Moderator: Cartographers
Sharp eye there!Gilligan wrote:It says Pete can border Mary. I didn't have a path connecting them, but I could still fortify there. Then I checked the XML, and it says you can attack Pete to Mary. They clearly do not border.
Game Number: 351049
I have Mary and Pete.
Rynn has Lola.
Sean21us has Tim.
Last Stand has ABC.
Sean21us has Jane.
So how could I have fortified there if Pete is surrounded by opponents?
If you've got an uploaded map and xml you can run it through the border checker thingy...Fitz69 wrote:Sharp eye there!Gilligan wrote:It says Pete can border Mary. I didn't have a path connecting them, but I could still fortify there. Then I checked the XML, and it says you can attack Pete to Mary. They clearly do not border.
Game Number: 351049
I have Mary and Pete.
Rynn has Lola.
Sean21us has Tim.
Last Stand has ABC.
Sean21us has Jane.
So how could I have fortified there if Pete is surrounded by opponents?
Your'e quite correct. Thanks for spotting it.
Heres the new code:
http://upload2.net/page/download/fU4Khh ... l.zip.html
http://upload2.net/page/download/nVp5yq ... l.txt.html
Andy, let me know witch of the above links work best.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Thanks everyone for the support and encouragement in developing this map!
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()

Jafnhár wrote:I'm halfway through building a pyramid if someone noticed.Jafnhár wrote:....................Jafnhár wrote:Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.
He he - that's certainly big and gay!!Jafnhár wrote:Jafnhár wrote:I'm halfway through building a pyramid if someone noticed.Jafnhár wrote:....................Jafnhár wrote:Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.
IF I START USING BIG AND GAY FONT PERHAPS FITZ69 WILL NOTICE WHAT I'M SAYING.

yeti_c wrote:If you've got an uploaded map and xml you can run it through the border checker thingy...Fitz69 wrote:Sharp eye there!Gilligan wrote:It says Pete can border Mary. I didn't have a path connecting them, but I could still fortify there. Then I checked the XML, and it says you can attack Pete to Mary. They clearly do not border.
Game Number: 351049
I have Mary and Pete.
Rynn has Lola.
Sean21us has Tim.
Last Stand has ABC.
Sean21us has Jane.
So how could I have fortified there if Pete is surrounded by opponents?
Your'e quite correct. Thanks for spotting it.
Heres the new code:
http://upload2.net/page/download/fU4Khh ... l.zip.html
http://upload2.net/page/download/nVp5yq ... l.txt.html
Andy, let me know witch of the above links work best.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Thanks everyone for the support and encouragement in developing this map!
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
C.
You almost have a point there.Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.
You should be able to do it from the http://www.conquerclub.com/maps/U_S__Senate.xml (or whatever) file - obviously you will have to assume you know you've got the one that is wrong... the rest you can use... It's a cool utility... can be useful for checking maps to see where borders are!!!Fitz69 wrote:yeti_c wrote:If you've got an uploaded map and xml you can run it through the border checker thingy...Fitz69 wrote:Sharp eye there!Gilligan wrote:It says Pete can border Mary. I didn't have a path connecting them, but I could still fortify there. Then I checked the XML, and it says you can attack Pete to Mary. They clearly do not border.
Game Number: 351049
I have Mary and Pete.
Rynn has Lola.
Sean21us has Tim.
Last Stand has ABC.
Sean21us has Jane.
So how could I have fortified there if Pete is surrounded by opponents?
Your'e quite correct. Thanks for spotting it.
Heres the new code:
http://upload2.net/page/download/fU4Khh ... l.zip.html
http://upload2.net/page/download/nVp5yq ... l.txt.html
Andy, let me know witch of the above links work best.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Thanks everyone for the support and encouragement in developing this map!
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
C.
Hmm.. tried that but I couldn't get it to work.
Is there a kind soul here that can check the code for me?

