NES World/Regional Maps Requests Thread

[North King]

Actually, there is one thing which I dislike about your map, Symph; the higher elevations seem to be light, and so do the lower elevations. Yes, there's a noticeable color difference, but it isn't quite the same as being able to pick it out instantly.

 

[Luckymoose]

Anyone have a pretty large detailed city map? With buildings and stuff shown? I may need it for a type of NES I am thinking of doing soon.

 

[North King]

Any particular city? There are of course some on Wikipedia.

 

[Luckymoose]

Any particular city? There are of course some on Wikipedia.

No particular city. I just need one so I can figure out how I would do the rules for said NES. It is really just a simple NES idea to hold me over for you to finish my map.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

It actually occurs to me that a NES could support up to six terrain types and have 39 countries (assuming each covered each terrain type), while still maintaining a glow-coast and auxiliary indicator colors of black, white, and gray (which eat up 22 colors or so; 19 for the sea, one for one of each). 38 if blank territory were left around in standard terrain colors.

Functionally, since most would have far less than all six, the total number would be somewhere around 70+, possibly.

It's difficult to get it to work for terrain though. I tried it with a LINESII map, and even after muting most of the terrain colors it's very difficult to get countries to stand out unless they use fairly bright colors (or if they're surrounded by mostly bright colors). It'd take some fine-tuning to work. It does work for elevations though, at least.

What about LINESII?

 

[Symphony D.]

Actually, there is one thing which I dislike about your map, Symph; the higher elevations seem to be light, and so do the lower elevations. Yes, there's a noticeable color difference, but it isn't quite the same as being able to pick it out instantly.

This was noted by the client and I've since gone and swapped it around and differentiated the colors a little to get rid of any ambiguity.

What about LINESII?

Um, whut? I said I tried doing this technique with your terrain map (which you haven't updated in about a trillion years by the way; it was a pain in the ass to find) and it didn't work.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

It was a hassle to work with for a few reasons, so I decided to abandon it. Maybe I'll update it some day.

 

[carmen510]

I'm thinking of a map in which global warming has occurred, and many parts of the world have been flooded.

 

[Luckymoose]

I'm thinking of a map in which global warming has occurred, and many parts of the world have been flooded.

It has been done. Search for it.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Exactly how much are we talking about? All of the ice on earth, or just some of it? Because you have to melt a lot to make large-scale changes. (on a global map scale, that is).

 

[carmen510]

I'm talking about the entire polar ice caps, including all of Antarctica.

 

[Terrance888]

Including the Ice in my Iced Tea (TM)?

 

[Dachs]

I'm talking about the entire polar ice caps, including all of Antarctica.

That has other effects than merely flooding the earth and making it a really uncomfortable place to live.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Lots of extreme weather would be occurring, and much of the world would be toxic wasteland, given the amount of pollution we'd have given off to melt so much.

 

[Symphony D.]

Lots of extreme weather would be occurring, and much of the world would be toxic wasteland, given the amount of pollution we'd have given off to melt so much.

Neither of those is true at all.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Why is that Sym? If we allow such dramatic global warming to happen, we would need consistent emission of greenhouse gases, which tend to go hand in hand with oceanic acidification and air quality reductions. Additionally, Global Warming causes more extreme weather, it's a fact. And now, storms have even more warm, shallow seas to work with.

What of this do you disagree with?

 

[Symphony D.]

The assumption that humans are even necessary to melt the ice caps is total bunk. I'm not disputing that Global Warming is occurring, no. I am not disputing that we are at the very least functioning as a catalyst for global climate change, no. But you can melt ice-caps all sorts of ways. Massive vulcanism under them (Antarctica actually has a fair number of volcanoes) or asteroid or comet impacts directly onto them are some of them. Humans could also easily melt them by simply releasing large quantities of highly efficient greenhouse gases, like methane or CFCs. Long-term increased heating of the sun. Global temperature rise through massive vulcanism elsewhere raising ambient temperature is another. There are hundreds of scenarios. Massive pollution isn't a requirement by any stretch.

Furthermore the ice caps have not been a permanent part of Earth's history and have come and come continually throughout history. We're currently in a "cold house" period. There have been numerous "hot house" periods in which there have been no ice caps at all, like the Jurassic. Tsunamis didn't just flood the world all the time as a result. There could be more hurricanes or droughts, sure, but we only consider it extreme because it's different compared to what we are used to. If humans had arisen in a hot house time period we'd be concerned as to "Global Cooling", the freezing of our extreme northern and southern habitats, and the economic crippling of our coastal economies instead. Climates generally exist in homeostasis once they reach a stable point, and are moderated by a large number of factors. It's when you change situations dramatically that climate genuinely goes haywire because you're transitioning between two different extremes.

Given no time period is given and the duration during which the caps have melted isn't given, assuming it'd be a transitional period (and thus really wild and crazy) is at best just that: an assumption. Then again, there are no details there to really consider period except what it looks like, so both could be the case, but not guaranteed.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Yes, but I'm assuming that humans are present right now. Tsunamis aren't extreme weather, the major ones are almost all caused by geologic events, as I assume we both know.

And all extremes are relative, I'm talking about extreme compared to now, not extreme compared to the Jurassic's Warm Period.

Anyway, I'm assuming this map happens in humanity's future, which means that human pollution-caused global warming is the primary cause of Ice Cap melting. I don't see many non-human NESes based on Planet Earth running, so we have to be fairly close to modern day.

 

[Symphony D.]

I'll concede the first point, but you don't get away with the second.

Anyway, I'm assuming this map happens in humanity's future, which means that human pollution-caused global warming is the primary cause of Ice Cap melting.

Again, that's a false assumption. There's nothing saying a volcanic trap doesn't can't open up underneath Antarctica in two hours or a particularly dark chunk of space rock doesn't vaporize Greenland at 1426 GMT next Tuesday, or a nuclear weapons accident or earthquake sets of a massive hydrocarbon deposit, or that it's a not a PoD where CFCs were never banned, or whatever. Explicitly human-caused pollution is not essential in creating the scenario even from a modern perspective.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

I'm just giving the most likely solution.