World 2.0/1 Map [Quenched]

[zarvinny]

besides alaska to kamchatka and the antartica connections, i belive there should be at LEAST 1 more connection from east to west. Perhaps australia to argentina, or japan to united states. I think that this would increase the mobility on the map

[ttocs]

Yeah, i would like to see another east west border too, mabye add a hawaii territory linking us to japan (pearl harbor)

[losrivas]

Would there be a way to make Egypt part of the Middle East AND Africa? Egypt is ideologically and geographically close to the Middle East, and it would create an interesting dynamic, like in the Space map, where opponents must perpetually go back and forth on a territory since it belongs to two continents simultaneously.

I also agree that another East-West connection is necessary.

[ttocs]

Would there be a way to make Egypt part of the Middle East AND Africa? Egypt is ideologically and geographically close to the Middle East, and it would create an interesting dynamic, like in the Space map, where opponents must perpetually go back and forth on a territory since it belongs to two continents simultaneously.

I also agree that another East-West connection is necessary.

I do agree with you on the idea of east west, but the egypt border thing would probably mess up the africa bonus, because then it makes the middle east part of africa, which we probably dont want.

[zim]

As for the poll, you'd need to delete/edit the poll and make it different. Unable to have two polls running in the same thread.


--Andy

Andy; appears that once people have voted I can't edit the poll though a moderator can. Unfortunatel it also appears from my reading of the phBB FAQ that the votes cast in the previous poll stay i.e., you can change the question but not the ballots. If I'm reading this correctly I'll just have to ask people to reply in the thread to express their opinions on the *key* questions:

1) What's the right name for this map; current front runner is "It's Zim's world, we just live err, fight in it...", other less popular suggestions are "World 2.0", "Real World" and "Modern World"

2) Flat blue or waves?

This is how i would split south america, if three subbonuses would be possible.

Happy; Let me make sure I've got your suggestion. Plata remains as currently drawn (Parana, Paraguay, Urugauy, and Argentina). Amazon shrinks to Colombia, Venezuala and Amazonas (and not sure if you mean to include Guyanas?). Tawantinsuyu is added containing Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Chile. Leaving NE Brazil, TdelF (and maybe Guyanas) neutral. If I've got the plan correct let's see what people think versus Marvin's suggestion (which is what is currently in the map). If we were to go forward with your approach I'd argue for Guyanas to be neutral given that it doesn't contain much of the Amazon forest and isn't part of the river system. I'd also maybe keep Chile as a neutral given the it was only the northern part of it was ever Incan and then only briefly (25 years or so). What do you think?

besides alaska to kamchatka and the antartica connections, i belive there should be at LEAST 1 more connection from east to west. Perhaps australia to argentina, or japan to united states. I think that this would increase the mobility on the map

Yeah, i would like to see another east west border too, mabye add a hawaii territory linking us to japan (pearl harbor)

I think Hawaii could be done, it would wind up being aligned with Mexico in the east and Tawain (or less accurately Japan) in the west. Comments?

Would there be a way to make Egypt part of the Middle East AND Africa? Egypt is ideologically and geographically close to the Middle East, and it would create an interesting dynamic, like in the Space map, where opponents must perpetually go back and forth on a territory since it belongs to two continents simultaneously.

I also agree that another East-West connection is necessary.

I do agree with you on the idea of east west, but the egypt border thing would probably mess up the africa bonus, because then it makes the middle east part of africa, which we probably dont want.

We discussed territories being part of multiple continents (or sub-continents) earlier in the development of the map. While I think we were all intrigued by the strategic possibilities overall we decided that given the existing degree of complexity in the map it wasn't the right thing to add this twist as well.

Cheers,

Zim

[ttocs]

Sweet, keep up the good work zim

[maritovw]

i think Hawaii should be part of Oceania instead of North America, and be connected to Papua New Guinea and/or Philippines (and Western US)

Maritovw, I presume you mean for the Plata area as currently shown? If so I think Plata is a more interesting name and but I'm open to persuasion, show me a reference or two for South Cone and I'll think on it.

Actually, it is Southern Cone. it should be formed by: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay. In addition, you could add Parana and Tierra del Fuego, as it is part of Argentina & Chile.

here are your references:
wikipedia
Southern Cone Studies
US Department of State (look for the countries in the text)

if you still prefer Plata, call it La Plata

btw, i don't like happy's suggestion on how to divide south america. i prefer Amazon + Southern Cone/La Plata + neutrals

[Marvaddin]

Actually, it is Southern Cone. it should be formed by: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay. In addition, you could add Parana and Tierra del Fuego, as it is part of Argentina & Chile.

