Conquer Club

Fircoal wrote:If it's after Global Warming, Greenland, would be gone, before a lot of the places, that are submered.

Yeah, I thought about that, seeing how Greenland is covered with ice, after the ice melts off, some of the land may become submerged. However, to portray this accurately, I would need a map of Greenland without the ice covering, similar ot the map I used as a basis for Antarctica.

wrightfan123 wrote:*Couldn't you think of something more imagenitive than "Indian Ocean Port"?

The thing is, that port is not based off a real island, unlike the other ports.

pepperonibread wrote:

Fircoal wrote:If it's after Global Warming, Greenland, would be gone, before a lot of the places, that are submered.

Yeah, I thought about that, seeing how Greenland is covered with ice, after the ice melts off, some of the land may become submerged. However, to portray this accurately, I would need a map of Greenland without the ice covering, similar ot the map I used as a basis for Antarctica.

Well anything would be more accurate than keeping Greenland like it is, right?

This page might help: http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0053_seasat_geosat.gd.html

pepperonibread wrote:

wrightfan123 wrote:*Couldn't you think of something more imagenitive than "Indian Ocean Port"?

The thing is, that port is not based off a real island, unlike the other ports.

Okay then. If anyone needs me for the next decade, I'll be in the middle of the Indian Ocean creating a man-made island so Wade can acturatly portray this map... unless it's been quenched by then...

edbeard wrote:could you maybe move the army circles for Iceland so we can see a portion of the island?

by location I think it's part of North America, but by colour it looks to be part of Europe. That being said, the red and orange are so close I could easily be wrong.

I think it's a good idea to show a portion of the island just so that it's absolutely clear.

not sure if you missed my post earlier or not so I'm repeating it.

tht map is tight i would play it 4 sure!

edbeard wrote:

edbeard wrote:could you maybe move the army circles for Iceland so we can see a portion of the island?

by location I think it's part of North America, but by colour it looks to be part of Europe. That being said, the red and orange are so close I could easily be wrong.

I think it's a good idea to show a portion of the island just so that it's absolutely clear.

not sure if you missed my post earlier or not so I'm repeating it.

No, I got it.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Well anything would be more accurate than keeping Greenland like it is, right?

This page might help: http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0053_seasat_geosat.gd.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these maps seem to display the elevation of the Greenland ice sheet, not of the land under the ice. I've found many maps like these, all my searching has led to info and visuals either about the ice sheet's elevation or how fast areas of it are growing or shrinking. These, unfortunately, won't help me at all; they become irrelevant as global warming would melt all the ice. I really need a map of Greenland with the ice sheet removed. So far, I've only found that if the ice was melted, Greenland would take the shape of some type of archipegalo.

pepperonibread wrote:I really need a map of Greenland with the ice sheet removed. So far, I've only found that if the ice was melted, Greenland would take the shape of some type of archipegalo.

Sounds cool, maybe you could make Greenland it's own little continent.

JK

JupitersKing wrote:

pepperonibread wrote:I really need a map of Greenland with the ice sheet removed. So far, I've only found that if the ice was melted, Greenland would take the shape of some type of archipegalo.

Sounds cool, maybe you could make Greenland it's own little continent.

JK

Yeah, I read on Wikipedia that Greenland may possibly be three islands, but the ice sheet makes them appear as one. I'm not sure what the rationale is for this, but it's a cool possibility.

Very intersesting map. I like it a lot, and I'd play on it often. Although...

As many others have suggested, make a bonus for holding all the islands. Also, the 'frozen lands' (Antarctica and perhaps Greenland) should be smaller.

A question about fortifying. I "assume" that no body can cross the uninhabitable zone, yes? That is fair, and logical, however, I think that fortifications should be allowed to cross, because they are not going to stay put ON TOP of the uninhabitable zone, just passing through it (rather quickly to avoid melting their rifles )

Sargeant_Pepper wrote:Very intersesting map. I like it a lot, and I'd play on it often. Although...

As many others have suggested, make a bonus for holding all the islands. Also, the 'frozen lands' (Antarctica and perhaps Greenland) should be smaller.

A question about fortifying. I "assume" that no body can cross the uninhabitable zone, yes? That is fair, and logical, however, I think that fortifications should be allowed to cross, because they are not going to stay put ON TOP of the uninhabitable zone, just passing through it (rather quickly to avoid melting their rifles )

that's actually a good idea, although HighCommander might blow a gasket

I think I made a mistake. Armies can indeed cross the uninhabitable zone and attack neighbouring countries. My suggestion then, seems superfluous.

lanyards wrote:and tell conor and andrew to talk bout their pokamons through PMs

Oh pokamons. I thought 'give you a mew' was something else entirely.

If you break up Greenland, add Iceland and maybe those two big islands up there you have a nice little continent to add a wrinkle to the game. You can also keep Europe at a +4 bonus.

I truly look forward to the finished product.

Schumi wrote:

lanyards wrote:and tell conor and andrew to talk bout their pokamons through PMs

Oh pokamons. I thought 'give you a mew' was something else entirely.

