World map - input please

[Scook]

I am thinking of attempting a world map, and I need some ideas. Europe and Pacific will have to be on different scales for multiple reasons:

1) I would like to keep the scale we have currently for SC2, so look at Honch's map and you will see the scale as far as east as it will reach.

2) I would like to keep units consistent for movement and range. Bombers in Rabuul should cover a vastr area, but if they hit the Europe map, they shouldn't be able to cover half the map.

3) The area used in SC2 is 1/8th to 1/6th of the whole world. Shrinking Europe to make the whole world to scale would ruin Europe, in my opinion.

So:

1) The 2 edges of the map will be the USA. We can cut out most of the heartland, South America, and Canada and that will help cut down what is needed.

2) The furthest north needed in Europe is already deomstrated, so that is the northern border. The Southern areas will be Africa, and maybe some of South America.

Pacific, furthest north will be Aluetian island chain, and the peninsula north of Vladivostok. Southern edeges should include the tip of New Zealand, so as far south east as Somoa should be on the map.

3) The scale should change at about the eastern edge of the current standard map. Much of eastern USSR, India, Afganistan, etc. won't be played on in most games, unless the Allies get sloppy and let the Axis in.

So, my question will be, should I keep the land and ocean lines together and put the 2 sides together, or use some limited land line connections, and use lots of naval loops to move back and forth from the maps.

The 1st choice will create some disfigurement where the 2 scales meet, but moving from one to the other will be easy. The 2nd choice will have and ugly looking barrier, but for the most part the theatres were separate, so it might be a cleaner way of doing it.

Suggestions, thoughts, input? Thanks.

Scook

[Retributar]

Scook: Why different scales for Europe and the Pacific!.

Do not those Arrows have design controls so that you can put in the amount of time that goes by/Lapse's before one reaches the other side of the journey?. If they do, then you could cut-out sections of the Map if your limited for Map-Space and then be able to have both Europe & the Pacific on one large Map!.

Originally Quoted by Scook!:

or use some limited land line connections, and use lots of naval loops to move back and forth from the maps.

I do not of course understand the situation as you do Scook, but i'll hazard guess as that stated in your words in the quote above, i tend to think, that this is how you may have to handle it!. P.S. Also give Hubert Cater a Knawing on his ankle for not pre-anticipating this absolutely critical need for us SC2 fan's!,...also 'Growl & Salivate' a little as you are chewing on him!.

[Scook]

Originally posted by Retributar:

Scook: Why different scales for Europe and the Pacific!.

Because at the largest map size, you cannot keep the same scale as SC2 has. You would have to shrink Europe sizeably, or play on the map Honch has, which is to scale, and has about 2/3rds the world.

As for the second part that wrote in a confusing manner, the only land link that is vital between Europe and Asia is the Trans-Siberian railway in the USSR. Yes, troops could walk from India to the shores of the Mediterranian, but it makes much more sense to jump on transports, as it is faster and more in supply.

[ August 22, 2006, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Scook ]

[Fartknock3r]

Great to see your people putting effort into a world map! I thank you. One idea I like is keep North and South America in the middle of the map, Africa, Europe, and Half of asia, (about up to half of India) on the eastern part, and then the rest of Asia and Oceania on the western area of the map, I know it seems wierd but it's just a suggestion.

[Honch]

With the current scale I am using (the default scale) I only have room to add the rest of French Indo China, Malaysia/Singapore and the Dutch East Indies to the East. This will be in version 7 of my "Honch Expanded Scenario".

I also plan on going further South, filling out Africa, adding Brazil, putting Uruguay in its proper place, putting Madagascar in its proper place and creating off map tiles for Australia and New Zealand.

However, not only am I constrained by East-West map size now but also in the number of country slots.

I would like to make Japan a major.

I would then add Abyssinia, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand and Siam as minors. I would also add Switzerland back in.

Hubert? Is this do-able for a future patch?

[Hubert Cater]

Tough question and unfortunately probably not as it would break a lot of code... good news is that I am thinking about it and we'll see what I can come up with for down the road... maybe

[Scook]

Originally posted by Fartknock3r:

Great to see your people putting effort into a world map! I thank you. One idea I like is keep North and South America in the middle of the map, Africa, Europe, and Half of asia, (about up to half of India) on the eastern part, and then the rest of Asia and Oceania on the western area of the map, I know it seems wierd but it's just a suggestion.

It can work that way, but the Americas were never a battleground in WWII. It work best to have the main battle sights towards the center of a map.

[Fartknock3r]

Originally posted by Scook:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fartknock3r:

Great to see your people putting effort into a world map! I thank you. One idea I like is keep North and South America in the middle of the map, Africa, Europe, and Half of asia, (about up to half of India) on the eastern part, and then the rest of Asia and Oceania on the western area of the map, I know it seems wierd but it's just a suggestion.

It can work that way, but the Americas were never a battleground in WWII. It work best to have the main battle sights towards the center of a map. </font>