Hey, do you think Argentina is larger than Brazil???
Seriously, Parana is part of Brazil.

I dislike the 3 happy continents, in fact, I think South America is now perfect, except for the continents being a bit difficult to hold, 6 countries and 5 borders, and 4 countries 3 borders. Is there an artificial way to remove Chile - Peru border? Or maybe Venezuela - Caribbean? Anyway, I want to say I loved the way the non in sub countries are now not clustered.

About a name to North East Brazil, of course we can arrange one... If using a river, the main river in that area is named São Francisco. If refering to vegetation, we can call it Caatinga, if refering to climate, Semi-Arid. And the main state in the area is called Bahia (that I think would be the better of these). But of course we can maintain the actual name, since its good to have a reference to our great country

I believe South America is done, we can now discuss another continent

[maritovw]

Actually, it is Southern Cone. it should be formed by: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay. In addition, you could add Parana and Tierra del Fuego, as it is part of Argentina & Chile.

Hey, do you think Argentina is larger than Brazil???
Seriously, Parana is part of Brazil.

sorry if i did not explain myself right. i meant Tierra del Fuego is part of Argentina & Chile. of course i know Parana is part of Brazil! i mean, wasn't it a brazilian final last year in Copa Libertadores when Sao Paulo trashed Atletico Paranaense?!?!? ... ademas, como no voy a conocer la geografía de Latinoamerica si soy de Guatemala?!


and btw, don't you like Southern Cone??

[gavin_sidhu]

I think South America is now perfect,

I believe South America is done, we can now discuss another continent

Agree with these two statements. I like how there are very few neutral countries in South America and there locations are not together and are in strategically important places (Norht East Brazil connecting to America).

To fix the problem Marvaddin pointed out, (Carrabien link to Venuezala) maybe Carrabien could connect to Guyanas?

I think South and Norht America are set as well as Oceania.

To fix Asia I would make afghanistan part of the Indian Subcontinent and Iran part of Middle East. I know its not entirely accurate but it makes the map work better i believe. If you dont want to add Iran to Middle East maybe you should connect Oman to Pakistan.

Africa is unplayable.

Also the light blue background makes it impossible to see the sea connections.

[Marvaddin]

Actually, it is Southern Cone. it should be formed by: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay. In addition, you could add Parana and Tierra del Fuego, as it is part of Argentina & Chile.

Hey, do you think Argentina is larger than Brazil???
Seriously, Parana is part of Brazil.

sorry if i did not explain myself right. i meant Tierra del Fuego is part of Argentina & Chile. of course i know Parana is part of Brazil! i mean, wasn't it a brazilian final last year in Copa Libertadores when Sao Paulo trashed Atletico Paranaense?!?!? ... ademas, como no voy a conocer la geografía de Latinoamerica si soy de Guatemala?!

and btw, don't you like Southern Cone??

Haha, era uma final brasileira, sim, igual a desse ano
Sim, eu sei que você é da Guatemala, por isso achei ainda mais estranho... seria uma piada?? Pensei que você dizia que Parana e Terra Del Fuego eram parte, respectivamente, de Argentina e Chile,

Você sabe o nome em inglês da Bacia Platina, que eu chamei de "Plata"?

I dont have any problems with Southern Cone, but as I said, I think its perfect. The effect of this change would be add Chile and Tierra del Fuego, right? But, the another subcontinent is already a medium one, so, we can have also one small, I think, instead of a second medium one.

About changing the connection between Venezuela - Caribbean to Guyanas - Caribbean, I dislike it. In fact, removing the route, we can consider Venezuela as a non border, except for the need of taking Guyanas too... Guyanas as a province of Amazon, although not belonging to it officially. If we change the route, Venezuela is still a border country.

So, whats the next continent we will discuss? North America?

[maritovw]

Você sabe o nome em inglês da Bacia Platina, que eu chamei de "Plata"?

In english it would be La Plata Basin. I think that name would be the best (or just La Plata). (i suggested Southern Cone because i didn't like just "Plata")

[happysadfun]

n"] This is how i would split south america, if three subbonuses would be possible.

Happy; Let me make sure I've got your suggestion. Plata remains as currently drawn (Parana, Paraguay, Urugauy, and Argentina). Amazon shrinks to Colombia, Venezuala and Amazonas (and not sure if you mean to include Guyanas?). Tawantinsuyu is added containing Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Chile. Leaving NE Brazil, TdelF (and maybe Guyanas) neutral. If I've got the plan correct let's see what people think versus Marvin's suggestion (which is what is currently in the map). If we were to go forward with your approach I'd argue for Guyanas to be neutral given that it doesn't contain much of the Amazon forest and isn't part of the river system. I'd also maybe keep Chile as a neutral given the it was only the northern part of it was ever Incan and then only briefly (25 years or so). What do you think?