...Dude... we are rising 8th graders... we don't do that...

Just to point out an issue that will come up when you go to do the XML. When you made the small map you just scaled down the large map. That is good for everything except the army circles. Not only are they too small, but they are probably not sized proportionally to the army numbers.

So you will have issues getting the armies into the small circle and you may have issues centering them properly.

Check out my post in the map making thread on how to make proper army circles.


How to make proper Army Circles for both Large and Small Map

Plus here is a differnt set of bonuses. It takes into account several spects of the map layout. I found it in another thread a while back. I have used it all of my maps.
The sub column adds each attribute multipled by the number next to it.
So the Sub for asia is: 8*1.50 + 5*4.00 + 6*1.00 + 3*0.50 =39.5
That is divided by 6 and rounded to the nearest whole number. All of the other bonuses are done the same.
Here is a setup file to use for any map.
http://www.mediamax.com/dzlqps/Hosted/B ... mplate.xls

WidowMakers wrote:Plus here is a differnt set of bonuses. It takes into account several spects of the map layout. I found it in another thread a while back. I have used it all of my maps.
The sub column adds each attribute multipled by the number next to it.
So the Sub for asia is: 8*1.50 + 5*4.00 + 6*1.00 + 3*0.50 =39.5
That is divided by 6 and rounded to the nearest whole number. All of the other bonuses are done the same.
Here is a setup file to use for any map.
http://www.mediamax.com/dzlqps/Hosted/B ... mplate.xls

...dude... those bonuses are WAY off. I dont think Asia could be 7, Antarctica 6, of Africa ONLY A 4!

wrightfan123 wrote:...dude... those bonuses are WAY off. I dont think Asia could be 7, Antarctica 6, of Africa ONLY A 4!

Before you say they are way off, read the numbers and see why they are that way. Africa is lower because it has less territories and less borders and less continent neighbors.

WidowMakers wrote:Plus here is a differnt set of bonuses. It takes into account several spects of the map layout. I found it in another thread a while back. I have used it all of my maps.
The sub column adds each attribute multipled by the number next to it.
So the Sub for asia is: 8*1.50 + 5*4.00 + 6*1.00 + 3*0.50 =39.5
That is divided by 6 and rounded to the nearest whole number. All of the other bonuses are done the same.
Here is a setup file to use for any map.
http://www.mediamax.com/dzlqps/Hosted/B ... mplate.xls

shamus did a post like that a while back but we decided to tweak it

1st chair flute wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:Plus here is a differnt set of bonuses. It takes into account several spects of the map layout. I found it in another thread a while back. I have used it all of my maps.
The sub column adds each attribute multipled by the number next to it.
So the Sub for asia is: 8*1.50 + 5*4.00 + 6*1.00 + 3*0.50 =39.5
That is divided by 6 and rounded to the nearest whole number. All of the other bonuses are done the same.
Here is a setup file to use for any map.
http://www.mediamax.com/dzlqps/Hosted/B ... mplate.xls

shamus did a post like that a while back but we decided to tweak it

"we". who is "we"? not I, or thee. But Wade, who is free! Free by hisself, and only is "we", when... aw 4get it. Me and you and Steffen (lanyards) are not part of Wade's crew or whatever. We just give him advice or stuff. And I answer retarded questions that we discussed three pages back.

WidowMakers wrote:Plus here is a differnt set of bonuses. It takes into account several spects of the map layout. I found it in another thread a while back. I have used it all of my maps.
The sub column adds each attribute multipled by the number next to it.
So the Sub for asia is: 8*1.50 + 5*4.00 + 6*1.00 + 3*0.50 =39.5
That is divided by 6 and rounded to the nearest whole number. All of the other bonuses are done the same.
Here is a setup file to use for any map.
http://www.mediamax.com/dzlqps/Hosted/B ... mplate.xls

Two things:
-You put South America and Australia at three, but I don't think any map has had a 4-country continent worth more than two, so three for these 3-country continents doesn't really make sense.
-For Africa, you have to take the two Atlantic ports into the country count, because you really need to control those to fortify back and forth.

I can go with the rest of them, depends on what other people think.

pepperonibread wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:Plus here is a differnt set of bonuses. It takes into account several spects of the map layout. I found it in another thread a while back. I have used it all of my maps.
The sub column adds each attribute multipled by the number next to it.
So the Sub for asia is: 8*1.50 + 5*4.00 + 6*1.00 + 3*0.50 =39.5
That is divided by 6 and rounded to the nearest whole number. All of the other bonuses are done the same.
Here is a setup file to use for any map.
http://www.mediamax.com/dzlqps/Hosted/B ... mplate.xls

Two things:
-You put South America and Australia at three, but I don't think any map has had a 4-country continent worth more than two, so three for these 3-country continents doesn't really make sense.
-For Africa, you have to take the two Atlantic ports into the country count, because you really need to control those to fortify back and forth.

I can go with the rest of them, depends on what other people think.

No! Ohwait... that was WidowMakers... yes!