Conquer Club

Seriously about this map...you should start working on the small version and then port to the large version.

I sincerely believe this map is not playable in the small version and you would be doing a lot of useless work if that was the case.

My personal opinion is that once you try to start working on the small map you will see that micro states like San Marino, The Vatican and Monaco will be a major problem and you will probably have to leave them out.

Also the Balkans area is a major mess with all those new and small states. This needs a lot of thinking if it's going to work on the small version. Am I the only one who has noticed this?

Another thing: In reality Norway reaches all the way across Finland to border Russia, ot doesn't on your map.

militant wrote: Italyshould be put back in Medittarian IMO, it will make central eeurope small but i think it wll be good small becasue it has 7 conutries surronding it and the plus 4 would merit holding it.

Ruben Cassar wrote:How can Italy ever be part of Central Europe? It makes no sense at all

bryguy wrote:i have a question, why does it say alps are imassable if there are no alps??

madsanders wrote:And you should probably put Italy in the med. group like you had previously.

a solution for italy: bring back the alps, then create a language-based continent called “latin states” with a bonus of 5 (to replace western europe), consisting of france, spain, portugal and italy plus four micro-states, with gibraltar moving to the british isles continent to reflect political reality (in eu elections, it is part of south-west england). as a side-effect of this, central europe becomes 100% german-speaking, so we can call it “germanic states”.

one advantage of having six language-based continents in the north and west is that all of them (latin, germanic, british isles, benelux, scandinavia and baltic) are well-defined and there cannot be much serious argument over what goes where.

ian.

What about English - that's a mix of Saxon and Latin?!

C.

yeti_c wrote:What about English - that's a mix of Saxon and Latin?!

C.

Saxon (Germanic), Latin and French which in itself is a Latin language.

Ruben Cassar wrote:

yeti_c wrote:What about English - that's a mix of Saxon and Latin?!

C.

Saxon (Germanic), Latin and French which in itself is a Latin language.

Hence why I ignored the french!

C.

iancanton wrote:

militant wrote: Italyshould be put back in Medittarian IMO, it will make central eeurope small but i think it wll be good small becasue it has 7 conutries surronding it and the plus 4 would merit holding it.

Ruben Cassar wrote:How can Italy ever be part of Central Europe? It makes no sense at all

bryguy wrote:i have a question, why does it say alps are imassable if there are no alps??

madsanders wrote:And you should probably put Italy in the med. group like you had previously.

a solution for italy: bring back the alps, then create a language-based continent called “latin states” with a bonus of 5 (to replace western europe), consisting of france, spain, portugal and italy plus four micro-states, with gibraltar moving to the british isles continent to reflect political reality (in eu elections, it is part of south-west england). as a side-effect of this, central europe becomes 100% german-speaking, so we can call it “germanic states”.

one advantage of having six language-based continents in the north and west is that all of them (latin, germanic, british isles, benelux, scandinavia and baltic) are well-defined and there cannot be much serious argument over what goes where.

ian.

Romanian is a latin language aswell!

Ruben Cassar wrote:

yeti_c wrote:What about English - that's a mix of Saxon and Latin?!

C.

Saxon (Germanic), Latin and French which in itself is a Latin language.

although english vocabulary has many latin-based words, i've yet to hear anyone claim that english is a latin language!

madsanders wrote:Romanian is a latin language aswell!

true, as is the closely-related moldovan tongue, but romania already has the choice of two possible good homes (eastern europe or the balkans). i deliberately restricted myself to talking about the north and west, since non-linguistic continents, such as the balkans, work better in the east.

ian.

I know that you shouldn't believe everything that Wikipedia says but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... h_language

Anyways - the point is moot - and I was just being facetious... ignore me!!

C.

yeti_c wrote:facetious

is that the only english word which contains exactly five vowels, all different and all in the right order?

ian.

iancanton wrote:

yeti_c wrote:facetious

is that the only english word which contains exactly five vowels, all different and all in the right order?

ian.

That's an interesting observation... and to be honest - I don't know!!

C.

Can we get back on topic please...

