But this thing of the island scars is really a minor thing. Probably most people will hardly notice, so don't get bogged down on it anyways; was just a suggestion, but very marginal. It is fine as it is and those little line can stay as they are. May be even not worth the effort to consider it. Very much of a side note.
Posts made by Cernel
RE: Dragon War - Official Thread
RE: Dragon War - Official Thread
A world has to be a globe anyways, hasn't it?
Territories with the name ending in "Sea Zone" are deproritised. This is how you handle islands in all properly made maps since World War II Classic, as long as one of the zones involved is not a territory, like the fake hole (lake) in Kazakh S.S.R..
You misunderstood what the island mode is. That is just a visual aid while you work; it doesn't change the output and, no, territory definitions can't have holes in them.
Maybe I should have told you this before, as I noticed all those island scars since a while, but sort of kept forgetting raising the argument. If you have still the originals, consider redrawing the territories surrounding islands, and the skin related elements, as per norm.
Besides, in my mind, "01 Sea Zone" makes more sense and it is better than "Sea Zone 01" since, this way, all sea zones are, either, packed at start (not in the middle of the names starting with "S"), if numbered, or properly ordered, if named, and, anyways, the name of something (in this case, a number) should stay at start (in English, at least); you say "Mediterranean Sea", not "Sea Mediterranean", don't you? For example, in WWII Classic, you have "Central Mediterranean Sea Zone", which sounds better to me than "Sea Zone Central Mediterranean". Maybe, in your country, instead, you first say "Sea" and then "Mediterranean" (however it's called)?
Also, I prefer having 01, if total 10 to 99; 001, if total 100 to 999; etc..
In D&D, dragons eat not only food, but also metal and other stuff. And of course, hoarding gold and pretties.
RE: Dragon War - Official Thread
Or connecting through the south the 2 sz through the ice pack. just a thought. The north needs to be connected as well or wrapped.
On any kind of representation for this map, assuming the planet is spheroidal (as it should), you surely cannot both be able to wrap X and Y, or even only going north to south (Y wrapping akin, if I understand correctly your proposal here) through the sea zones left and right of the ice packs, that, in this last case (if it Y-wraps), would actually be not two ice packs, but only one and the same; either you wrap only X or only Y: you can't have both, not even partially, as it would be not realistic.
However, as long as we totally exclude any X-wrapping for it, having any kind of Y-wrapping may be at least thinkable. Especially, as noted, since the ice territories appear to never touch the right nor the left side of the map (which, if this is a map on a style of our common global maps of the Earth, this can only represent some big ice free gulf on the arctic (that, of course, would not allow to teleport you from one pole to the other, but only eventually crash on that part of the ice-pack that has been cut out, in the map), this map may either represent a world with two (as per norm for Earth's maps) or one icecap. In case of two icecaps, the map would have cut a sizeable extreme part of the poles out of representation (as it usually happens in Earth's map on TripleA (for example, you rarely see Antarctica in any maps)), as only this can justify the absence of ice left and right (so, it would be just like our normal global maps of the Earth, maybe wrapping on X and maybe not) while, in case of one icecap, the map would have, either, cut two likely big oceans (maybe having some other lands) out, around the equator, or all sea zones on left and right border are connected with the same border's ones, but not wrapping east-west (meaning that would would be able to go to and from any sea zones in the right side or in the left side, but not going to or from any sea zones in the right side to any sea zone in the left side), while the up and down borders of the map would be the same one ice-covered pole, and, of course, the centre of the map (about where Fairy Islet is) would be the other ice-less pole.
To avoid misunderstandings, what I'm saying is that the map can be seen only as wrapping on X or on Y or on none, surely not on both. Having the map wrapping both X and Y (like Hexglobe, which is for sure not a globe (something like Hexglobe is not representing a globe at all, but rather a doughnut-shaped object, and preferably having a relatively very big hole, to minimise distortions, and, of course, the gravity normal to said donought-planet superficie, not towards its void centre)) would be not realistic, as the only way a map representing a globe may wrap X and Y alike is that 1 single territory touches all the perimeter, encircling the whole map (which would also imply being greatly distorted).
So, again, if anything, you may choose to wrap only X or only Y (not both!). Wrapping on the Y axis only, under the current map design (ice on north and south of the map alike), would imply that the ice-covered territories you see are just the two halves of the same ice-cap (either the north or the south pole, if we assume this planet is actually rotating on its own axis, and not always facing its sun, unlike, for example, in the case of the Moon with respect to the Earth) represent a world in which only one of the two poles is cold enough to have solid water, which may be the case of a very tilted planet with a very long orbital period, at least relatively to the game's timespan (it would eventually undergo precession, and have the ice only at the centre of the map (of course, in between of these states, you will have both polar caps, as per always on our own planet, for most of the time); so, as I was saying, the state depicted would last only for a relatively short timeframe around the planet being at its perihelion or aphelion, which means, if the war is going to last up to 10 years, we would assume an orbital period of 100 Earth-years or more (likely safer to go for 200 years or more); practically something like our planet Neptune orbiting around a much bigger star than the Sun (to not be too cold, as only particularly distant bodies have very long "years") and with bit greater (not necessarily too much) axial tilt (as long as it is not too tilted, only a relatively minor (yet quite extensive) X-stripe at the centre of the map would be continually on daylight while, of course, the north-south edge would be under continual darkness, aside mostly from what light can be deflected by some moons. It is worth mentioning that theorically, and more radically, you can have it like our planet Uranus, with an axial tilt about parallel to its solar orbit and, in this case, for all the duration of the game, the central part of the map would be supposed to be continually in sunlight and the north and south of it continually in darkness (but maybe you have some bright enough moon, to not make a big difference for battles), while two more or less extended stripes, at 1/4 and 3/4 of the map up-down, would experience day-night cycling (no such cycle anywhere at all if tilted of exactly 90 degrees to its sun, of course); however, I think this would be not really feasible with respect to the map's drawing, as half the world or almost so being in perennial darkness would likely imply an ice-covered (if any ice at all!) portion of the map much more extensive than what we see here.
