovsk). Thanks again for seriously considering this input.

Thanks for the well thought out post sdhillson! Earlier, I thought you were saying that a Chinese city would have to connect to SE Asia just because China connects to Siam on Classic. Instead I see you are talking about geographical and historical concerns which do make a lot of sense. And thanks for the mockup, it's great to see if the suggested changes will work before actually trying to implement them.

I think I'm going to keep Bogota instead of Caracas for the reasons mentioned earlier. Africa used to look like your proposal, but it was changed to the current layout so that Capetown would be representing South Africa (and since this caused no major upheavals I think it was a good change). I could possibly change Lagos to Kinshasa, but Lagos is more heavily populated, easier to say, and in a less crowded region on the map, so I'm not sure if it would be a positive switch. What are your thoughts, if this was the only change to Africa?

As for Asia, I do like your suggestion for the Southern half, but I think the Northern portion still needs work. I'm going to work on the new globe bonuses and give it some thought, possibly posting a new layout today

[sdhillson]

Africa used to look like your proposal, but it was changed to the current layout so that Capetown would be representing South Africa (and since this caused no major upheavals I think it was a good change). I could possibly change Lagos to Kinshasa, but Lagos is more heavily populated, easier to say, and in a less crowded region on the map, so I'm not sure if it would be a positive switch. What are your thoughts, if this was the only change to Africa?

I don't think S Africa needs 2 cities; if you want the 1 city to be Capetown, that's fine, just use the layout for Africa in V1. I think Lagos should stay over Kinshasa, so if you are committed to 2 cities in S Africa, then just leave it as is.

As for Asia, I do like your suggestion for the Southern half, but I think the Northern portion still needs work.

I agree, but it's limited what can be done there. I'm sure you're more imaginative than me though, so I'm interested to see what you can do.

[sully800]

Here's a version with the new 3-globe bonuses, which allows the labels to fit without too much crowding.

[bigimg]http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/2573/classic6.jpg[/bigimg]

[sully800]

rough obviously

That's really cool jim, thanks for the idea. But if we are going to use 3 globe bonuses (many seemed to like that idea) I'm not going to use a compass at all. Otherwise a "watermark" version of that could be interesting.

[AndyDufresne]

There was some talk about removing one of the South African cities...you could always consider changing Johannesburg with Dar es Salaam, in Tanzania. It's quite close to where Johannesburg is already placed on the map. Dar es Salaam is also a major economic city in the region, and the general area of the Tanzanian coast has a great deal of African historical significance.


--Andy

[sully800]

There was some talk about removing one of the South African cities...you could always consider changing Johannesburg with Dar es Salaam, in Tanzania. It's quite close to where Johannesburg is already placed on the map. Dar es Salaam is also a major economic city in the region, and the general area of the Tanzanian coast has a great deal of African historical significance.


--Amdy

Hey Amdy

If we want to switch from 2 South American cities, I would rather add Kinshasa and scrap Cape Town. Kinshasa is a more important African city than Dar es Salaam, and I would guess most users recognize Kinshasa more readily. The reason for our current alignment was based on the suggestion that the region previously known as South America should be represented by a city in South Africa. Overall, I like the current African layout because Cape Town and Johannesburg are two of the most recognizable African cities, they both fit pretty well, and Cape Town is taking the place of South Africa.

[AndyDufresne]

Historically, the Tanzania coast (and really Somali to the Tanzania coast) is more important to African History as a whole. But I'm fine either way. I'm just saying that what you have labeled as Johannesburg is actually Dar es Salaam in reality.


--Andy

[cairnswk]

There was some talk about removing one of the South African cities...you could always consider changing Johannesburg with Dar es Salaam, in Tanzania. It's quite close to where Johannesburg is already placed on the map. Dar es Salaam is also a major economic city in the region, and the general area of the Tanzanian coast has a great deal of African historical significance.


--Amdy

Amdy i'm just tailing in on this one...
Jo'berg is closer to Capetown than what is marked on the map, and Dar Es Salaam almost sits half underneath where Nairobi is marked.
Where Jo'berg is could be marked as Harare (formerly Salisbury capital of Rhodesia now zimbabwe), and that wouldn't look out of place, if that's what is being examined.

[Robinette]

Here's a version with the new 3-globe bonuses, which allows the labels to fit without too much crowding.

[bigimg]http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/2573/classic6.jpg[/bigimg]

I say LAUNCH IT!




But if you'd rather have more input,
i'd say reduce the font of the continent bonuses so they are the same or smaller than the territory fonts...

[Nzen]

The three globe legend has much a better balance than V5.

The path between Lagos and Cape Town covers a lot of the African coast. It stretches it out unrealistically like the Gall-Peters projection than the general mercator style evident in the north. Perhaps consider curving it more inland or into the Atlantic. Obviously, the current curve puts "Lagos" nicely outside. But, it doesn't fit with the other, convex coastal connections you have made (San Paulo-Buenos Aires; Jakarta-Perth).

[Brian_c_m]

Great job Sully !!

I'm really loving the revamp and I can't wait to play the map. I feel like this map will really add a whole lot of value to the site. Classic Shapes and Classic Art just aren't the same... Once more, BRAVO!!

N. America, S. America, Europe and Oceania look awesome and besides the lack of New Zealand, I think these regions are ready for the final release. Asia and Africa seem to need some more reorganising though.
My only suggestions would be to modify the link from Lagos to C.T. slightly. And maybe change Jo'burg to Lusaka. Not sure if this has been suggested already since I haven't gone through all 19 pages of posts but I think moving to Lusaka would make better use of Africa.

As for Asia. I love everything except for Hong-kong/Delhi/Bangkok... I don't know what to suggest and I'd be happy if it stayed the way it is but I do agree with sdhillson comments.

Thanks.
Brian

[john9blue]

Nobody else is tweaked by the "Classic" being off-center? *twitch*

I guess I'll get used to it after a while.

Other than that, looks great! Make sure to go through and check spelling (World 2.1 misspelled Maghreb in case anyone else noticed). Good job!

[saaimen]

And Alexander's Empire has Byzanitium to be proud of

[colton24]

What happened to the jets? Now the lines across the top without the jets ruins it a bit. I suggest adding back the jets or knock off the lines. Whichever you see fit.