I think it would work either way but chilean posessions were relatively important and did include santiago, renamedf by the spanish conquistadores.

I think Hawaii could be done, it would wind up being aligned with Mexico (or maybe the us I mean connect it to the us) in the east and Japan in the west. Comments?

Those were mine.

Would there be a way to make Egypt part of the Middle East AND Africa? Egypt is ideologically and geographically close to the Middle East, and it would create an interesting dynamic, like in the Space map, where opponents must perpetually go back and forth on a territory since it belongs to two continents simultaneously.

I also agree that another East-West connection is necessary.

Total AgreeingNess. The mideast would not have to be part of africa, just keep Egypt in africa and mideast but not in asia, and keep the rest in asia but not africa. you can do that with xml.

[zim]

Sorry I don't have time to do the full "quotes" you know who you are and thanks...

• Removed Carribean to Venezuala sea route (and a few small carribean islands so that people don't think their is a connection.
  
  Fixed Bolivia text & dot.
  
  Expanded/moved Iberia/Morocco sea route for greater clarity.
  
  Added Iran to middle east.
  
  Renamed Plata to La Plata
  
  Added Hawaii connected to Taiwan and Mexico

Would there be a way to make Egypt part of the Middle East AND Africa? Egypt is ideologically and geographically close to the Middle East, and it would create an interesting dynamic, like in the Space map, where opponents must perpetually go back and forth on a territory since it belongs to two continents simultaneously.

I also agree that another East-West connection is necessary.

Total AgreeingNess. The mideast would not have to be part of africa, just keep Egypt in africa and mideast but not in asia, and keep the rest in asia but not africa. you can do that with xml.

Losrivas/Happy, I think this might work (I hadn't thought through Egypy being part of the subcontinent but not the full continents), but think we should hold off on deciding on it until we've further discussed/closed on Africa more generally. I suspect that folks may think it needs some redesign...

Africa is unplayable.

Everyone; I think South America, North America and Oceania
(with the exception of the newly added Hawaii whose Asian and North American connections are very much open for discussion).are "done" from a continental perspective (lots of debate still to be had around bonuses) are you all aligned?

Still to be discussed/debated;

Final tweaks on Asia:
I think we're close; two unresolved issues,
a) should Pakistan be part of Indian subcontinent?
I think not as it's not part of the Indian continental plate and given the India/Pakistan conflict I think it's more accurate they remain seperate.
b) should Egypt be part of the (mostly Asian) Middle East sub-contient while remaining part of the African full continent?
I'm reserving judgement on this pending any larger rework of Africa as a whole.

Europe:
Lots of early comments/discussion on this region but nothing lately are we aligned that it works as is?

Thanks as always.

Cheers,

Zim

[gavin_sidhu]

Africa is unplayable.

Everyone; I think South America, North America and Oceania
(with the exception of the newly added Hawaii whose Asian and North American connections are very much open for discussion).are "done" from a continental perspective (lots of debate still to be had around bonuses) are you all aligned? Yes, but still think you should link Carrabien to Guyanas to make Guyanas more valuable.

Still to be discussed/debated;

Final tweaks on Asia:
I think we're close; two unresolved issues,
a) should Pakistan be part of Indian subcontinent?
I think not as it's not part of the Indian continental plate and given the India/Pakistan conflict I think it's more accurate they remain seperate.Do you mean Afghanistan? Pakistan is definately indian subcontinent. Now that youve added Iran to Middle East dont think you its necessary to add Afghanistan to Indian Subcontinent, could work either way though
b) should Egypt be part of the (mostly Asian) Middle East sub-contient while remaining part of the African full continent? No, that would be confusint and stupid (in my opinion anyway). Turkey should be part of Middle East though, would help improve Europe as well.
I'm reserving judgement on this pending any larger rework of Africa as whole. Africa needs another subcontinent

Europe:
Lots of early comments/discussion on this region but nothing lately are we aligned that it works as is? if you add Turkey to Asia and Middle East Europe aint that bad, maybe add Baltics to Scandnavia and have a connection from Baltics to Finland, do these and i believe Europe will be good.

Thanks as always.

Cheers,

Zim

My edits in bold. I also think the Pakistan name looks to be with Omans circle. Hard to read names on dark blue of Middle East. Link New Zealand and New Caldeonia. Is Eastern Canada connected to Greenland? I think it should be, draw in a connection line.

