Download Maps has map Tags

RogerCooper

@Cernel said:

@RogerCooper said:

@Cernel I got the information by looking in the XML file for each mod and classifying mods by map (unique geographic information). I include the impassable territories and sea zones.

Look at https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Category:TripleA_Maps. Scroll down to see the links.

So you looked at every game of the map and took the one having the highest number of total zones as the reference for the map (example: the Civil War map)? I still think that would make more sense as a per game information (rather than per map).

If there are a different number of territories, it is a different map. If the territories in the XML file don't match exactly the territories in centers.txt etc., there would be an error on loading. As I am not excluding impassable territories, there is no need to check xml file.

Cernel

@TheDog Overall, it looks great to me, and a much needed addition.

Now the TripleA DL looks like an actual cool list, whereas before it looked like some random packrat garage sale.

Personally, I would merge all "1931-1945 WW2" into a single group. There is no split in case of the Basic Originals, which are arguably more popular. Alternatively, maybe "Global", "Europe" and "Pacific" sub-genres (I mean an other column only for such optional things.) (which can be applied to the Basic ones as well)?

Cernel

@RogerCooper said:

@Cernel said:

@RogerCooper said:

@Cernel I got the information by looking in the XML file for each mod and classifying mods by map (unique geographic information). I include the impassable territories and sea zones.

Look at https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Category:TripleA_Maps. Scroll down to see the links.

So you looked at every game of the map and took the one having the highest number of total zones as the reference for the map (example: the Civil War map)? I still think that would make more sense as a per game information (rather than per map).

If there are a different number of territories, it is a different map. If the territories in the XML file don't match exactly the territories in centers.txt etc., there would be an error on loading. As I am not excluding impassable territories, there is no need to check xml file.

Not true in every case, but can you just tell me what are you checking then? The center.txt? If not, what else?

I mean, I'm confused because you first said

I got the information by looking in the XML file for each mod

and then

there is no need to check xml file.

?

RogerCooper

@Cernel I am checking the xml file. It is easier to count there.

TheDog

@vendetta
Splitting Year and Genre has its problems.

See Rogers link,
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Category:TripleA_Maps

Year would have so many unique entries, 100+ in a drop down menu is unworkable for selection. It would also have BCE, AD, Stardate, many unknown dates and Fantasy dates. In short I have decided on the current list.

Yes its a mashup , so not clean, but its a short list of 14 and does group maps so that like maps are easy to find.

TheDog

Finding maps
Finding those Basic (what TripleA was named after) maps.
In the Search box, type basic
click on the Year, Genre column heading.

It will sort the list into 2 groups
20 Basic = as close to the boxed versions as possible
27 Variant = change in the map, rules, units etc

As I know almost nothing about these 47ish maps, please correct the list.

@cernel and others
I am willing to reclassify these 47 maps, but the two broad groups, currently work as they are both reasonable in number 20, 27.
This could change when they are reclassified?

Cernel

@TheDog It would take some time checking them all accurately enough. I may do it after I'm done working on War of the Relics (but, if someone else knowing the basic games well want to do it, please do so).

Yes, for now that looks good enough. No rush. (I'm not sure if it is worth splitting the "Basic Variant" into "Game" and "Map" ones.)

TheDog

@cernel
Thanks

@ All
A image scanned/photo with hand written notes for the reclassified maps works for me, if that helps, rather than typing them all out.

Cernel

I've seen that you added the "Areas" column. That is cool, but I suggest changing the name to "Zones". (Yes, usually "zone" is used only for sea zones because all land zones are territories, but they are all zones.) Areas itself might also comprise cosmetic areas, which are not zones (and I'm sure it is not meant to be the case here even though you may be counting impassables).

However, I would be interested hearing from @panther what he thinks would be here the preferable term between "Areas" and "Zones" and if there is an official distinction between the two terms.

xxXEddieXxx

@Cernel
We could also do something like "size". This would be more explanatory and then there is no real need for abitrary numbers but we could just say tiny, small, medium, big , very big.