However, since an Y wrap only would represent 1 single icecap, you should, then, be able to navigate with ships wrapping on the Y axis on both the rightside and the leftside of the map, which is actually what the map appears to be showing (so, all good here), as it seems that, for whatever reasons, the ice territories don't touch the right nor the left of the map, which would make this map feasible as being interpreted as a Y only wrapping representation as I've just described (of course, in this case, the ice-caps would not be represented as in our usual maps of the Earth, otherwise any territories north - south of the map, not only those facing each other, would be connected, which is not what I'm saying). Of course, in this case, you would need to assume that you can't wrap on X axis, and this can be, in turn, interpreted in two ways. First of all, you may have the map representing a planet in which you can go north-south around the poles, but you are not able to circle west-east (for this second case, somewhat like it was before the Modern age in the Earth) because there are two big oceans that have not yet been explored or navigated through, at least consistently; however, still assuming a regularly shaped planet (close to being a sphere), this hypothesis has to be discarded, under the currently drawn territory borders, as such a drawing would imply the map being very long on the Y and very short on the X (as we have to cut two big circles out of the planes, centred on the equator and opposite to each other, to justify both the sea zones drawings and the no X-wrap ability), which is surely what we are not seeing here. Another way would be assuming that the map is representing the whole planet, and, in this case, all sea zones to the left of the map should be connected with each other and all the same for the ones on the right (but not X wrapping!), but this has to be discarded, as well, as it would be incredibly distortive to assume that so many sea zones are being contiguous, and it would also make for an extremely weirdly oblong shape of the single icecap.
It is worth mentioning that we can also assume the map having two icecaps, but being drawn in such a weird way as to have the normally left-right only wrapping extended some on the up-down borders, and this would give an explanation for the curious absence of solid (ice) land territories in all of its corners (as said, the other explanation would be the presence of a couple of arctic and antarctic gulps right there, being unreachable by ships, because, at this point, it is just too cold, thus impassable).
Of course, while the map might, to some extent, be interpreted as Y wrapping only, beside being more traditionally interpreted as either X wrapping or not wrapping at all (in this last case, we would have to assume at least one big continent, like America, is left out of the map, likely for it being yet undiscovered), the original creator most likely intended it to be akin to a normal Earth's representation, meaning that those ice caps north and south would be not one and the same, thus, if so (only the original creator of the map may tell what kind of planet and portion of it this map is representing), you would never be able to perform any kind of Y wrapping movements.
To sum it up, I can see only 2 possible realistic representation of wrapping connections, based on both the map and the current drawing by Frostion:
- (as it is currently) The map does not wrap at all, and it is representing only part of a normal world (with likely a too big Ocean in between, probably having a yet undiscovered continent in it, like in the case of America before the Modern Age), with two impassable ice-caps, partially cut out, up and down.
- (as Hepps suggested) The map wraps on the X axis only (no up-down connections at all).
As per current drawing, whatever connections up-down or an Y wrapping or even only the ability to go from up-lef to up-right or down-left to down-right in a not X-wrapping way (for example, a connection between Sea Zone 2 and Sea Zone 63) I believe has to be excluded (as it is, Y wrapping would be like, in an Earth map, if you sail north of Norway and, then, you reappear south of South Africa, while, instead, you should reappear north of Alaska), but it may be indeed possible to have it (as per the case of a planet with only 1 ice-cap I talked previously), if the territory drawing is remade (starting from the original map that Frostion utilised) and, yet, in this case, if you have Y wrapping, you should not have X wrapping, or having both would be possible only if you have 1 single territory being the fully perimetral border of the entire map.
This in an example of a map in which, if you distort it enough to be square-like, you can wrap both X and Y and, in this case, the needed single territory, encompassing the entire perimeter of the map, would be the centre of Antarctica.
@Frostion As well as in Age of Tribes, I really dislike all those thiny lines you cut between some islands, like in Sea Zon 62? Why did you do that? Just because you wanted to have "Sea Zone 1" instead of "1 Sea Zone"? Also, I suggest it rather being "01 Sea Zone" etc. (01 to 09 instead of 1 to 9). If you can, I suggest you fix that, and rename all sea zones as "01 Sea Zone" to "62 Sea Zone", like I did in WAW (well, except that redrum wanted "1 Sea Zone" etc., instead as "001 Sea Zone" etc.). Especially on a map of such graphical quality, I really dislike to see all those hacky island lines, scarring it.
RE: Question about removing unit placement limit
Since the developer forum has a history much bigger than its present, instead of waiting for days for answers of dubious value that may or may not arrive, you can just imput what you want, like "unitProduction" or "canProduceXUnits", then click the search button, and you will easily find a lot of answers in a few minutes, as pretty much everything has been discussed, over and over again. For example:
If that is not your answer, of course, keep searchin / asking.