Conquer Club

i like the pangea map more than the other one but its still an intersting idea

I like the triassic image more, and it could possibly solve some of this map maker dispute.

Jamie wrote:Meteors did not impact the earth during the Pangean age due to the thickness of the atmosphere, hence any idea of putting meteors on a pangean map is laughable.

I did have a little chuckle myself

Ok, people, here is the new version, created using the Triassic map. I dont know if we can have a Pangea and a Triassic map, they would be very alike... only 25 million years of difference, so... Anyway, I corrected Europe position, it was wrong in my previous versions.

Well, first thing we can discuss is the title. Its not really Pangea, but I could maybe use it as title... Or Triassic Earth... or maybe even something like "World Alpha" (once we have a world 2.0, lol).

Second, the eternal question, the future of India. Options: make it part of Asia; give it a normal +1 bonus (strong south); give it a +2 with the curse (-3 to each other continent you hold, once you hold it and India). Give me feedback! Until now, I think this last idea has got some support, and in fact would make playability different, so...

3rd, names of territories: these ones arent really the names, are here just to allow playability comments more easily. I would appreciate suggestions.

4th, textures. Do you like the land texture? And the ocean one? I personally like these, but Im not really happy with the space background... Opinions, please.

5th, anything about playability, including the sea routes and the bonuses.

And I know I still need:
- Make the title (this one is surely not final).
- Do the legend (Im thinking about a fossil to background and bones surrounding it).
- Improve the ocean routes.
- Make the borders less blocky.
- I will make AS10 bigger.

Now please comment

Jamie wrote:Meteors did not impact the earth during the Pangean age due to the thickness of the atmosphere, hence any idea of putting meteors on a pangean map is laughable.

*slap*

it would just mean a larger rock is needed

Like the map, Marv, alot more interesting than Pangea. One option you haven't considered is having no bonus for India but giving it positional advantages. It would then function like the Quad on CCU, worthless bonus wise but of great strategic importance. You'd probably need to give it 1 or 2 more attack routes (to AS7 & AU2 most likely, with AS10's attack route to AU4 being moved to AU2 to keep the number of borders the same), and maybe merge it in to a single country.

The dinosaur on the left hand side is a Brachiosaurus from the Cretaceous period while the one on the right is an Allosaurus from the Jurassic period. None of them lived during the Triassic. Maybe you could call it Cretaceous instead? Btw the dinosaurs are cool...I like them.

I'd really try not to go with letter/number names if you can at all help it. The names that I saw on a map you had proposed to kayla, even though she was complainging about it, looked infinitely better (and less confusing) than the ones ypur using now. Good work though, its coming on well.

its these pangea or Triassic?

Jamie wrote:Meteors did not impact the earth during the Pangean age due to the thickness of the atmosphere, hence any idea of putting meteors on a pangean map is laughable.

I think there is no place to the meteor crash site idea in this one... at least as I suggested before.

Scorba wrote:It would then function like the Quad on CCU, worthless bonus wise but of great strategic importance.

Good idea! I will consider this one. In fact, I think I will make a poll, and put this option as well

Ruben Cassar wrote:The dinosaur on the left hand side is a Brachiosaurus from the Cretaceous period while the one on the right is an Allosaurus from the Jurassic period. None of them lived during the Triassic. Maybe you could call it Cretaceous instead?

No way to call it Cretaceous. The land configuration is from Triassic, and I shouldnt change the name due to something decorative like the dinos. In fact, the left one is a Jobaria, and its from cretaceous, but the right one is a Staurikosaurus, from Triassic. After reading your post, I am even considering replace the left one...

Guiscard wrote:I'd really try not to go with letter/number names if you can at all help it.

Im not even considering letter/number as names, friend. I said, they are here just to make easier comment on playability. But I would really appreciate names suggestions, if you have any.

qwert wrote:its these pangea or Triassic?

lol, it started as Pangea, but 25 million years have passed and its now Triassic But in fact Im thinking about keep the Pangea name if:
- we cant find another one that is better (Im looking for suggestions).
- we agree there is no room for a Triassic and a Pangea maps.

