Classic 2.0 (v11)--56 Territories--PAGE 12 [Abandoned]

by **bryguy** on Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:13 pm

Kaplowitz wrote:
Splash_x wrote:The idea is pretty cool. ... The coloring is nice...

The text is a bit strange... and the continents... (no offence) crappy

no offense taken Can you explain more so that i can fix that?

dont make crappy continents :lol:

by **Splash_x** on Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:16 pm

Kaplowitz wrote:
Splash_x wrote:The idea is pretty cool. ... The coloring is nice...

The text is a bit strange... and the continents... (no offence) crappy

no offense taken Can you explain more so that i can fix that?

You continents look distorted -.- And the stroke you used... maybe make it thinner.

by **Kaplowitz** on Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:29 pm

umm thank you bryguy :roll:

i can make them thinner, but i dont know what you mean by distorted...

by **bryguy** on Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:37 pm

curved in ways there not supposed to be

by **Ditocoaf** on Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:47 pm

Yeah, I definitely think the basic map needed an update. The current "classic" map isn't very... classic-looking. Don't go for the parchment look more than you already have, but what you have here is much more classy. I hope it goes through.

Bottom line: I like the color style; please don't mess with that, but yeah the shape of the continents could use some tweaking.

EDIT: something just occured to me: currently, we have an interesting size variety of basic world maps, as in: doodle earth < classic < world 2.0. Any changes to the "classic" map should try to keep it as a reasonable mean between the two others.

by **Splash_x** on Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:01 am

Kaplowitz wrote:umm thank you bryguy

i can make them thinner, but i dont know what you mean by distorted...

the continents don't look right... like... not what they are supposed to look like.

by **Kaplowitz** on Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:27 pm

Well to make the map i drew over a map. Should i make the continents less round, or just find a better image altogether?

by **premio53** on Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:11 pm

I say go with what you have. I'm ready to start playing on it. I predict it will be the number one map in a short period of time. Looks great.

by **Kaplowitz** on Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:25 pm

I agree, its a video game not a geography class. I really need Coleman to move this for gimil and oaktown to give me their requirements to move to the next step....he said he would move it a couple of pages back but he hasnt been around.

by **herndawg** on Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:09 pm

I want to play on a map like this. 8 player Escalating

But....... why is California there?

I believe it should be East Coast, Mid-West, West Coast. This is what we call it is it not. California just looks out of place shaped too much like it's exact shape to fit the style of the map. And it is part of the western US anyway. Also the Western US looks like Arizona. Not too be a picky rodney but just sayin. Make East, Mid and West, it will fit the look of it all much better.

I think

I do hope this may goes through, will be great.

by **lord voldemort** on Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:57 am

i think your bonus structure needs some work though

so far your getting 3 for sth am while having 4 borders
africa is 4 while having 5 borders
same with nth am
and i think oceania should stay at 2....
unless you add a central australia thing

by **bryguy** on Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:02 am

lord voldemort wrote:i think your bonus structure needs some work though

so far your getting 3 for sth am while having 4 borders
africa is 4 while having 5 borders
same with nth am
and i think oceania should stay at 2....
unless you add a central australia thing

S.A has 6 territories
Africa has 6 territories
Oceania has 6 territories

by **lord voldemort** on Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:03 am

lol true..i missed nz

yer but taken into count must be troops expended defending borders in which case these arent uniform

by **premio53** on Sun Mar 09, 2008 9:02 am

I understand your idea of 56 territories (7X8) but does it have to be set in stone? The idea of East Coast, Mid-West, West Coast sounds good and like I mentioned earlier you could even add a few more territories (8x8) without cluttering it up. Even so the current map looks great to me.

by **Kaplowitz** on Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:21 pm

Im changing the USA names next update.

Also, i think that having 56 is perfect because in Classic, 6 players start with 7 territories. In Classic 2.0 8 players start with 7 territories. I want this to be the 8 player version of Classic.

by **Kaplowitz** on Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:43 pm

v9

-Changed names in US
-Changed the bonus of Africa to 5

by **JACKAZZTJM** on Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:46 pm

man im pumped i hope this goes thru

by **snapdoodle** on Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:10 pm

-Sweden, Norway, Finland needs cleaning.

-It is not clean if you can move from sweden to northen europe.

-I am not sure if I am a fan of the coloring of the bonuses. not the particular colors but the sickly yellow that seems to be the base.

-Classic title script font too scripty?

-Should Argentina text cross into bonus mini map?

-Bonus twice (top & bottom) = necessary?

-greenland and svalbard text crossing into black fade edge... visually in consistent and then you wonder why have the black frame at all.

Just suggestions, take em or leave em.

by **paulk** on Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:33 am

I'm from Sweden.
Norway is given half of Swedens and half of Finlands landmass.
Are you Norwegan by any chance? :lol:

by **Kaplowitz** on Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:33 pm

paulk wrote:I'm from Sweden.
Norway is given half of Swedens and half of Finlands landmass.
Are you Norwegan by any chance?

No, just too lazy to look stuff up :lol:

Ill get a good image next time.

by **Ditocoaf** on Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:57 pm

Europe and Asia look off, and Alaska just looks twisted. I like the style, but the continent/territory shapes are wrong. Could you perhaps try again, doing the same thing, but using a different map to get your shapes?

by **bellaraphon** on Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:53 am

where's tassie (tasmania) gone :evil:

otherwise, i would play it.

by **trk1994** on Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:19 am

still looking good. I like the changes. you may want to move Finland's name to the north and connect with a line to clear the border a bit. also you might adjust Mongolia's border a bit to fit the name. these are only personal preferences not absolute musts. also the borders of Ural over-run the border of China. All in all though it's coming along real well. can't wait to play it.

by **iancanton** on Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:03 am

move the finland army count to the left, then redraw ukraine territory so that it can attack norway. if u need more room, then draw scandinavia bigger than its real size. we already have two maps (world 2.1 and europe) where finland blocks the attack between between norway and the former soviet union, which it isn’t meant to do, so kudos to any map that corrects this misconception.

http://personal.inet.fi/cool/tjs/scanregion.htm

since ukraine is only a minor part of our ukraine territory, rename ukraine as european russia (or call it moskva, like world 2.1).

mid-western usa territory is much further west than the area that is normally called midwest usa: it even excludes chicago, its best-known city.

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf

i normally dislike rootless directional names. however, if u do want to use the western usa name instead of california, then i suggest that u divide the continental usa into four territories by using the same split as world 2.1, which includes western usa, southern usa (one direction that has deep roots but which we have so far ignored), new england and, in its proper position, midwest usa.

http://www.conquerclub.com/maps/World_2_1.S.jpg

please consider merging north africa with sahara desert, so that africa becomes a holdable small continent that has five territories, of which four are border territories. i think two holdable continents isn’t enough; three is much better.

ian.