Land and Sea [Quenched]

by **edbeard** on Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:33 pm

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

What you need to know:

1. 53 territories (31 land and 22 sea). Note: Mediterranean Sea starts with 3 neutrals. 52 starting territories
2. 10 continents

by **l3eater** on Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:39 pm

for you 2nd question maybe you can make areas where it's too deep to go pass or have underwater volcanoes or icebergs in the Arctic and Antarctic.

by **t-o-m** on Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:43 pm

i thought DiM was doing world 3 when the new size limits were allowed?

but this could be fun - not a too adventurous idea though.

by **Androidz** on Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:51 pm

You should deffently add the hot Waterstreams around the globe as Impassibles.

by **pepperonibread** on Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:13 pm

Maybe the ocean borders could all be one-way, based on ocean currents. The ocean half could be sort of like Dungeon of Draknor. Not sure how you'd do the land-to-ocean connections though.

Click image to enlarge.

by **edbeard** on Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:27 pm

well one thing that will help is if all the borders (ocean-ocean, ocean-land, land-land) generally occur in the same spots. that way we don't have every ocean with five borders.

another way to help is to not include Antarctica. It'll provide a 'back-end' if you will for the southern parts of the ocean continents.

I'm not so sure about using currents because that'd make the map very confusing. That seems better suited to its own map. nice idea though.

by **Coleman** on Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

I think there should be clear shorelines that are the entrance/exits of the oceans. Like a blurred border. I agree that there shouldn't be a whole ton of these.

by **zimmah** on Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:38 am

pepperonibread wrote:Maybe the ocean borders could all be one-way, based on ocean currents. The ocean half could be sort of like Dungeon of Draknor. Not sure how you'd do the land-to-ocean connections though.

Click image to enlarge.

well since it are ocean cruisers in order to be able to cruise the ocean, they should only be able to start from (large, possibly militairy) docks/harbors.

unloading doesn't really matter as long as you have enough room, so i think the coastline should be able to land anywhere (except for 'rocky' coasts or mountain ranges or other area's where (large) ships can't land normally)

battleships to bombard the coast might also be a nice option, since normally one frees up the landing zone using battleships and also quite often air support from aircraft carriers before sending their soldiers to hell.

by **Joodoo** on Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:40 am

A map that would show the world's land and bodies of water would likely be very confusing...

by **AndyDufresne** on Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:36 pm

Sounds interesting, as long it doesn't get stuck in Size Limbo.

--Andy

by **edbeard** on Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:06 pm

nah I don't foresee any size issues like mibi and qwert. I'm not looking to put tons and tons of territories on this. I'm not looking to take classic's 42 territories and combine them with high sea's 42.

There's a few things I want to figure out before I start.

1. I was originally going to base my trace on this image

http://www.fabiovisentin.com/world_map/political_world_map.jpg

but there are benefits to using ones like the ones below

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/World-map-2004-cia-factbook-large-1.7m-whitespace-removed.jpg

http://www.mapsofworld.com/images/world-political-map1.jpg

2. How do I want continents, territories and connections to be.

My plan at the moment is to have South America be a three territory continent. North America would be a 7 territory continent (Central Am., W. US, E. US, W. Canada, E. Canada, Greenland, and Alaska). They'd obviously connect via Central America. These would also be used as connections to the water to create a havok of connections in one spot.

This would also occur throughout the map. Such as in Cape Horn / Drake Passage where the South Atlantic and Pacific meet.

Bering Strait and alaksa/kamchaka. I think for gameplay sakes, having a connection from alaska to russia is not the way to go. Maybe others disagree. Forcing players to go into the sea to get to other land masses is the main idea behind this map. Though this is mainly just to get from the americas to everywhere else

Splitting up the oceans is tough because land and sea connections are vital to movement but I don't think any other types of impassable borders will be utilized. So making continents that are not impossible to hold is key.

Do I have a huge pacific ocean continent and split up the atlantic ocean into north and south? Or possibly the opposite. Do I include the 'southern ocean' which borders Antarctica (I don't think so). Do I make a Eurasia continent instead of splitting Europe and Asia? (that's my plan at the moment).

