Europa [Quenched]

[oaktown]

just a plug for one of the later options - this region of the map will be far more playable (especially in the small map) if the countries are lumped together a bit. Not only will you have to keep referring to the legend to see what territory is what, it is going to be hard to tell which territory borders which in there.

I know people will absolutely hate this, but I don't think it would be a terrible idea to just have one region called the Balkans... I'll be doing that on my Eastern Hemisphere map.

OK, everybody may now throw virtual tomatoes at me.

[Ruben Cassar]

just a plug for one of the later options - this region of the map will be far more playable (especially in the small map) if the countries are lumped together a bit. Not only will you have to keep referring to the legend to see what territory is what, it is going to be hard to tell which territory borders which in there.

I know people will absolutely hate this, but I don't think it would be a terrible idea to just have one region called the Balkans... I'll be doing that on my Eastern Hemisphere map.

OK, everybody may now throw virtual tomatoes at me.

If it boils down to that I would prefer to see ex-Yugoslavia instead of Balkans.

[yeti_c]

the proposed title, europa, is too similar to the title of the current europe map that is in play to be of use in describing the differences. i suggest that u suffix it with the year (depending on which balkan countries u choose to include), for example europa 2007 or europa 2005, to make it clear that the map is a snapshot of europe at a particular date, which saves people complaining that u've missed out this or that balkan country by mistake or worse, because of political bias.

ian.

but I don't think it would be a terrible idea to just have one region called the Balkans... I'll be doing that on my Eastern Hemisphere map.

If it boils down to that I would prefer to see ex-Yugoslavia instead of Balkans.

Herein lies a way of escaping your current dilemma...

Wind the date back to when Yugoslavia existed... then stamp that on the map title...

C.

[Ruben Cassar]

Herein lies a way of escaping your current dilemma...

Wind the date back to when Yugoslavia existed... then stamp that on the map title...

C.

Hehe. Well actually no, it would create more problems!

When Yugoslavia existed there was the USSR not Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States, Moldavia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, et cetera

There was Czechoslovakia not Czech Rep. and Slovakia.

So if the date is turned back to 1991, these changes would affect all those countries as well.

[yeti_c]

Herein lies a way of escaping your current dilemma...

Wind the date back to when Yugoslavia existed... then stamp that on the map title...

C.

Hehe. Well actually no, it would create more problems!

When Yugoslavia existed there was the USSR not Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States, Moldavia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, et cetera

There was Czechoslovakia not Czech Rep. and Slovakia.

So if the date is turned back to 1991, these changes would affect all those countries as well.

Bugger.

C.

[Qwert]

and you all ready have these map of europe,but creator of these map is favorise Croatians,and instead to put name Yugoslavia,he put name Croatia. You can go to these topic and see that these map have many Name mistakes.

[yeti_c]

and you all ready have these map of europe,but creator of these map is favorise Croatians,and instead to put name Yugoslavia,he put name Croatia. You can go to these topic and see that these map have many Name mistakes.

Just to be devils advocate here : Just like you're favouritising Serbia by disallowing Kosovo to be a seperate country?

C.

[Qwert]

Yeti
Just to be devils advocate here : Just like you're favouritising Serbia by disallowing Kosovo to be a seperate country?

Like i say before,aim not favourise nobody,i just say that present situation say that Kosovo is not Independent states.and you dont want to agree with that.

[gimil]

What looks best for the Balkan region?

You may select 1 option

1. Leave it as it is (black)
16
66%

2. Serbia & Montenegro merged (red)
2
8%

3. as #2 with Slovenia & Croatia merged (blue)
2
8%

4. as #3 with Albania & Macedonia merged (yellow)
3
12%

5. Something else
1
4%


Total votes : 24

[Mark TPM]

I like the map a lot. I like the idea of a bonus for holding most or all of the islands. One suggestion, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg are called the "Low Countries" because of their topography. Just a thought. I also like the many bonus areas.

[MrBenn]

Latest Update:May 4th 2008

- Following the results of the Balkan region poll, I have redrawn the borders in this area.
- I have enlarged the physical land area, moving Greece and a bit of Turkey slightly South; this distortion has given slightly more space, which will help me fit all the currently recognised Balkan States here with enough room for 3-digit numbers.
- Some of the borders are a bit 'jaggedy', but this is just a quick update; I will refine these in due course.
- The Balkan States will be referenced on the map with numerals. In the XML, they will either be '1. Slovenia', or 'Slovenia (1)', for example.

[MrBenn]

I like the map a lot. I like the idea of a bonus for holding most or all of the islands. One suggestion, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg are called the "Low Countries" because of their topography. Just a thought. I also like the many bonus areas.

Thanks for the feedback Mark (and welcome to the Forums/Foundry!)

I like your suggestion for the 'Low Countries' name - I'll put it on the To Do list

[ZeakCytho]

I like the new Balkans very much. How do they look with blue 888s, though?

Minor nitpick: the ocean coloring/pattern stays the same on both sides of the Greenland box. You'd expect, since the box represents an area physically off of the map, the water wouldn't be exactly the same.

Not sure if you saw this earlier:

Also, minor graphical suggestion: the current longitude and latitude lines go on top of the water and land. The territories might be a bit less cluttered if you make the lines go over the water but under the land. Did that make sense?

[MrBenn]

This thread makes me go "Ack! European regionalism at its worst!" and then I dare not comment.

I like the map though.

