Moderator: Cartographers
NSFEAO - do these rearrange to make the 7th map or something?Evil DIMwit wrote:I'll give a hint: there's a clue in the names of the six different areas.
In a manner of speaking, yes.Victor Sullivan wrote:NSFEAO - do these rearrange to make the 7th map or something?Evil DIMwit wrote:I'll give a hint: there's a clue in the names of the six different areas.

Yeah, its gonna take some mind-bending work to compare the relative bonus values of different areas, and the connection routes between areas (possibly but not necessaarily) but once we get there this will be a big hit for the gameplay-minded.MrBenn wrote:Looking at it more closely, I think you'd have to reduce the Oasis bonus a bit so as to not skew the map so much towards that side.
FNOSA - First Nations of South America? Of course, the "E" is left outEvil DIMwit wrote:In a manner of speaking, yes.Victor Sullivan wrote:NSFEAO - do these rearrange to make the 7th map or something?Evil DIMwit wrote:I'll give a hint: there's a clue in the names of the six different areas.

Right now I'm not working on anything, because real life has me booked solid for a while, but if you have any ideas, feel free to post them and maybe I'll get bored and feel like doodling one of these days...Victor Sullivan wrote: That's all I can think of... So, what exactly are you working on now, ED? I know you mentioned something about maybe adding in some more maps with the larger sizes and all...

Though, to promote movement, I still think the Woodboro stations should be thrown in. With all the territories, you really need it.carlpgoodrich wrote:Wow, major props!![]()
I really hope the gameplay ends up working because this map has loads of potential. I agree, in light of the classic layout (which I am still in awe of), I wouldn't add anything.
How so? Look at world 2.1. Lots of territories, no "teleports". It works fine anyway.Victor Sullivan wrote:Though, to promote movement, I still think the Woodboro stations should be thrown in. With all the territories, you really need it.carlpgoodrich wrote:Wow, major props!![]()
I really hope the gameplay ends up working because this map has loads of potential. I agree, in light of the classic layout (which I am still in awe of), I wouldn't add anything.

Yeah, something to get around, airports maybe. Australia is bad enough on classic - on here there's even more bonuses to be had in a blocked-off corner. And, otherwise, it would be hard to get around the rest of the map with the number of regions about (and many of them being stacked for the small bonuses available).Victor Sullivan wrote:Though, to promote movement, I still think the Woodboro stations should be thrown in. With all the territories, you really need it.carlpgoodrich wrote:Wow, major props!![]()
I really hope the gameplay ends up working because this map has loads of potential. I agree, in light of the classic layout (which I am still in awe of), I wouldn't add anything.
How so? Look at world 2.1. Lots of territories, no "teleports". It works fine anyway.[/quote]natty_dread wrote:Though, to promote movement, I still think the Woodboro stations should be thrown in. With all the territories, you really need it.
Who's to say we have to have this map follow 2.1 guidelines? Even so, "Ocean" can be held for a 5 troop bonus with just 2 border territories. Implementing a Woodboro station in each "continent" would help to balance at least that area. And besides, the bonus structure and territory connections of World 2.1 is more different from this than you'd think.natty_dread wrote:How so? Look at world 2.1. Lots of territories, no "teleports". It works fine anyway.Victor Sullivan wrote:Though, to promote movement, I still think the Woodboro stations should be thrown in. With all the territories, you really need it.carlpgoodrich wrote:Wow, major props!![]()
I really hope the gameplay ends up working because this map has loads of potential. I agree, in light of the classic layout (which I am still in awe of), I wouldn't add anything.

Right... And my comments still apply.natty_dread wrote:I'm not suggesting this map should follow world 2.1. Who'd even think something like that from what I said.
I'm merely using world 2.1 as an example of a large map that does not have teleporters in every corner that still works fine.
MrBenn wrote:Looking at it more closely, I think you'd have to reduce the Oasis bonus a bit so as to not skew the map so much towards that side.

There is still the pressing matter of movement around the map, that just fixes the bonuses, but movement is still an issue. The Woodboro stations allow for movement, but since they would have a decent neutral count on them, it would be largely used as an alternative route.natty_dread wrote:And yet there are other solutions to the issue that do not involve littering the map with teleports. Such as this:
MrBenn wrote:Looking at it more closely, I think you'd have to reduce the Oasis bonus a bit so as to not skew the map so much towards that side.

As I said, there are more routes around the map in 2.1 than this one, which is why movement might not be much of an issue on 2.1 but would on this.natty_dread wrote:And like I said... there's no teleports on World 2.1, yet it works fine.
Thank you!! That's what I've been trying to say! ED said himself the connections are Classic-based, not World 2.1 based. Heck, I'm the old dog, and I think it's time for new tricks. Why teach a new dog old tricks, when the new dog is capable of performing the new tricks?DJ Teflon wrote:As I said, there are more routes around the map in 2.1 than this one, which is why movement might not be much of an issue on 2.1 but would on this.natty_dread wrote:And like I said... there's no teleports on World 2.1, yet it works fine.
Victor Sullivan wrote:ED said himself the connections are Classic-based, not World 2.1 based.

