Boxcutta wrote:I haven't read the thread, but S. Greenland and Labrador should be linked IMO.
But if you did that then 4 of the 5 territories in that continent would be borders. It would be better to link it to Nunavik, which is already a border.
I actually like it the way it is tho, looks great Dublin.
I'm not sure about the name of Kansas being split up...even though there is little room. Try to fiddle with the placement of everything, to make it uniform and easily read.
As for Quenching, we'll see. Post a link to both the large and small versions of the map. Also, provide two images (one of each) with army coordinates aligned in the army shadows. If they are not centered, I will have to wait til they are. Once we get this done, we'll see how it all goes!
AndyDufresne wrote:I'm not sure about the name of Kansas being split up...even though there is little room. Try to fiddle with the placement of everything, to make it uniform and easily read.
--Andy
As far as that goes, there's nothing that can be done, I spent a few hours trying to figure somethin out, but on the small version there just isn't room for it, at all. It's frustrating, but i guess certain things have to be tolerated?
Boxcutta wrote:I haven't read the thread, but S. Greenland and Labrador should be linked IMO.
But if you did that then 4 of the 5 territories in that continent would be borders. It would be better to link it to Nunavik, which is already a border.
I actually like it the way it is tho, looks great Dublin.
I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.
reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.
I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?
reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.
I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?
Greenland seemed to small, but looking at other maps you're right.
reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.
I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?
Greenland seemed to small, but looking at other maps you're right.
reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.
I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?
Greenland seemed to small, but looking at other maps you're right.
ok
You left off the islands that are around greenland and it threw me off.. but I think tis better w/o them.
reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.
I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?
Greenland seemed to small, but looking at other maps you're right.
ok
You left off the islands that are around greenland and it threw me off.. but I think tis better w/o them.
yup, thanks too. it was too messy lookin with them, and it allowed me to move greenland closer to canada to keep my map from being too tall. i guess in that respect, the scale is a little bit off.
reverend_kyle wrote:I have another question.. and i"m sure its too late.. but Could we at least make the general shape of north america more to scale.. that bugs me everytime I look at it.
I'm not really sure what you're saying, this is to scale, this is what North America looks like. My very first map wasn't to scale, it was one of the maps where the poles are stretched out, but this is a normal map, I can't remember what the different ones are called, maybe a mercater?
Greenland seemed to small, but looking at other maps you're right.
ok
You left off the islands that are around greenland and it threw me off.. but I think tis better w/o them.
yup, thanks too. it was too messy lookin with them, and it allowed me to move greenland closer to canada to keep my map from being too tall. i guess in that respect, the scale is a little bit off.
all necessary too. How long til thsi suckers quenched.
the mountains are a tad hard to see. and the actual name for the region you call ottawa is the golden hoseshoe. it's a little bigger, but would still work.
Children, this is what happens to hockey players, druggies, and Hillary Clinton.
happysadfun wrote:the mountains are a tad hard to see. and the actual name for the region you call ottawa is the golden hoseshoe. it's a little bigger, but would still work.
I think it's alright for it to stay Ottawa. Even I didnt know that's what the region is called, and I'm from Ottawa!
Highest Score: 2532 Highest Position: 69 (a long time ago)
I believe that it *might* be ready, and then I'll begin work on the xml.
From version one, i've added non-crossable boundries using the plethora of mountains and rivers available in North America. My goal with these is to create bonus areas that are obtainable, but a challenge to do so, in the middle of the map. Basically, becuase it's a larger map than what we've seen, it will be inevitable that some of the bonus areas are extremely difficult to hold.
I've also checked spelling, but it's possible that some mistakes have slipped through.
Anyway, lets discuss borders, bonuses and anything else!
That map looks cool. Along It makes it a challange to conquer all territorys its find to me.
on the small i think kansas looks horrible sepertated like that maybe you can move missouri and its army shadow up more and moves kansas and its army shadow alittle left and let it run into colorado and missouri a little more but otherwise i cant wait to play it
The small one looks terriblly crowded and confusing. Lucky im going to play with the large one. Can u change the connecting lines to anything other than your current black lines?