Panther

@Cernel said:

However, I would be interested hearing from @panther what he thinks would be here the preferable term between "Areas" and "Zones" and if there is an official distinction between the two terms.

While "Area" is not an official term, "Zone" is indeed used for "sea zones".

The official wording is "[The map] is divided into spaces, either territories (on land) or sea zones, which are separated by border lines."

Cernel

@Panther Then I would suggest changing "Areas" to "Spaces", that being the official term.

TheDog

@ All
We are keeping the 100s, 200s, 800+ etc

The maps are banded into 100 space groups,

its easy to appreciate/visualise the size of the map, we like what we like
its easy for me to pick from a 9 item pulldown

Cernel

@TheDog said:

@ All
We are keeping the 100s, 200s, 800+ etc

The maps are banded into 100 space groups,

its easy to appreciate/visualise the size of the map, we like what we like

its easy for me to pick from a 9 item pulldown

I think the most exact way to divide it would be 1-100, 101-200, 201-300 and so on. Otherwise, how do you classify a map with less than 100 spaces? I've seen you have it as -99, which breaks consistency and it looks a bit weird. (In this case, I guess it should rather be 99-.)

Also, why only 9 items? Is every map with 800 spaces or more grouped together? If it is not wanted to have any more hundreds over some limit, I would suggest the limit being the thousand and then going by thousands, so having 901-1000, 1001-2000 (and that's it for now because there aren't maps over 2000 spaces YET), but I think the best would be keeping the +100 metres so 901-1000, 1001-1100, 1101-1200 and so on until the 1501-1600 of "TerraFirma1939".

Cernel

To be clear, my smaller proposal would be this drop-down:
1-100
101-200
201-300
301-400
401-500
501-600
601-700
701-800
801-900
901-1000
1001-2000

(When TripleA will have a map with 2001-3000 spaces, then adding this additional group too.)

Cernel

Alternatively, it could be:
99-
100s
200s
300s
400s
500s
600s
700s
800s
900s
1000s

(This is simpler and clearer, but the first grop would have only 99 items - not being possible having a map with 0 spaces - and every other one before 1000 would have 100, which is a little bit inconsistent but not a big deal.)

TheDog

Added various FFA to the FFA, PVP, Solo tab/column.

@Cernel
Spaces: Done Rogers list. Im only part way through all the maps, it will take some time, I have to download a lot.

Currently there are only x8 800+ sized maps so not currently worth expanding beyond 800+, yet.

Cernel

@TheDog said:

Currently there are only x8 800+ sized maps so not currently worth expanding beyond 800+, yet.

OK. I still believe that a map having over 1500 spaces would be better classified as 1000s than as 800+.

How about changing -99 to 99-?

RogerCooper

@Cernel I actually would prefer the terms "areas" as "spaces" is ambiguous. The rules for Axis & Allies used the terms "territories".

Cernel

@TheDog said:

Added various FFA to the FFA, PVP, Solo tab/column.

Interesting addition about FFA, but it has several issues.

FFA is not alternative to PvP: it is rather a subset of PvP but really also of PvAI.
FFA may be understood as 3+ players and no teams: meaning a game in which every player (meaning power/polity/country/faction...) is on its own (and typically always at war with everyone else), so a map with 3 or more alliances (of which at least one has more than one player) could be seen as not being a FFA. According to Google, the prevailing meaning of FFA is indeed a no-teams game.
Anything like being or not being a FFA is a very much a game-related thing (not a map thing). For example, in the Napoleonic Empires map, you have 3 games, of which one is a 2 sided team game and the other two are FFA.

Instead of having FFA as part of that column, I rather suggest having an other column with the number of sides (For example, if the only sides are Axis and Allies, the number would be 2: passive neutrals like those of World At War or of 270BC Wars are of course not counted: these games are also 2 sided ones.). In its narrowest (and prevailing) interpretation, a FFA would be any game with 3+ sides inasmuch as the number of sides is equal to the number of players (which could be an other column).

Still, you would have to decide what to do for maps having multiple games with different sides. (For example, for Napoleonic Empires, the number of sides would be "2" (if you only look at the main game) or "2/5/8" if you look at each of its games.)