World 2.0/1 Map [Quenched]

spinwizard · Post by **spinwizard** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:33 pm

bedplay wrote:I love you Zim

That is...weird :shock:

mach · Post by **mach** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:25 am

Simply the fact that it's such a big discussion means that it is a problem. If there are so many people making the same mistake that there are

wisse wrote:500mil threads about this

then maybe something should be done to make it more clear.

The border line is very hard to notice if you're not looking for it, especially on the smaller map. It's one of those things that once you notice it, it stands out, but before you see it, it is confusing. I think it's because it is tangent to the army marker, and the colors are similar. If a sharp bend was put in the line, I think it would be much more clear.

It's also confusing because the line naming central indonesia points to the small island east of the big one.

Edit: Zim, sorry for editing without permission, but how about this? This is based on the one at the beginning of the thread, not the one currently in play. All I changed was area around Borneo.

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:04 am

look to the last map update in this thread he already fixed it...

i_man_ember · Post by **i_man_ember** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:31 am

indian sub should be worth 5 bcause it has 3 borders on a subcontnnt which has 4 teritories. also i think you should include maldives andaman and nicobar as they are pretty big (estrnfork of indian ocean for andaman , south of andaman is nicobar and on the other side is maldives....)which makes the territories numbr 7.r u could split the land and make a new subcontinent includen srilanka....as well as new islands in the pacific it looks empty...

mach · Post by **mach** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:05 pm

Wisse wrote:look to the last map update in this thread he already fixed it...

The last map update doesn't have a borneo border...

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:22 pm

mach wrote:
Wisse wrote:look to the last map update in this thread he already fixed it...

The last map update doesn't have a borneo border...

If you load the XML and look, you will see that Sumatra boarders Borneo. The XML is different (slightly) from the World 2.0. Borneo is now the large island.
Here is the xml to show what boarders what.

- <country>
<name>Borneo</name>
- <borders>
<border>Sulawesi</border>
<border>Philippines</border>
<border>Sumatra</border>
</borders>
- <coordinates>
<smallx>566</smallx>
<smally>258</smally>
<largex>730</largex>
<largey>325</largey>
</coordinates>
</country>

I hope this helps with the confusion.

mach · Post by **mach** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:56 pm

Thanks for clearing it up.

zim · Post by **zim** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:43 pm

Been gone a while but I think these are all the comments that haven't been addressed...

Wisse: can you move the army shadow of paraguay in the tiny version a bit up? i make somethimes mistakes that uruay can attack paraguay

Done; this is the only change from v5.

Gilligan: What about the Pakistan/Turkmenistan border? I didn't know they were touching until I accidentally did it. Should be clearer.

This border has been made "larger" in 2.1 already though by 'accident'. The intent was to make it less likely that people might think Afghanistan and China had a border but in the course of shrinking Afghanistan I think the Turkmenistan - Pakistan connection is made more apparent.

GrazingCattle: Why not have Irkutsk be able to attack Korea. I only ask because I was screwed last World 2.0 game I played because I thought you could. So clearing that up is just as helpful I guess!

Done in earlier revision... "Redrew boundry of Korea to make it clearer that Irkutsk and Korea do not share a border."

IronE.GLE: You should add a bonus for holding Antarctica. It is a vital piece of real estate on this map but nobody cares about holding it because there is no value other than the strategic value. This would solve the isolation issues associated with South America, South Africa and Australia. Perhaps a value of 5 (one would have to hold 4 countries without getting destroyed by anyone seeking to hold one of the aforementioned SCs) would make it a more used area on the map and a key holding point for anyone trying to control the southern hemisphere. It would add yet another major area of conflict and prevent the camping that seems to prevalent in South America and Australia.

If Antarctica is strategically "a vital piece of real estate" then people will want to hold it whether it has a bonus or not. Anyway I think the 0 bonus for Antarctica was debated sufficiently the first time around and I haven't seen anything compelling in the games I've played nor heard from a significant number of players that this is in need of changing.

i_man_ember:indian sub should be worth 5 bcause it has 3 borders on a subcontnnt which has 4 teritories. also i think you should include maldives andaman and nicobar as they are pretty big (estrnfork of indian ocean for andaman , south of andaman is nicobar and on the other side is maldives....)which makes the territories numbr 7.r u could split the land and make a new subcontinent includen srilanka....as well as new islands in the pacific it looks empty...

Small islands have been a source of misunderstanding on the map. In Oceania this is unavoidable short of erasing the entire region but in the indian sub-continent I think I've made a reasonable trade off between playability, visual clarity and geo-political accuracy.

Cheers,

Zim

Samus · Post by **Samus** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:58 pm

zim, are you planning on making another larger map? All of the map makers here are in love with the number 48 to the point that I think they're out ring shopping to pop the question right now. I think that's a bit too small for triples. This map is clearly the best triples map, with North America second, and a few other maps that aren't very good for it but will do. We need another big map bad, and I don't see anything in the works.

zim · Post by **zim** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:26 pm

Samus wrote:zim, are you planning on making another larger map? All of the map makers here are in love with the number 48 to the point that I think they're out ring shopping to pop the question right now. I think that's a bit too small for triples. This map is clearly the best triples map, with North America second, and a few other maps that aren't very good for it but will do. We need another big map bad, and I don't see anything in the works.

