Moderator: Cartographers
Got it.t-o-m wrote:yes mountain C for me
I just realized he makes a good point, unless you change my definition of one, you have to either change the name or make the archipelago's on the map be the center of it.Mr. Squirrel wrote:Now that I think about it, you should probably change the title to something other than "Archipelago", considering you have small archipelagos already in the map. How can there be archipelagos inside of an archipelago?
I can't think of a good name right now, but I'll start thinking. Mainly, I want to throw this idea out there.
The problem with it is that an Archipelago is the name for a group of small islands. It isn't some made-up name for cities or territories. It describes an actual geological occurrence. It is impossible to have a group of small islands inside of a group of small islands. It is just wrong. It is like having a volcano inside of a volcano.jiminski wrote:Archipelago is perfect as the name.
No reason to change it and certainly not based on the logic above.... Crikey we have New York, New York and Boutros Boutros-Ghali!
So why not have Archipelagos in a map called Archipelago!?
meh ...Mr. Squirrel wrote:The problem with it is that an Archipelago is the name for a group of small islands. It isn't some made-up name for cities or territories. It describes an actual geological occurrence. It is impossible to have a group of small islands inside of a group of small islands. It is just wrong. It is like having a volcano inside of a volcano.jiminski wrote:Archipelago is perfect as the name.
No reason to change it and certainly not based on the logic above.... Crikey we have New York, New York and Boutros Boutros-Ghali!
So why not have Archipelagos in a map called Archipelago!?
That being said, the name "Archipelago" is very fitting and it has grown on me. I cannot see this map being called anything otherwise. Therefore, I suggest that Zeak makes the small archipelagos just another island on the map. This way we can stick with the name we have now.
i agree about the legend.... could it more 'approximately' reflect the actual island shapes perhaps?rocky mountain wrote:i like mountain option B and legend border B...
i don't like how on the legend the continents look nothing like the real continents. i know you did a poll, but that is just my opinion.
I quite like this map. the graphics are good, and its classic gameplay!
that is all....
It looks good, but I thought that the Isris was going to be +5 because it is surrounded by four continents and would be nigh impossible to capture. After all, the Biceror has four borders and only five territories but it gets +5. Shouldn't Isris at least get +5 also because it has more territories than Biceror?ZeakCytho wrote:Woo, version 9! Finally!
Version 9 (Large) What you need to know
Number of territories: 42
Number of continents: 6
Gameplay Info: Classic gameplay
Updates in This Version:
1) Changed the legend box border and mountains based on poll results
2) Renamed Iori and Rol Archipelagos to Rol and Iori Islands
3) Changed bonuses: Isris to +4, Caen to +2, and Vienlorre to +8
Points of Discussion:
1) Any more gameplay comments?
To Do:
1) Fix army circles so blue numbers are legible.
My reasoning was that Biceror is dead center in the map and is bordered by almost every continent. No matter where you are on the map, you can probably attack Biceror. So whomever goes for that continent will be defending against everyone else. On the other hand, Isris and Bishan are in the north and west, respectively, and thus have fewer players to worry about. However, you make a very valid point. But I feel if we make Isris +5, Bishan needs to be +5 as well, because it is identical in structure. And if those two are both +5, why would anyone go for Biceror? So Biceror would have to be +6...you see the problem?Mr. Squirrel wrote:It looks good, but I thought that the Isris was going to be +5 because it is surrounded by four continents and would be nigh impossible to capture. After all, the Biceror has four borders and only five territories but it gets +5. Shouldn't Isris at least get +5 also because it has more territories than Biceror?![]()
Glad you like them. I don't like themMr. Squirrel wrote:Also, the new mountains look better than I thought they would. I actually like them better than the originals (the ones I voted for).
I don't see the problem here. It's possible to have groups of islands within groups of islands. For example, the US Virgin Islands are part of the Leeward Islands of the Lesser Antilles, which are part of the Caribbean Islands. That's three levels of groupings all using the word "Islands."pamoa wrote:At that point their still a contradiction in the names of islands and isles.
To be more clear you should name Isris and Caen Islands as Isris and Caen Isles.
So you get 3 clear different level some islands into a group of isles into the archipelago.

I can't believe I never thought of this. Instead of having Rol Islands and Iori Islands, make them cays or atolls. This will get rid of the whole naming issue altogether (which was never a big deal in the first place, but nonetheless...) Thanks for pointing that out Oaktown.oaktown wrote: Names of Isles and Islands are cool - I see the point about being consistent, but how many players are even going to pay attention to what's an Isle and what is an Island? If you want to mix it up and have some fun with you could use "Atoll" or "Cay," or even "Keys." "Atoll" is a very cool word.
We'll stick with +4 for now, then, unless someone really objects.oaktown wrote:I think that the +4 for Isris is fine. +5 could also work, as both could be justified compared to the other bonuses on the map, but I like to err low.
Adding verbal diversity sounds great. We may as well thesaurus other location words being used (coast, beach, etc.) so there isn't so much repetition. Expect more diversity of names in version 10.oaktown wrote:Names of Isles and Islands are cool - I see the point about being consistent, but how many players are even going to pay attention to what's an Isle and what is an Island? If you want to mix it up and have some fun with you could use "Atoll" or "Cay," or even "Keys." "Atoll" is a very cool word.
If we redraw the shape of the north coast of Kalwar, we might be able to fit the text "Inton" completely on the ocean in the location where you specified.oaktown wrote:The only thing I would do is move the "Inton" title over to the left - I know, it will be half on the territory and half off, but right now it has great potential for mis-placements and mis-attacks.
oaktown wrote:Other than that...
Thanks!Mr. Squirrel wrote:Also, Zeak, congrats on the stamp.
ZeakCytho wrote: Thanks!
Okay, guys, let's talk graphics now. Personally, I'm not very happy with the mountains. I have a few ideas in mind for better ones, so I'll talk with Mjinga and we'll get some more of those small samples up for discussion. Are there other major areas of concern graphically?
heheh As i say above, I do not advise that you slavishly miniaturise it! just to give the impression of it (as you have already)Mjinga wrote:No, I don't think we do.I shall delete it at once.
I'm good to have another go at making the mini islands reflect the big map more, but having a miniaturised version of the map there looks, in a word, horrid. Not doing that, sorry.