https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-qE-IzSrwmbWGh3RUd4clVINUk/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-qE-IzSrwmbc3dMU2NteVlQY00/view?usp=sharing

i cant code it, but i would love to play every single one of these maps

and im sure others would rather have the seal lanes or the 36 player variant altered.

the peters projection map got me thinking

http://youtu.be/eLqC3FNNOaI?t=3m24s

its from a tv show, but it brings up a good point. any thoughts?
(the link starts the video near the end, but the beginning of the video has some other interesting points about the size of continents)

here is one a created in paint. looks a little rough, but all the territories should be bordering the correct territories. Im sure someone could clean it up. I just think it is an interesting way to look at the continents.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-qE-IzSrwmbSGstTmZBU2k1Qms/view?usp=sharing

now just imagine if maps had been created like this!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-qE-IzSrwmbS0VrSF9JMzJCX2M/view?usp=sharing

i vote for this map to be coded and available for play. as long as someone is interested! Ill take more time to create a better map and flip all the text 180 degrees! i think it would be interesting to see if the same countries are good and bad. I suggest it with the original map because we have the most data on this map. im sure someone may prefer the 2nd version though

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-qE-IzSrwmbSGstTmZBU2k1Qms/view?usp=sharing

is an interesting way of viewing the pacific.

very crude drawing, ill admit, but it is mainly to start dialogue

indeed kaner, i look at the pacific ocean and see lots of stalemate lines :D

mfarb asked me my thoughts via PM
I have no huge issues and enjoy seeing people tweak things. However, I was wondering why the pacific was so heavily altered? Not saying this is a problem but I figure he wanted to correct an imbalance he saw in that area, talking of the issues and how he dealt with them would go a long ways. And again, It may be wonderful, but my main 'concern" is how South America is now so much further from Australia/Asia. (and the way Hawaii was physically moved so far north out of where they really are kind of bothers me, some things need to be "massaged" of course, but damn, Hawaii is about 1000 miles out of place. (but that is so very minor I know)

Again, first discussing the "problem areas" and why the map was drawn to address the is a good way to start. I THINK the south pacific suddenly got too many extra spaces and South America is going to be affected to much.

the alterations aren't the main focus. I alerted it so heavily because I wanted Anchorage and Siberia to touch as they do in real life.

I main focus is to move the center of the map elsewhere. Everyone is so used to the Europe's certain of this map and it has never changed (in dip and in real life) That is the issue with the European version of the world, which puts Europe in the center of the map, to show importance.


The alterations are not what I am suggesting. I am only suggesting that the maps center be changed. I'm sure someone else could come up with a cleaner stitching of the Pacific.

NOTE all Pacific borders are exactly as they are in the original map. They are stretched to accommodate for the land bridge in the north

All borders are the same, I haven't changed anything! I only changed the size and shape of the Pacific territoies. I am not concerned with the placement of the islands. My point is to shift the center of the map. NOT to alter any borders.


It is actually imperative that the borders remain the same. I want to see if it affects the dynamic of each country

Interesting, but I doubt the view would ever change my approach to playing any particular country in the way that what my outlook of my neighbors' potential for allies and enemies does -- which is almost solely responsible the uniqueness of my approach to playing any specific position each time out.

I thought the same thing, but notice how, already, some may think I made changes to the map. No changes have been made, all borders are the same, and I assume the games will be played differently, simply because of the humans perception of the map. Let's code it and see!

Gman: think about it


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-qE-IzSrwmbS0VrSF9JMzJCX2M/view?usp=sharing

How will you determine if players are playing differently because of the view -- and not simply because they've got different neighbors, different offers, feel like taking the opposite approach to what they did last time...

we wont, itll only be the players who feel differently. im sure youre aware that there is no true way to determine the best and worst countries. in fact, i think around 10 percent deals with the countries position, the other 90 percent is the players around you and the diplomacy you conduct

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-qE-IzSrwmbS0VrSF9JMzJCX2M/view?usp=sharing

i did not compare the borders with the previous map. i am just good at finding stalemates. the original map had this problem, and so does this one. Of course, if borders are the same, we know why this problem persists :D

I don't get it then. Why move spaces around when nothing has changed? It's now geographically wrong, looks strange, and changes nothing. And even Alaska and Siberia are not changed as they touch on the original map as well. The orientation of the map was done as we are used to seeing for two reasons, one is certainly because we all tend to be more accepting of the Euro-centric map but also because you were going to have some areas split with two sides, there are fewer in the pacific and those that are split also tend to be larger and easier to notice, these split spaces on the new version are much more difficult to understand what is adjacent to what. It seems to do nothing but confuse things....I don't get it at all

Oh, and the stalemate concern. I suggest you stop listening to some very vocal opinions here. Stalemates do set up in the late game stages but that is just the same as they do in the standard game, it's how the game is designed and is a natural evolution of the game. To do away with some of the late game stalemates can screw up the earlier game actions and could make things far worse. Instead of worrying about stalemates setting up late in a game, examine the victory conditions and if they are reasonable. WWIV has been played how many times here with victory conditions at 100 centers? And how many of those have ever been soloed? Understanding the problem is key and trying to fit a square peg in a round hole doesn't work. You are attempting to alter basic game play and the natural course of most every game. By eliminating any possibility of such stalemates it is no longer diplomacy and it is no longer as tactical a game, tactics are the key to why we love the game

Ok. I'll say this one more time. My point is change the center of the map. NOT to alter any if the borders.

I don't care about:
Stalemate lines
Location of island
Shape of oceans

I care about shifting the center of the map from Europe and the Atlantic to California/Pacific/Japan. I think it would be cool to flip the map upside down as well. Play the game exactly the same as we always do.
You go and move the islands where you want and make it look pretty.