[maritovw]

i'd connect Hawaii to a country in Oceania (Philippines?) and also to Japan; not Taiwan. here are my reasons:
- first of all, geographically, Hawaii is an island of Polynesia, which is a part of Oceania. in your map, judging by the color, Hawaii is part of Oceania, but it is not connected to any other Oceania country...
- during the US' WW2 Pacific Ocean campaign, the battles with Japan were to gain control of many islands of Oceania. by controlling this islands, the US' troops wolud be closer to Japan. since this little islands are not in this map, a connection between Japan and Hawaii would be historically accurate.


i like egypt being part of middle east subcontinent. it would just add to the conflict in that region, just like in real life.
(i dunno if this has been discussed but...) you could Change Levant for Israel/Palestine (or add both...) i think those countries have been more important in the region


... just being curious ... how many countries does this map have??

[Marvaddin]

1st thing, Parana has not a circle for number of armies.
2nd, would be good concentrate the map in dark colours or light colours, because the way its now many names are difficult to read, like Korea, Afghanistan, Germany. Hey, shouldnt we have one single colour to non subcontinent countries in all continents (maybe gray)? This would reduce number of colours used and make it easier. Maybe we can also become free of that thick border to subconts.

That said, I would like to purpose we can concentrate the ideas in some areas, instead of general comments, like we did to South America. We should discuss easier areas first, I believe, to then focus on the most difficult.

For now, I will comment Oceania and North America, more simple areas.

I think Oceania should be Australia, Caledonia, New Zealand, and Papua... Indonesia, Philippines, Brunei... c'mon, these countries are Asian. Australia would be so the single subcontinent of the area, but we could try another names, its strange having a Western Australia, a Central Australia, and then, "New South Wales".

About North America, the little continent with Mexico is ok, but the others suck. All countries in borders. The best would be put USA and Canada in same subcontinent, and including Alaska, but not Greenland. Maybe we can think about split Mexico, and remove Cuba - Mexico route (not needed).

Also, I agree about one more West - East connection, but this Hawaii - Taiwan isnt the best idea, I think. Is Hawaii in its real position? Anyway, it should be part of North America, of course, not Oceania.

[slash1890]

One small thing- The connecting route from Alaska to Russia says "To Asian Russia," and the other just says "To Alaska." Small detail, but it could use a bit of clarifying there.

[gavin_sidhu]

its strange having a Western Australia, a Central Australia, and then, "New South Wales".

Cant do much about that. The country Western Australia consists of only the Australian state Western Australia. Central Australia consists of 2 states, South Australia and the Northern Territory, cant do much about that name either as the names are contradictary. New South Wales consists of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. The New South Wales name is best, however, because it is the most populas and important of all Australian states and before federation New South Wales consisted of the area shown in the map (except victoria but that is unimportant).

[zim]

Yes, but still think you should link Carrabien to Guyanas to make Guyanas more valuable.

It would make Guyanas more important but overall I think it's best ot leave it out. It's more accurate (the accurate connection would be to Venezuala). Makes the Amazonas subcontinet work better and leaves South America as a whole continent with three borders which I think it optimal.

Do you mean Afghanistan? Pakistan is definately indian subcontinent. Now that youve added Iran to Middle East dont think you its necessary to add Afghanistan to Indian Subcontinent, could work either way though

Yes I did mean Afghanistan, brain cramp on my end. Anyway glad you're aligned with leaving the *stans out of any sub-continent.

Africa needs another subcontinent

and

Africe has 32 countries. It would be simply impossible to capture. Break that up into 3 seperate continents and it MIGHT be feasible. This would also let you have more borders for some continents.

and

I would like to see at least two sub-regions in each continent (three in Asia and Africa)

and Marvaddin and Happysadfun both posted Africa split three ways.

I hear you. I've created a third African continent, "The Horn of Africa", still need to add it to the legend and the mini map but let me know what you think.

Turkey should be part of Middle East though, would help improve Europe as well.

and this was also suggested by Happy in an earlier version.

I agree now with the redrawn eastern border of Europe with Moskva it Turkey should move to asia and join the Middle East.

i'd connect Hawaii to a country in Oceania (Philippines?) and also to Japan; not Taiwan. here are my reasons:
- first of all, geographically, Hawaii is an island of Polynesia, which is a part of Oceania. in your map, judging by the color, Hawaii is part of Oceania, but it is not connected to any other Oceania country...
- during the US' WW2 Pacific Ocean campaign, the battles with Japan were to gain control of many islands of Oceania. by controlling this islands, the US' troops wolud be closer to Japan. since this little islands are not in this map, a connection between Japan and Hawaii would be historically accurate.