Hopefully most of the regionalism is dying down now - it has been quite stressful to forge through to find something workable. The only areas of probable contention now are going to be the Meditteranean Islands (of which many are not autonomous) which have been added in for gameplay reasons, and some Nordic/Scandinavian territories such as the Faroe Islands (added to help gameplay) and Greenland (added as I liked the suggestion, and it fills what is otherwise likely to be an empty space).
The addition of some other islands (Aland islands/Canaries) has been vetoed by myself, for visibility/playability reasons.
I'm still open to good suggestions; but want to begin to fine-tune things, rather than continue with the debate about what to incoude and where to allocate it for a bonus.

I've a feeling there should be a couple of paragraphs there, but not too sure how to seperate it

[MrBenn]

I like the new Balkans very much. How do they look with blue 888s, though?

Minor nitpick: the ocean coloring/pattern stays the same on both sides of the Greenland box. You'd expect, since the box represents an area physically off of the map, the water wouldn't be exactly the same.

Not sure if you saw this earlier:

Also, minor graphical suggestion: the current longitude and latitude lines go on top of the water and land. The territories might be a bit less cluttered if you make the lines go over the water but under the land. Did that make sense?

1. I'm not too sure what blue numbers will look like.. I'm still playing with army shadows, which will help this issues, but haven't decided on anything I like yet. (It's a bit like trying to choose a colour scheme for our bedroom!)

2. While Greenland will stay on the map, it needs to be slightly redrawn, andI'm contemplating taking out the inset box, which I think looks slightly out-of-keeping with the rest of the map.

3. I had seen your comment about the long/lat lines; and was about to comment on it anyway... I'm not sure they really clutter the map that much; and if they go 'under' the land, then they won't really be that visible. At the moment I think I'll leave them as they are, although I might turn the opacity down a fraction.

[snufkin]

hmmm.. The only lake outside of russia that made it onto your map seems to be Mälaren.
It´s the thingy above/behind the last two letters of sweden.. doesn´t look good.
There are two much larger lakes in sweden and more than a dozen larger in europe... so in my opinion it doesn´t really make sense to just have #16 there.

[Ruben Cassar]

I like the map a lot. I like the idea of a bonus for holding most or all of the islands. One suggestion, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg are called the "Low Countries" because of their topography. Just a thought. I also like the many bonus areas.

Thanks for the feedback Mark (and welcome to the Forums/Foundry!)

I like your suggestion for the 'Low Countries' name - I'll put it on the To Do list

I don't like "Low Countries". It's more suited for the Netherlands (Holland) than the three of them. In fact Belgium is not so flat.

The whole region is much more often referred to as Benelux. Don't change it.

[The Viking]

Have you decided the final name of the Scandinavia/Nordics continent?

[AndyDufresne]

The colors are wonderfully strong...but I've a feeling they are going to be hell for some of the coordinate colors. I suggest softening the colors...otherwise you risk extremely hard to read areas.


--Andy

[cairnswk]

I agree with Andy...some of the colours are very strong and i can't read the "balkan states?" in the legend on that dark blue...guessing by association
Also some of the army number & terit names around italy and corsica is very tight...can you loosen that any?

[gimil]

The colors are wonderfully strong...but I've a feeling they are going to be hell for some of the coordinate colors. I suggest softening the colors...otherwise you risk extremely hard to read areas.


--Andy

I agree soften them or alternativly add a moderate texture

[iancanton]

I don't agree with naming the map 2007. In 2008 Kosovo is still not a full recognised country. But perhaps he could call it Europa MMVIII to stay in line with the Latin name or Nova Europa.

i like this idea, except it must be europa MMVII because people are still arguing about kosovo in 2008! the title with the gold star does look european, which is a plus point.

Cyprus is an independant state and (as Ruben mentioned) a member of the EU. It's inclusion in the brown/Transcontinental region was a compromise that I, and others are unhappy with. Ruben suggested creating an Helenic region, consisting of Greece, Crete and Cyprus.

eu membership is irrevelant (this is a europe map, not an eu map), but hellenic states is a good idea all the same.

how about putting the three caucasus countries into transcontinental? it's too easy just now to occupy the caucasus continent (possibly even from the drop – in a three-player game, this will happen over 10% of the time), then become stronger by simply doing nothing but collecting bonuses while the other players fight each other. compared with the other small continents, the isolated and easily-defended position of the caucasus gives a disproportionate amount of power to the holder of a region that the united nations doesn't even consider to be part of europe.

georgia, armenia and azerbaijan are geographically part of asia (being on the asian side of the caucasus mountains that form the traditional border between europe and asia in that region) and are listed as asian countries by the united nations.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm

as it stands just now, in a two-player game, there is more than a 10% chance of someone having transcontinental from the drop and immediately receiving a +4 bonus, which is really unfair. if transcontinental includes the caucasus territories but not cyprus, then it will have five countries and two borders and therefore be reasonably easy to defend, while making negligible the chances of holding it from the drop.

for the sea routes, can u try smaller dots that are closer together? it's unclear just now whether sardinia connects to monaco or to corsica. is it feasible to replace the sardinia-sicily route by sardinia-italy? it seems very odd that sardinia isn't connected to italy.

ian.

[MrBenn]

This is a first draft and I'd already rather play it than the awful other one. Georgia and Armenia play football in Europe, although I'm not sure what the actual defnition of a country being in Europe is...

http://worldatlas.com/cntycont.htm

I used the WorldAtlas.com site and the United Nations sites to get the list of 'recognised' countries.

[MrBenn]

Having said that, I like the idea of sticking Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan into the Transcontinental region...

The Hellenic States would be less of an issue, as they would not be stuck in a corner.

[MrBenn]

I'm working on an update at the moment, but am having some problems uploading it... watch this space...