My plan for the legend is pretty simple. I'm going to have two mini-maps. On one, we'll show all the land bonuses while naming all the ocean continents. The other will name the land continents and show the ocean bonuses. Perhaps it'd be simpler to just put names on one and numbers on the other but I'm getting ahead of myself.

The need for the moment is to get gameplay going and work towards getting a map to put up. I'd like to hear people's thoughts on my ideas and perhaps other ideas from y'all.

I'm not even thinking about graphics at the moment but I'm leaning towards finding someone else to do that while I do gameplay/xml.

by **AndyDufresne** on Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:14 pm

edbeard wrote:2. How do I want continents, territories and connections to be.

My plan at the moment is to have South America be a three territory continent. North America would be a 7 territory continent (Central Am., W. US, E. US, W. Canada, E. Canada, Greenland, and Alaska). They'd obviously connect via Central America. These would also be used as connections to the water to create a havok of connections in one spot.

This would also occur throughout the map. Such as in Cape Horn / Drake Passage where the South Atlantic and Pacific meet.

Bering Strait and alaksa/kamchaka. I think for gameplay sakes, having a connection from alaska to russia is not the way to go. Maybe others disagree. Forcing players to go into the sea to get to other land masses is the main idea behind this map. Though this is mainly just to get from the americas to everywhere else

Could you go into a little more detail about the connections between land and sea? Is every territory touching sea connected? Or just notable/strategic areas?

Splitting up the oceans is tough because land and sea connections are vital to movement but I don't think any other types of impassable borders will be utilized. So making continents that are not impossible to hold is key.

Do I have a huge pacific ocean continent and split up the atlantic ocean into north and south? Or possibly the opposite. Do I include the 'southern ocean' which borders Antarctica (I don't think so). Do I make a Eurasia continent instead of splitting Europe and Asia? (that's my plan at the moment).

Regarding the Pacific vs Atlantic, I've a feeling I'd lean toward a single Atlantic, and a divided Pacific. As I don't know the territory count you are going for, it's hard to say whether I like Eurasia or not, as it seems like quite some ground to cover. Perhaps more detail on the structure of continents.

My plan for the legend is pretty simple. I'm going to have two mini-maps. On one, we'll show all the land bonuses while naming all the ocean continents. The other will name the land continents and show the ocean bonuses. Perhaps it'd be simpler to just put names on one and numbers on the other but I'm getting ahead of myself.

I kind of like the idea of splitting up two bonus mini maps, I look forward to see it all come together.

Overall, I like the idea, but still hard to get my mind around the bare bones of it.

--Andy

by **Ditocoaf** on Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:33 am

I think it would be cool and unique if there was barely any interplay between the ocean and the land -- as if it is two interlocking yet seperate maps being played at once. There would, of course, have to be a way to attack or bombard from one to the other, but if it could be minimalized, that would make this map into something awesome.

In 1v1, one player might gain better control of the oceans, another might gain better control of the land.

by **edbeard** on Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:56 am

I don't know about that, Ditocoaf. I was looking to make a generally standard gameplay map. If you develop the idea further, it'd be something I'd have to consider.

Andy, connections between land and sea would only happen in specified places. For instance, gulf of mexico would border with central america. Cape Horn would border with Argentina. But, I'd generally make connections between land and sea occur where connections are also happening between different ocean continents and between different land continents. This would be done to cut down on the number of borders to a reasonable level. Furthermore, it'd create high action places. If four continents are all bordering one spot and that's the only way to get across the ocean then action action action.

I'd go into more detail but it's all in my head at the moment. I'll go qwert-style and provide a bare bones image (hopefully within 24 hours) so we can talk about borders, continents, and gameplay more easily.

by **edbeard** on Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:20 am

Click image to enlarge.

this post is only so gameplay can be discussed properly. yes a bunch of islands/water have essentially been turned into a blob of land in quite a few places. I'd prefer another territory added to the 'oceania' continent but I'm not quite sure how to do that as I have Malaysia, Phillipines, and Australia already and I don't want to split Australia.