Maritovw, another brain cramp on my part, meant to connect it to Phillipines and Taiwan. I've connected it to Taiwan as this is more geographically accurate and I think better from a borders perspective for Asia as a whole and the Far East subcontinent as well. I know it doesn't capture the WWII historical perspective but I think on balance it's the right solution.

Also, I agree about one more West - East connection, but this Hawaii - Taiwan isnt the best idea, I think. Is Hawaii in its real position? Anyway, it should be part of North America, of course, not Oceania.

Marv, Hawaii is in nearly it's real position North/South but not East/West given that I've shrunk the Pacific ocean a lot. Hawaii is part of the United States but I'd say not part of North America.

I think Oceania should be Australia, Caledonia, New Zealand, and Papua... Indonesia, Philippines, Brunei... c'mon, these countries are Asian. Australia would be so the single subcontinent of the area, but we could try another names, its strange having a Western Australia, a Central Australia, and then, "New South Wales".

Philippines, Brunei, etc. are definitely Oceania.

About North America, the little continent with Mexico is ok, but the others suck. All countries in borders. The best would be put USA and Canada in same subcontinent, and including Alaska, but not Greenland. Maybe we can think about split Mexico, and remove Cuba - Mexico route (not needed).

I know the continents in North America are 'border rich' however making them otherwise would require changing the nature of the countries and I don't want to do that. I think the continents are workable given that NA isn't much different in size from Classic Asia in terms of territories and borders; it will be hard to acquire but relatively easy to hold once acquired as long as the bonus is rich enough... Let discuss...

Cheers,

Zim

[gavin_sidhu]

i think your basically done subcontinent wise. I think you should get rid of Greece, hard to see it and which countries it borders with, if you want to keep it at least make it bigger. Move the Iceland circle so it isnt smothering the island, do something like you did with Taiwan.

Connect Norway to Iceland, Oman to Iran and Taiwan to Japan. The connections are also hard to see on the light blue sea background, make them a bit darker, like the boarders of the subcontinents.

As for the title, why not just call it World or Earth or Political World.

Great Map.

[Marvaddin]

Philippines, Brunei, etc. are definitely Oceania.

Only in your map, friend, and in Classic map. In real world, these countries are Asian:
http://www.mapsofworld.com/south-asia-political-map.htm
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/coun ... /aomap.htm

I know the continents in North America are 'border rich' however making them otherwise would require changing the nature of the countries and I don't want to do that. I think the continents are workable given that NA isn't much different in size from Classic Asia in terms of territories and borders; it will be hard to acquire but relatively easy to hold once acquired as long as the bonus is rich enough... Let discuss...

Changing the nature of the countries? I always thought USA and Canada were brother countries. Anglo-Saxon America. I cant see the point here. And changing the subcontinents you wouldnt change the whole continent, in terms of number of borders, etc.

In fact, since we need discuss it anyway, I think the actual subcontinents suck. Its terrible see, in my opinion, the lack of strategic options in these subcontinents. See:
Usa - small
Canada - small
Scandinavia -small
Russia - small
India - small
China - small
Indonesia - small
Australia - small
This, beyond Central, La Plata and the new African Horn, all small continents. Cant we really have something different of these small continents? oh, great, we have 1 big, and 3 medium subcontinents (the big and one medium in a continent with 32 countries), and 12 small. Sincerely, I believe we are far from get a final form to Asia, Africa and Europe, but having that much of small sub continents isnt a bit ridiculous?

Lets forget other areas for now... do we really need a North America with 3 small (and poorly designed) subcontinents?

[happysadfun]

I agree that most of the East Indies are asian, but if we put them that way Oceania would have little or no value. And expand Scandinavia so it's not a useless bonus of one.

[Marvaddin]

Why should Oceania have a great value? Its a small continent in real world, should have a little value in the game. Anyway, we all know small continents are the best for begginning.

[zim]

Marv,

Indonesia is transcontinental i.e in both Asia and Oceania by land area about 60/40. But I believe it needs to be in Oceania for balance. Same with Phillipines and Brunei though their Oceania membership is arbitrary on my part.

On the subcontinents I'm not sure of where the small/medium/large line is drawn but I think it's important to remember that these are sub-continents and I'm thinking about them as stepping stones on the way to control of the full continent. Within that context I think it's OK (and actually desireable) that they are relatively small and easy to capture. I think the mix of sizes is reasonable as well (though I'm not saying their done or optimized yet) with subs of five, and six like Russia, Western Europe and the Amazon in the middle of the scale and smaller ones like Canada and Australia at 3, balance by a couple of large ones like Middle East at 7 and Mahgreb at 9. Thoughts?

Cheers,

Zim