I'm afraid we have a misunderstanding.Fitz69 wrote:You almost have a point there.Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.
Fundamentalism is not a philosophy but more of an attitude adopted in conjunction to any held conviction.
Though one must keep in mind that there are many kinds of fundamentalism.
The type I am referring to is definatly one that is held, in this case, by a group.
Thus fundamentalist.
The context of the map's theme further rarefies the possible holders of any philosophy (attitude) to the point that anyone with a slightly decent insight into the political atmosphere of the USA will know what is implied.
Still hasn't been fixed...Gilligan wrote:It says Pete can border Mary. I didn't have a path connecting them, but I could still fortify there. Then I checked the XML, and it says you can attack Pete to Mary. They clearly do not border.
Game Number: 351049
I have Mary and Pete.
Rynn has Lola.
Sean21us has Tim.
Last Stand has ABC.
Sean21us has Jane.
So how could I have fortified there if Pete is surrounded by opponents?

Still hasn't been answered ...Jafnhár wrote:I'm afraid we have a misunderstanding.Fitz69 wrote:You almost have a point there.Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.
Fundamentalism is not a philosophy but more of an attitude adopted in conjunction to any held conviction.
Though one must keep in mind that there are many kinds of fundamentalism.
The type I am referring to is definatly one that is held, in this case, by a group.
Thus fundamentalist.
The context of the map's theme further rarefies the possible holders of any philosophy (attitude) to the point that anyone with a slightly decent insight into the political atmosphere of the USA will know what is implied.
Fundamentalist is one who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about a person).
Fundamentalism is reducing religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about an attitude, not a person).
Now, it looks like there's some guy that holds fundamentalism opinions on this territory. Talking about a person instead of it as an attitude doesn't narrow the term, there are just as many definitions for it in a dictionary, but the difference between them is as stated above.
Come on guys this is the foundry. Its a forum for map making. Take this debate to the social lounge or flame wars.Jafnhár wrote:Still hasn't been answered ...Jafnhár wrote:I'm afraid we have a misunderstanding.Fitz69 wrote:You almost have a point there.Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.
Fundamentalism is not a philosophy but more of an attitude adopted in conjunction to any held conviction.
Though one must keep in mind that there are many kinds of fundamentalism.
The type I am referring to is definatly one that is held, in this case, by a group.
Thus fundamentalist.
The context of the map's theme further rarefies the possible holders of any philosophy (attitude) to the point that anyone with a slightly decent insight into the political atmosphere of the USA will know what is implied.
Fundamentalist is one who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about a person).
Fundamentalism is reducing religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about an attitude, not a person).
Now, it looks like there's some guy that holds fundamentalism opinions on this territory. Talking about a person instead of it as an attitude doesn't narrow the term, there are just as many definitions for it in a dictionary, but the difference between them is as stated above.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
This is a barely a debate, he has only answered once and it does directly affect the map.Guiscard wrote:Come on guys this is the foundry. Its a forum for map making. Take this debate to the social lounge or flame wars.Jafnhár wrote:Still hasn't been answered ...Jafnhár wrote:I'm afraid we have a misunderstanding.Fitz69 wrote:You almost have a point there.Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.
Fundamentalism is not a philosophy but more of an attitude adopted in conjunction to any held conviction.
Though one must keep in mind that there are many kinds of fundamentalism.
The type I am referring to is definatly one that is held, in this case, by a group.
Thus fundamentalist.
The context of the map's theme further rarefies the possible holders of any philosophy (attitude) to the point that anyone with a slightly decent insight into the political atmosphere of the USA will know what is implied.
Fundamentalist is one who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about a person).
Fundamentalism is reducing religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about an attitude, not a person).
Now, it looks like there's some guy that holds fundamentalism opinions on this territory. Talking about a person instead of it as an attitude doesn't narrow the term, there are just as many definitions for it in a dictionary, but the difference between them is as stated above.