Everything connects from the left to the right side of the map. The only screwup on this front was in Antarctica where I mean there to be four territories but forgot to designate as such like the rest of the map. Apparently typing a sentence on the 'legend' and this one was easier than just drawing a line on the map.

by **gimil** on Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:03 am

I love how the UK is part of france :lol:

by **Kaplowitz** on Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:07 am

You can add New Zealand

by **edbeard** on Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:14 pm

Kaplowitz wrote:You can add New Zealand

maybe but the space between aus and nz is a lot more than uk to france or the islands in canada or phillipines.

gimil is right. europe is comprised of three territories. east/west/north europe. buuuut, thoughts on gameplay mr. gimil?

by **oaktown** on Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:39 pm

I agree, the trick will be connecting land-sea and creating impassables somehow. Otherwise every territory is a border territory and it'll just be an all-out, how gets the best dice kind of affair.

How about instead of splitting the oceans into huge territories that border everything, you create naval groups in the seas that are territories linked together and with ports via attack lines?

by **edbeard** on Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:41 pm

did you perhaps miss my image?

Click image to enlarge.

by **oaktown** on Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:46 pm

edbeard wrote:did you perhaps miss my image?

I saw it... I was just suggesting an alternate way to fashion the attack routes.

by **edbeard** on Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:50 pm

I like treating them as regular territories better with the style of great lakes where you cannot cross from water to land except where noted.

less confusing that way.

you don't think there are too many borders right now do you? I thought that keeping each ocean whole instead of splitting them up would make this issue go away.

by **whitestazn88** on Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:27 am

i want to say that i like the idea of the map, but in reality, the current situation of sea-land connections kinda ruins the map for me.

what were the reasons that you chose the spots where land and sea connect as you did? i feel like there was no logical pattern and you arbitrarily chose places.

IMO, you should try to find places where the worlds largest rivers meet the sea, so for example, the Mississippi in southern US could connect to the closest area of the Atlantic. the same would go for the Nile, Amazon, Yellow, Yangtze, Ganges, Etc.

I just think that would make a lot more sense, because that's how people would have done it back in the day, and even now in underprivileged areas of the world.

Another idea could be to have one-way attacks or bombardments via monsoon/hurricane effects to get from places in the middle of the ocean to coasts or even parts of the inland in continents.

by **edbeard** on Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:45 am

I might've been convinced about the rivers thing but that'd only give me a few places for land to ocean connections.

I chose them based on where land-land and ocean-ocean connections occurred on the map. I thought that was fairly evident. It cuts down on the total number of borders the oceans and lands will have by herding them all into one area. I think this makes for a unique setup as four continents converge in one spot on numerous occasions.

by **whitestazn88** on Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:52 am

edbeard wrote:I might've been convinced about the rivers thing but that'd only give me a few places for land to ocean connections.

I chose them based on where land-land and ocean-ocean connections occurred on the map. I thought that was fairly evident. It cuts down on the total number of borders the oceans and lands will have by herding them all into one area. I think this makes for a unique setup as four continents converge in one spot on numerous occasions.

but based on your placements, don't you think it would be an unfair start having the arctic ocean, which gives you an incredibly bad amount of places to be attacked from?

i understand that it would be good for gameplay because there will be less bottlenecking and such. but i feel that right now there are a lot of connecting points, and they should be reduced, especially in the central america/northern south america area.

and do you know how many territs you want? because my opinion on the matter might change if there are a lot more territs you know?

Land and Sea [Quenched]

Land and Sea [Quenched]

Re: A Real World Map

Re: A Real World Map

Re: A Real World Map

Re: A Real World Map

Re: A Real World Map

Re: A Real World Map

Re: A Real World Map

Re: A Real World Map

Re: A Real World Map

Re: A Real World Map

Re: A Real World Map

Re: A Real World Map

Re: A Real World Map

Re: A Real World Map

Re: A Real World Map v1p1 gameplay

Re: A Real World Map v1p1 gameplay

Re: A Real World Map v1p1 gameplay

Re: A Real World Map v1p1 gameplay

Re: A Real World Map v1p1 gameplay

Re: A Real World Map v1p1 gameplay

Re: A Real World Map v1p1 gameplay

Re: A Real World Map v1p1 gameplay

Re: A Real World Map v1p1 gameplay

Re: A Real World Map v1p1 gameplay

Who is online