Samus,

I have an inkling to do something in Tokogawa era Japan but I haven't given it much thought nor dug into the status of an earlier Japan map that is on the site. If I was to do it I wouldn't be able to start until end of March given my schedule in real life. Anyway keep your eyes on the forum and we'll see...

Cheers,

Zim

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:34 pm

I'll give this one final look over, hopefully within the next day or two, and then we can finally get the new and improved version up!

--Andy

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:03 am

love ya zim

antjo · Post by **antjo** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:30 am

the line between the word greece and the country greece doesnt make things very clear
the 'ce' of greeCE should be above the le of LEvant

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:29 pm

Alright Zim, can we get links to the latest XML and the large and small images of the map?

--Andy

zim · Post by **zim** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:22 pm

Large: http://zims.com/blog/images/w21v6large.png
Small: http://zims.com/blog/images/w21v6small.png
XML: http://zims.com/blog/images/w21v4.xml

Cheers,

Zim

Samus · Post by **Samus** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:58 pm

If you consult AndrewB's post on this thread:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14466

World 2.0 is the most popular map aside from Classic!

Woot! Go Zim go!

johnthecrazyhobo · Post by **johnthecrazyhobo** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:04 pm

Looks good except the Congo border needs to be redrawn. Currently it looks like Angola and Cameroon can attack each other. Nigeria to Chad and Niger to Libya are also a little unclear.

2.0 is already a lot better!

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:20 pm

johnthecrazyhobo wrote:Looks good except the Congo border needs to be redrawn. Currently it looks like Angola and Cameroon can attack each other. Nigeria to Chad and Niger to Libya are also a little unclear.

2.0 is already a lot better!

can't see a problem with angola and cameroon but the last too are confiusing indeed

Protist · Post by **Protist** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:55 pm

Please, PLEASE, make the Norway to Moskva border more clear. It doesn't even look like they are touching, but the latest XML certainly puts them as borders!

Make this clear so that future confusion doesn't have to occur.

Samus · Post by **Samus** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:38 am

Protist wrote:Please, PLEASE, make the Norway to Moskva border more clear. It doesn't even look like they are touching, but the latest XML certainly puts them as borders!

Make this clear so that future confusion doesn't have to occur.

I think the intention was to remove that border, if it's still in the new XML that is a mistake.

Protist · Post by **Protist** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:12 am

Samus wrote:
Protist wrote:Please, PLEASE, make the Norway to Moskva border more clear. It doesn't even look like they are touching, but the latest XML certainly puts them as borders!

Make this clear so that future confusion doesn't have to occur.

I think the intention was to remove that border, if it's still in the new XML that is a mistake.

From zim's XML posted on the 8th:

Code: Select all

<country>
<name>Norway</name>
<borders>
<border>Iceland</border>
<border>Sweden</border>
<border>Finland</border>
<border>Moskva</border>
</borders>

And

Code: Select all

<name>Moskva</name>
<borders>
<border>Finland</border>
<border>Baltics</border>
<border>Ukraine</border>
<border>Turkey</border>
<border>Iran</border>
<border>Kazakhstan</border>
<border>Komi</border>
<border>Finland</border>
<border>Norway</border>
</borders>

Hopefully this will be fixed before World 2.1 is implemented.

Bad Speler · Post by **Bad Speler** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:41 am

I actually enjoy that border because it exists in real life and almost no one knows about it so i can do a sneak attack

.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:09 am

Bad Speler wrote:I actually enjoy that border because it exists in real life and almost no one knows about it so i can do a sneak attack .

I agree. Keep it!

zim · Post by **zim** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:15 am

WidowMakers wrote:
Bad Speler wrote:I actually enjoy that border because it exists in real life and almost no one knows about it so i can do a sneak attack .

I agree. Keep it!

Guys,

I like it too however I couldn't find a way to include it that was clear enough to avoid confusion.

The correct XML is here: http://www.zims.com/blog/images/w21v6.xml

Large is: http://www.zims.com/blog/images/w21v6large.png

Small is: http://www.zims.com/blog/images/w21v6small.png

Cheers,

Zim

Shaninon · Post by **Shaninon** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:15 am

Hi, I'm sorry to be a bother, but I was curious about a feature of the map World 2.0. In the key of the map, it seems to show that a player holding the entirety of a particular continent will receive bonus armies of a value greater than that of the territories within that continent. I noticed,, however, that I though I currently own all of the countries in Oceania, I'm only getting six armies per round (the bonus from two territories in the region) instead of nine (the advertised bonus). Is there something else I need to do to get the additional troops, or am I misunderstanding the map somehow?

World 2.0/1 Map [Quenched]

????

Wow, slipped to page 2, I have been busy....

x

Question about World 2.0!