NES World/Regional Maps III

[Niklas]

Aye, that was no complaint, just saying that since there was no borders on it there was no way to tell if they looked good or not.

@Masses: No 2px borders on a detailed map!!

 

[Luckymoose]

Aye, that was no complaint, just saying that since there was no borders on it there was no way to tell if they looked good or not.

@Masses: No 2px borders on a detailed map!!

well 2 Pixel looks better and 2 pixel borders allows you to use 1 pixel for vassals and such.

 

[jeps]

2 pixel is fine...for national boundries. I think that 1 pixel looks BETTER on coasts: gives you more area to work with, less obstructive of visible city placement (try and place Tromso or Hammerfest in Norway, Port Rupert, BC, Juneau Alaska, Serrekunda Gambia, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, or anything like that.) Its impossible, but quite possible that those cities show importance in a NES. Unless thay are automaticly TCs or something like that, they are invisible.

I like thick borders, but on that map, they should be thin, at least the coastlines (though in all honesty, no coast borders is perfectly fine.)

 

[North King]

The problem at present is not the width, it's where the borders are. All land should be white, period. Black should only begin in water.

 

[Warman17]

One Problem with the map:
Tiny pacific islands are hard to see. While I suppose they are geographically unimportant, on the other hand they are strategically important to know who controls them in an NES.

 

[North King]

The map is designed for realism, not being able to see small islands by artificially growing them.

 

[Warman17]

The map is designed for realism, not being able to see small islands by artificially growing them.

So in order to achieve some sort of geographical realism we have to give up the ability to have an effective ability to launch operations to gain control of these islands(or at least see who the hell owns them) which is strategically and historically realistic.

 

[carmen510]

Yes, we do. Of course, you can try making an enlarged version, but God knows how many screens will require three pages of scrolling to see the entire map.

 

[North King]

So in order to achieve some sort of geographical realism we have to give up the ability to have an effective ability to launch operations to gain control of these islands(or at least see who the hell owns them) which is strategically and historically realistic.

I can see the most strategically important fine.

 

[Warman17]

I can see the most strategically important fine.

Then I suppose to you the only important islands are Samoa and Hawaii, because the rest are just tiny black dots.

 

[North King]

Then I suppose to you the only important islands are Samoa and Hawaii, because the rest are just tiny black dots.

I can make out "tiny black dots", actually. It's not particularly hard.

 

[Symphony D.]

1. Most tiny islands, with few exceptions, are not strategic.
2. The style of the map you're arguing over is obsolete and you're wasting your time.
3. When it's done every island will have a white core. If you can't be bothered at that point to zoom in and check its color in paint if you're really curious, that's your own problem.

 

[jeps]

Strategic Tiny Islands: Midway, Wake, Singapore, Guam, Malta. Thats about it.

 

[Warman17]

1. Most tiny islands, with few exceptions, are not strategic.
2. The style of the map you're arguing over is obsolete and you're wasting your time.
3. When it's done every island will have a white core. If you can't be bothered at that point to zoom in and check its color in paint if you're really curious, that's your own problem.

1) Many tiny islands are strategic or there wouldn't have been the great pacific game over control of them in the late 19th century and early-mid 20th century, not to mention the great wealth of Caribbean islands brought in the 16th century+

2) I'm arguing over an issue on the map. Just because its better doesn't mean its flawless.

3) I shouldn't have to put in the extra effort if i shouldn't have to. The map should be a graphical representation which aids the players in the game, it shouldn't be what the NES is solely based around. And it certainly shouldn't be about having the player zoom in in order to ensure his nation takes the best course.

 

[Symphony D.]

1) Many tiny islands are strategic or there wouldn't have been the great pacific game over control of them in the late 19th century and early-mid 20th century, not to mention the great wealth of Caribbean islands brought in the 16th century+

1. A) Contributed exceedingly little to any strategic concerns until 1940, half a century+ later, never producing anything valuable = not strategically important. B) Whoop de doo, hardly anybody plays Renaissance or imperial era games anyway, and even if you were to, odds are a city will be dropped onto the island and declared an EC, meaning you can see it anyway. Or you can zoom in or study a real map. Imagine that. Getting out of something what you put into it? Isn't that just the craziest thing you've ever heard?
2. Obviously you enjoy wasting your time talking about something nobody is ever going to use anyway.
3. Yes, because the Gilbert Islands will define the future of a nation, and must therefore be made each the size of Rhode Island so people can see them because doggone it, nobody can be bothered to investigate things when planning the future of a nation. Like all those islands that are too small to be visible on any map! Planning should take 5 minutes or less for everything!

Even if we take your argument that the "map shouldn't be what the game is based around"--it's not, because the vast bulk of the places you're championing the necessity of aren't important in any time.

 

[Warman17]

1. A) Contributed exceedingly little to any strategic concerns until 1940, half a century+ later, never producing anything valuable = not strategically important. B) Whoop de doo, hardly anybody plays Renaissance or imperial era games anyway, and even if you were to, odds are a city will be dropped onto the island and declared an EC, meaning you can see it anyway. Or you can zoom in or study a real map. Imagine that. Getting out of something what you put into it? Isn't that just the craziest thing you've ever heard?
2. Obviously you enjoy wasting your time talking about something nobody is ever going to use anyway.
3. Yes, because the Gilbert Islands will define the future of a nation, and must therefore be made each the size of Rhode Island so people can see them because doggone it, nobody can be bothered to investigate things when planning the future of a nation. Like all those islands that are too small to be visible on any map! Planning should take 5 minutes or less for everything!

Even if we take your argument that the "map shouldn't be what the game is based around"--it's not, because the vast bulk of the places you're championing the necessity of aren't important in any time.

1) Firstly the late 19th century was greatly concerned over the aquisition of the various pacific islands because they needed refueling stations in order to ensure naval domination of the ocean. Yes it isn't really important until the industrial age starts getting into swing, but not all NESes are based in ancient times.

Like I said it should be easy on both player and mod alike, making it so either has to look up a "real" map takes time and effort away from both.

2) Obviously at least I would use it otherwise I wouldn't be complaining about it.

3)I'm assuming your 5 minute statement is sarcasm. Planning really shouldn't. My orders for EQ's nes right now normally take a couple minutes during peace and maybe 10-15 during war: mainly figuring out troop locations and numbers. You don't need to spend exuberant amounts of time looking at maps and going over outside sources.


lets take an NES with a map all its own, based not on earth. There is no outside "real maps" to help me there. As such the map should be suited to aid the player in ensuring that he knows whats geographiclly and strategically important. A 1-2 pixel island isn't going to be the top of my concerns (but in reality one could waste 100,000+ lives on it like Okinawa, which on your map is just a couple pixels) Great there is outside maps for this map of earth, but the player shouldn't have to use one in order to play the NES is my point.

 

[carmen510]

Then just make a separate map of the Pacific if it matters to you. After all, WW2 didn't really do anything in Central Asia.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

So NK, are we ever going to see one of your historical maps past 900 CE?

 

[North King]

So NK, are we ever going to see one of your historical maps past 900 CE?

Depends how long I stick around, and how much they're desired by the community. Moreover, anyone else can do them; I just have a couple of atlases, wikipedia, and a whole lot of other websites for cross-referencing.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Moreover, anyone else can do them

Maybe, but your maps are pretty!