I want the center of the map to be in the Pacific

I want the land bridges to PHYSICALLY connect on the map.**** In the original these are NOT physically connected. They are connected internally through code (and the arrow as well)***

Then, finally, I want the map to be flipped upside down.

Please don't waste your time analyzing the wwiv map. I don't care about its flaws. I only suggested we use this map because there are so many finished games compared to the newer versions

no problem, but my suggestion if you want to simply re-orient the map is to do just that but alter only those spaces on the split. Why redraw what is there and not redraw the confusing part. I am bewildered by what you seem to want??

The more I look, the more confused I become...
*The islands are moved over 1000 miles from where they belong
*The pacific is shrunk down into a skinnier area
*The split in the Atlantic is sloppy and confusing at best
*The supposed Alaska/Siberia connection is no different than it currently is and in fact, due to the curved portion of the new map, they look even LESS connected

Upside down, that can easily be done but why would this matter even a tiny bit? Why bother coding simply for a different vantage point? Stand on your head and presto, same thing!

*stop thinking about where the islands are. i dont care where they are. island placement is so far away from the point i am trying to make

*stop thinking about the accuracy of the map that i created in paint in under three minutes.

*the split in the atlantic is semantics. im sure there is a better way to un stitch the atlantic.

*i am not talking about what is connected through code.
*i am talking about what is PHYSICALLY CONNECTED in front of our eyes.
*on your WWIV map, siberia and anchorage are not connected AT ALL (yes, i know they are connected through code)

please distinguish between "connected" and "connected through code"

*a pro will place the islands, a pro will unstitch the atlantic. and make them all look pretty








*************For the last time***********, i made this forum post to ask for feedback on ONE thing only.





<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<back in the 1500's (or whenever the europeans began drafting maps) what if europeans had created a map whos central location was the pacific, NOT europe? what if they created the map facing upside down? does anyone think this will change the dynamic of the game? i hear a lot of "no's", so i guess my question has been answered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-qE-IzSrwmbS0VrSF9JMzJCX2M/view?usp=sharing


STOP. before you reply, watch this 4 min video in its entirety. it is a clip from a stupid tv show, but stick with it and listen to the message it sends. it may stop you from wasting even more time replying about something completely irrelevant. I dont think one person understands the point i am trying to make.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLqC3FNNOaI

1. That map projection is not "from" that tv show. I get it, you saw it and thought it was profound. But the continued lack of use for that type of map is based on basic economic practices. The majority of global trade routes still follow north Atlantic routes and traditional Mercator projection just makes it easier to teach. Regardless, there's no need to shift the focus of our maps because the majority of groundshaking politico-economic interactions take place in highlighted regions like Europe and the US. As a prolific geographer, I certainly agree with the sentiment that the distorting of landmasses to justify a state's egoism is relatively disturbing. But everything has its purpose.

2. People don't want to play on maps that are unfamiliar. When an asshole wants to see earth, he expects earth to look the way an asshole sees it. And since the majority of territories on the WWIV map rely on the enlargement of the United States and Europe, editing it to fit your projections would make playing much more difficult for the tiny, out of the way Eurasian/North American powers.

3. All that being said, essentially, you'd want to have a map that fits the players. While the regular map is suitable for 90% of the players and 90% of the diplomacy that would occur, yes a map alternative would be a great visual aid for countries like Oceania, Australia, Philippines, etc. As mentioned, the coding would be exactly the same, so instead of asking for an additional variant, you could just add the map as a pop-up for the existing variant.

So yeah, I get your sentiments and I agree with you, but it's a lot of work for very little reward. You should just look into having abge or whoever's running that stuff now add the map as an alternative pop-up.

Also, keep in mind that the map is oriented to diminish the size of the Pacific. Reorienting it to match correct geography means a lot of empty space in the ocean territories. The maps have size limitations, by the way, and including that much Pacific means everything else is gonna get that much smaller and difficult to work with.

Changing the view of the map doesn't really warrant its own variant. It's certainly interesting to look at the map with the Pacific as the centre, but it really doesn't achieve anything.

Making the map centred on Europe does have the side effect that Anchorage and Siberia look further away than they are, but the crossing is clearly marked on the map - I don't think a game has ever been affected by anyone thinking they aren't connected.

"*i am talking about what is PHYSICALLY CONNECTED in front of our eyes.
*on your WWIV map, siberia and anchorage are not connected AT ALL"

It's worth noting that Alaska is not physically connected to Russia.

ah yes but who knows what itll look like in 2111

I wrote to mfarb and told him I would "try" to get to this over the weekend (no promises for several reasons) but if I get to this, it should be a relatively easy thing to do.
Flip the map "upside down", relabel the spaces so they too are not upside down to read, then reorient so the split is in the Atlantic, done so to make these splits easy to identify where they are on both sides.

All that should be easy and I will see if I can get to that.
Buttttttt,
I still think it's silly at best and the whole alaska/siberia connection???
I don't see the difference in the least. It's every bit as clear on his newfangled map as it is on the original (maybe even clearer on the original in fact). He keeps mentioning this but I don't see it at all. (so that aint gonna change now is it?)

My question is for those who understand the programming aspects.
Since the map is only reoriented only, would the code need to change as well? If the adjacencies are all exactly the same, does it require re-coding? I assume so since the display is very very different, but maybe that's a real easy alteration? (I just don't know at all). If it requires complete new coding, I know that can take a LONG time and would not be worth doing, all in all, it seems silly but I will see what i can do

Oh, and no way could we EVER use that map projection that shows the Northern countries so much smaller, look at Europe on the current map, imagine the physical area getting even smaller!? But flipped upside down and re-oriented ...no problem!