MrBenn wrote:

To Do:
-Redraw border at the top of Norway, so it touches Russia.
-Look at Denmark and sort out island borders
(thanks madsanders)
-Adjust some other borders that have gone a bit funny (Belgium/Armenia spring to mind)
-sort out ocean paths
-other things that are on the list on the first post

iancanton wrote:

militant wrote:Italyshould be put back in Medittarian IMO, it will make central eeurope small but i think it wll be good small becasue it has 7 conutries surronding it and the plus 4 would merit holding it.

Ruben Cassar wrote:How can Italy ever be part of Central Europe? It makes no sense at all

bryguy wrote:i have a question, why does it say alps are imassable if there are no alps??

madsanders wrote:And you should probably put Italy in the med. group like you had previously.

Thanks for putting these thoughts together ian. I changed the continent that Italy was in, as people were complaining about Crete/Cyprus, and I really want to keep all the Meditteranean islands together. [aside]I know that many islands are politically linked to different countries, but they fit really nicely there as Meditteranean Islands[/aside]

I dislike the idea of grouping countries by language-origins, and propose to have Italy+SM+VC as a new 3-terr continent called "Italy" or "Italia" or something, and to have The Alps reappear as an impassable.

So, this, and the army shadows, and other visual things are what I would like some feedback about next!

this map continues to move along nicely... attack routes are more clear than when last I checked. Two things to consider:

• how will you deal with some of the smaller territories when it comes to presenting another small version?
• will it be absolutely clear what territories the abbreviations represent?

In looking over the map, it would help me if you continue to update the first post info... how many territories are you at right now, exactly?

Thanks Oaktown

I've done a territory re-count, and there are exactly 60, divided into 12 regions/continents. (Which I will update on the first post in a minute).

I've got a bit of border-tweaking to finish off, and will start work on the small version after the continent groupings are finalised.

The country abbreviations probably do need a bit of refining... I have tried to use official 2-digit country codes in a couple of places, but have been fairly inconsistent with them!

yay you liked my idea!


the map looks great and good luck in the future

And hurry up to loads of people like me want to play this map!

Cheers Tim.

there is a bit of border missing below belgium

MrBenn wrote:To Do:
-Adjust some other borders that have gone a bit funny (Belgium/Armenia spring to mind)

Lone.prophet wrote:there is a bit of border missing below belgium

Fixed.

Sorry to sound negative but I am not convinced by the continent groupings. Sicily and Sardinia not being part of Italy makes no sense to me at all for example.

I have also asked how you plan to make the small version of the map but I got no answer. I still believe that a small version of this map will be unplayable and that you should be focusing on that first and then doing the large version.

Ruben, thanks for your feedback. It really helps when people get involved.

I know that you're not happy with the continent groupings. I know I haven't got it right at the moment, but I think it's getting there...

I'm planning on putting together a couple of options, and will put it to a vote for the community to decide.

With regards to the small map, I know that you have mentioned it previously - apologies if you thought I was ignoring you.

It has always been my intention to finalise the continent groupings before starting work on the small map, and I know that there will be some issues with the micro-states and the Balkans, but I've got some ideas that may help...

Okay mate. It's just that I care a lot about this Europe map and I want it to be as accurate as possible. However I know that some sacrifices will have to be done along the way.

This might of already been said but I think you need to tone down the red and lime green and maybe change the pink to a grey.

The lime green might be less 'in your face' when I've sorted out the Italy/Central Europe /Meditteranean issue.

Nobody else has mentioned the pink for the British Isles... why do you want to chasnge it to grey? Grey is the colour of the non-playable areas... that doesn't make much sense to me...

I'm hoping to post a brief update later tonight, although my father-in-law is visiting, and I've got to go out for a while... Watch this space...

I like it a lot. Good to see a proper Europe map. I have a few issues with the colour pallet, however. The brown seems a very muddy colour, as does the green, whilst the red and blue seem very vibrant and the colours on Central Europe and Caucasus seem faded. I think the colours and the 'brightness', as it were, need to be more consistent. Perhaps see a map like Australia for a good example of the 'consistency' I'm talking about.