Fellow pals, mapmakers, friends and forum lurkers.

Having had several complains about my Diplomacy world huge map I've decided to remake my entire map again promising several huge changes to it. In regards to the look of the map, gameplay, bonusses and income. I've received this critique from private messages and reviews of the map and I personally couldn't agree with them more. The huge map has several flaws attached to it. With the biggest being the unrealistic and controversial army income you get from the territories which in almost no aspect correlates with the actual total gdp of nations. Plus stand alone that whenever someone uses this map for diplo purposes , the host has to alter the value of the '0' valued bonusses of the map at the beginning in order to make the map even playable. I understand the lack of accuracay and would like to redo the entire map again giving territories a more realistic value and the income more gdp-based.

The annoying colored numbers inside the territories have also been an issue as well. They've been called out for being too distracting and confusing. Especially the second part is true whenever the host wants to alter the value of that specific territory. Then the said value on the map doesn't make sense anymore. That's why I'm going to get rid of those numbers and replace them with colors. Simple colors. Colors that much like the numbers, have different colors for their value so you can recognise how much they're worth. Colors inside territories don't take large space as numbers and will be ideally better.

Furthermore since I'm already busy revamping the map, I'm also open for any new suggestions like adding new territories to the map or reshaping them in order to form historical or important regions. Any ideas for gameplay is also appreciated like for example putting sea territories in the map or something.

Ultimately the army income per territory will also be drastically changed to reflect reality. The current diplo map that is public has a bonus range from 1 to 30 armies per territory. This version will rise that number from 1 to 100. (or more!)

Coming back to the thread you guys have to help me with giving me advice and partially deciding what you like better (will create a few polls to implement some map changes/preferences). You can pretty much say a lot of things are going to be democratically decided lel. This map also takes a long time to develop so expect this thread to appear on the mapdev forum for a couple of months. I hope I'll create the best diplo map there ever was and make it suitable for all time-periods and make it's sure it's detailed beyond belief.

Sincerely,
mr. Flanderson

and if you're really curious how the version currently looks in Inkscape, here it is:

Note that some pacific islands are moved to the opposite side of the map so that map size can be increased allowing for more space in the map

Edited 4/30/2017 20:01:09

1st

Is Western Alaska going to be fixed? That's one of the biggest problems.

Also, maybe add some Antarctic territories?

Needless to say, I'd like to help test eventually if you need it. I'm excited!

Edited 5/1/2017 00:12:58

Upvoted this, because the downvote squads are always around the corner.

I am definetely for more intersea connections. Like Bermuda and Sable Island and the West Indies. That way quicker movement across the seas is ensured, which greatly helps with colonial diplos.

So, for example, if you have defined blue as 7 and yellow as 3, half blue- half yellow will be 73?

Edited 5/1/2017 06:43:30

Please no Antarctica. That are most of the time wasted territories that could go elsewere like the Sahara (remember: high proince density means armies need longer to cross them. So remote and non-infrastructure heavy lands need those, not the Ganges valley).

^ While I do agree with you on that, I'd still like there to be some Antarctic territories, and if you don't want to use them, you can just block them off. But oh well; we'll just have to see what he does with it.

Let's hope attempt #135 works out! This project is now in its 4th year of development :D

You can count on me if you need a territory-test-rat to look through several countries and find missing connections.

put in silesia

Alter Europe so it's possible to create historical scenarios, especially in the East. (Make silesia more reasonable, edit belarus/ukraine, etc.)

You could also try to make sea connection more historical based on trade winds (connection from Spain, not only Portugal, to the Canaries, connection from the Canaries to the West Indies, from Acadia to Brittany, from East Africa (Mombasa) to India (Goa)).

Ok where to begin. First of all thanks to everyone who took their time to write something nice on this thread. Secondly to note some huge changes that are going to take place: this map will overhaul the connections between big oceans (like the Atlantic/Pacific ocean) and replace them with a more sea trade connection system. Kinda like what you see in Ollie Bye's unfinished world war 1 map. https://www.warlight.net/singleplayer?PreviewMap=31614 but a little bit different. this sea trade system will be in favor of the Europeans and allows a better use for the colonialism scenario.

Thirdly in response to your advice. @Clint Eastwood I know it sucks for mobile players but West Alaska will stay on that position and will remain there forever. If you play on the desktop version however, the West Alaska area can be noticed. The reason is I don't want to change is because I don't want to either reduce my map in size or to cut Alaska in half since that would be awful. But I do consider to put some circles next to Russia's Chukotka and act as part of Alaskan territory.

As for the Antarctican issue, no I'm currently not in favor of giving land to Antarctica. Since Antarctica is 1) a huge wasteland 2) irrelevant in every scenario 3) never used 4) no history 5) worthless in value. And to be quite frank I try to make Antarctica a wasteland in every game I create that includes it.

@apollong3 too complicated. imagine a color pallet going from blue to red. Blue represents lower numbers. Red represents higher numbers. The more blue-er the tint, the lower the value. The more redish it is, the higher the value.

@{Canidae} Kretoma I think the opposite. There's no benefit in detailling wastelands in small segments. Focussing on valuable lands seems more reasonable than to focus on areas where nobody lives.

@OnlyThePie
something like this?

So you will still have a little number representing the income a territory gives, right? How else will one be able to see how much it's worth?

Sincerely,
mr. Flanderson

<3 you adopted it!

In fact I start to love it too

@apollong holes inside territories, this time smaller, with colors
Also screw everything what I said about Alaska. Im going to move the map a little bit so it fits in.

Also screw everything what I said about Alaska. Im going to move the map a little bit so it fits in.

I love you

Aye, that looks quite nice

Nice, I look forward to seeing more.

my dimplomacy map is better
https://www.warlight.net/SinglePlayer?PreviewMap=65571

So as of now, 2 polls in. The result of these polls will decide whether to implement these decisions or not. Remember it's democratically decided since there are plenty people who agree/disagree.

https://goo.gl/QzcFBo

Thicker lines - why an issue?

Countries and regions have thicker lines surrounding them that look like bonus outlines. Some argue this is unnecessary in a diplo map and that it ruins historical scenarios when people want to make the borders of a nation as natural as possible.


https://goo.gl/AWBYtf

Antarctica - should it become a thing?

Antarctica is represented as a huge wasteland at the bottom on the map. Some think it could be divided into territories since that'll make the map more complete.