Marvadin, i need help with xtml, i wrote but 2 erors, i dont know what these mean, see in my topic and tell me yours opinion.

My suggestion would be to use the word Terra instead of Earth. Don't know what other names you could use.

I also noticed you might have some problems fitting in the legend with the current layout.

I'd call it The Triassic Era or something along those lines as its not pangea anymore. I wouldn't worry about the other pangea map, I don't think its gonna get very far to be honest.

As for names sorry I didn't read your original post well enough

What was wrong with the names you proposed before? They looked interesting yet still relavant to a modern map.

As regards textures I like the sea but the land texture is confusingly similar to loads of little borders. It feels wrong that borders aren't drawn along the lines of the 'cracks' at the moment so I'd change the texture for something more subtle.

thanks Marv its work

Well Marv, I like the way it's going.

A few things:

• Regarding India, I think looking into what Scorba suggested is a great idea, perhaps the best I've seen for the problem.
  
• As for title, definitely something with 'Triassic' in the title.
  
• Regarding names, this can be tough. What you need to do, look into some 'theme' to go with, and do it. I.E., take the Classic Map for example. Obviously there isn't a country named Kamchatka, but the Classic needed a name for the area. So it went with a mix of real countries and then when that option didn't exist, regional names. Regional names might work on this map, but I think you could have a lot of fun while look for a 'theme' for the names. Who knows, maybe look into plants and animals that lived in each of the respective areas, and use that? Or perhaps something entirely different. But whatever you go with, make it consistent.
  
• The land texture is alright, but rather repetitive. As for the ocean, I'm not a very big fan of it either. Maybe tone the ocean down slightly, and give it more of an 'early world' feeling...however that can be done

--Andy

Thanks all for the feedback.

AndyDufresne wrote:Regarding India, I think looking into what Scorba suggested is a great idea, perhaps the best I've seen for the problem.

The main problem is, it doesnt really solve the problem of south being strong. I think this is best solved having a strong India vs Australia and Antarctica. Realize that Europe has 3 borders, so the south is really the stronggest area to begin, and add routes may not solve the problem... We need think about this more carefully.

AndyDufresne wrote:As for title, definitely something with 'Triassic' in the title.

If so, we have already some suggestions: Triassic Earth, Triassic Terra, Triassic World, Triassic Era or Triassic Age... hmmm, I like this last one

AndyDufresne wrote:Regional names might work on this map, but I think you could have a lot of fun while look for a 'theme' for the names. Who knows, maybe look into plants and animals that lived in each of the respective areas, and use that? Or perhaps something entirely different. But whatever you go with, make it consistent.

Regional names? No way, there was no Kamchatka in Triassic Seriously, the names wouldnt be accurate, so its better dont use them. I think the most probable is to use modified names of countries / areas, like I did already, or modified names of Triassic animals / plants... like "Postosuchus" (triassic reptile) to become a "Possuck" territory.

AndyDufresne wrote:The land texture is alright, but rather repetitive. As for the ocean, I'm not a very big fan of it either. Maybe tone the ocean down slightly, and give it more of an 'early world' feeling...however that can be done

Well, Im a very big fan of this ocean texture, Andy Seriously, I dont intend change it unless someone else has a serious problem with it...
About the land one, its really repetitive (although there are 4 textures a bit different from each other). But any texture used to a whole map would suffer with this "problem". Anyway, I see the problem Guiscard is talking about, so I will maybe make the texture softer, or use another one.

So, forget the colours and see if there is any texture more adequate here:

I like the Africa and NA ones the most (by the way, I used the Africa one in the last update). India texture is the one of old versions, but it dont need to be so soft... See here:
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f44/M ... ngea21.png

purple blue and green are my favorite..

red looks very dinasoary and triassic (dont have a go at my history or knowledge) ut thatis what many associate with it

Brown, purple, blue or green. NOT red.

More texture opinions before I start working on the new version?? Andy?

purple or red

Green, Blue or Brown

Definitely like blue the best.

i like africa the best

I suggest maybe even trying combining a few of the textures, by making one transparent, and allowing the other to seep through. Might make for something interesting and unique.


--Andy