Page 34 of 43

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:16 am
by Kahless
Have you got Hawaii? It's also part of Oceania

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:21 am
by Wisse

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:43 am
by GeneralN20
You should add a bonus for holding Antarctica.


I like that idea. Giving it a bonus of 2 would really make it more interesting to hold. Adding to it that the bonus wouldn't be big enough for the player to base himself solely on Antartica.

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:08 pm
by Shaninon
Oh geeze! Thanks! I guess I just expected Hawaii to be part of North America -.-;;; *dim*

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:26 pm
by DiM
Shaninon wrote: *dim*



you called me?? :shock:

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:21 pm
by Shaninon
I wasn't trying to, sorry! >.<

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:07 pm
by DiM
Shaninon wrote:I wasn't trying to, sorry! >.<
:lol: :lol:

Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:58 am
by Gilligan
Nigeria/Chad Sudan/Libya borders? Kinda unclear to me...

Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:31 am
by zim
GeneralN20 wrote:
You should add a bonus for holding Antarctica.


I like that idea. Giving it a bonus of 2 would really make it more interesting to hold. Adding to it that the bonus wouldn't be big enough for the player to base himself solely on Antartica.


This was discussed extensively in the orginal World 2.0 thread and has been addressed in this thread as well. I'm not prepared to change the fundamentals of the map, the intent here is just to clean up minor glitches that have become apparent through play testing.

Gilligan wrote:Nigeria/Chad Sudan/Libya borders? Kinda unclear to me...


Gilligan, I've seen no reports of confusion surrounding this area and they are a (reasonably) accurate reflection of the actual country borders. Given my goal of trying to balance authenticity and playabilty I think they work as they are.

Cheers,

Zim

Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:13 pm
by lackattack
Hi Zim,

I reviewed your xml and the mapmaker tool found what looks like a bug:

Warning: Sulawesi has Sumatra as a border, but not vice versa

Asides from that, it will be easy to convert all existing World 2.0 games to World 2.1 which is what I'd like to do once this is quenched.

Thanks for all your hard work!

Borneo closer tied to Java than to Sumatra

Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:21 pm
by lt_oddball
Historically, geographically and logistically (trade) I find Borneo closer to Java than to Sumatra.

I don't know what the game implications are , but if you want to be more world accurate than that should be the better border link.
(Borneo to Java and not Borneo to Sumatra).

My 2 cents..


PS and yes Antarctica should also yield a continent bonus (of 2).
People have to go through the trouble of conquering it..so it should give a bonus.

Cheers

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:12 pm
by zim
lackattack wrote:Hi Zim,

I reviewed your xml and the mapmaker tool found what looks like a bug:

Warning: Sulawesi has Sumatra as a border, but not vice versa

Asides from that, it will be easy to convert all existing World 2.0 games to World 2.1 which is what I'd like to do once this is quenched.

Thanks for all your hard work!


Thanks Lack, here's a corrected version...

http://www.zims.com/blog/images/w21v7.xml
http://www.zims.com/blog/images/w21v6large.png
http://www.zims.com/blog/images/w21v6small.png

Cheers,

Zim

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:32 pm
by boberz
no antartica bonus: not like real life (till they exploit the oil)
dont need another hotly contested area
gameplay must stay similar (imo) to whatit is now this would unbalance hte north from the south more than it already is

Re: Borneo closer tied to Java than to Sumatra

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:14 pm
by Samus
lt_oddball wrote:Historically, geographically and logistically (trade) I find Borneo closer to Java than to Sumatra.

I don't know what the game implications are , but if you want to be more world accurate than that should be the better border link.
(Borneo to Java and not Borneo to Sumatra).

My 2 cents..


PS and yes Antarctica should also yield a continent bonus (of 2).
People have to go through the trouble of conquering it..so it should give a bonus.

Cheers


I'm not really going to say that these ideas are good or bad, but this is just an update of a map that's already in play. You can't really make drastic changes to it. Right or wrong, the time for discussing that has passed.

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:50 pm
by lackattack
World 2.1 is up!

It can take up to an hour for the older game logs to be updated.

Thanks again to everyone that helped out.

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:01 pm
by unriggable
Kickass! Now I gotta wait for one of my games to end...

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:48 pm
by AlexTheGreat2
I'm not complaining but is there any way that this sort of update can be done without effecting games already in progress? Add it as a totally new map or something?

I kinda got screwed twice here, once by thinking I could go Borneo->sumatra and missing out on the continent there in 2.0 and so at the end I moved my armies to sorong and now next turn I can't use them against blue because they fixed it!

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=275185#gmtop

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:57 pm
by AndyDufresne
There was a way to make it not effect on going games, but it causes more headaches in the long run. The quick switch which we employed was the best option we had. :)


--Andy

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:21 pm
by Samus
AndyDufresne wrote:There was a way to make it not effect on going games, but it causes more headaches in the long run. The quick switch which we employed was the best option we had. :)


--Andy


I'm curious why you couldn't just make 2.1 a brand new map, and remove 2.0 from the game starter. They'd technically be two different maps, 2.0 would still exist but it would be impossible to start a new 2.0 map that wasn't already going.

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:50 pm
by AndyDufresne
That way makes things messy in the long run. That's why we went with the quicker route. :)


--Andy

Fatal Flaw in World 2.1!

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:33 pm
by wrightfan123
Well, not fatal, but I've discovered that you can actually hold both Europe and Asia for 30 armies and have to defend less places than having to hold Asia for only 18!

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:40 pm
by WidowMakers
That may be true but did you also know that you can hold the entire map except Antarctica and only need to defend 3 boarders!!!!!

By the time anyone has all of Europe and Asia, the game is over or the other players have NA and SA.

It is not an error. It is the way the map is. You could look at it in 2 ways. On the Classic map if you have Australia you only need to defend 1 territory. But if you own the entire map EXCEPT Australia you only need to defend 1 territory.

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:52 pm
by Wisse
WidowMakers wrote:That may be true but did you also know that you can hold the entire map except Antarctica and only need to defend 3 boarders!!!!!

By the time anyone has all of Europe and Asia, the game is over or the other players have NA and SA.

It is not an error. It is the way the map is. You could look at it in 2 ways. On the Classic map if you have Australia you only need to defend 1 territory. But if you own the entire map EXCEPT Australia you only need to defend 1 territory.


i always win when i got africa or south america (then i concer the other one or i concer autrailia and i've won)

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:15 pm
by Gilligan
I just noticed, it still says "Venezuala" on the XML, and "Venezuela" on the map.

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:30 pm
by zim
Gilligan wrote:I just noticed, it still says "Venezuala" on the XML, and "Venezuela" on the map.


Venezuela (the map version) is the proper english spelling.

Lack/Andy,

One of you want to do a search and replace on the XML or should I?

Cheers,

Zim