12v12 is awesome on small earth..

My first map had two territories without bonuses and even that took me some time to complete. How on medium earth could you have thought map-making was simple?

16 hours? Why do I have the nasty suspicion you're laying this out by hand?

I think if I could dig up matma's hex generator, I could make a bigger map, faster.. I mean.. this assumes of course I wasn't totally lazy

if you had made the outer edge squares instead of rectangles, it would of added roughly 80 more territories to it.. then you could of made it double-thick, adding a tactical layout to the outer edge, rather then just making it a bridge, giving a total of 334 total territories more then your current map
giving you 3155, which would be 48 more then big US...

in other words.. you set out for a task, and failed at it, despite the possibilities staring you in the face..

what's more.. why is it so unbalanced..?

you have 6*10 going across, +9 spaces in between, +4 for space on either side, and the border.. that would mean a total of 73..
then 6*7 +6 for spaces in between, and again 4 for space on either side for 52

that means your total range will be 52 by 73
that means the size of each box should equal the maximum height /53, and the maximum length /73, to get the optimal playing size for each square... and the rectangles would be slightly larger in the appropiate direction


I could be totally off on this, as not being a map-maker, and having barely looked at inkscape.. but in theory since the range is 3330*2440 you could create a block that is (3330/73)-2 by (2440/52)-2 with the 2's being for the borders of each box, and then duplicate that box 2.8k times, to create this map..

although creating boxes that are exactly 43.61643835616438 by 44.92307692307692 pixels could be problematic.. >.>

/pointless rant off

if u gave memberships i will join the map testing
(however i will get myself booted soon as possible)

I couldn't really follow your maths, perrin, but it gave me an idea: what is the highest number of territories you could possibly implent in a 3330*2440 map, if we forget the 3200 territory limit?
Okay, the smallest territory that could fit a two-digit number is 15*10 pixels (this is just an estimate, but it's easy to calculate with.) And for every 8 territories there's a bonus square, also 15*10. All of the territories within a bonus touch each other, but they're 1 pixel off the territories outside that bonus.

Now the math. One bonus is (15*3)+1=46 pixels wide, and (10*3)+1=31 pixels high.
Sooo, our map contains 3330/46=72 territory groups in the width, and 2440/31=78 in the height. Together that makes 5538 groups. Since every group contains 8 territories, that makes a total of 44.304 territories.

If we put the bonus value at 10 for the bonuses not at the edge, at 8 for bonuses that border the edge at one side, and at 6 for bonuses at the corners, that creates a total of ((5538-78-78-72-72+4)*10)+((78+78+72+72-8)*8)+(4*6)=54.780 bonus armies.

Now the connections. In the groups I described are 8 territories and one bonus square. the bonus square is in the middle, the territories are left, right, above and below the bonus square, and in the corners at the left-top, left-bottom, right-bottom and right-top places. In such a group there are 8 connections within the bonus, and 12 connections that go outside. I take half of those outside connections, because multiple groups share the same connections. That makes 14*5538=77.532 connections on the map. But wait, we don't want the ones at the edges touching the territories at the other side, otherwise the bonus numbers make no sense. So we get rid of (78*3)+(72*3)=450 connections, that makes a total of 77.082 connections.

You can see I have got nothing to do...

This thread is getting more and more interesting after posts of Perrin and Moros :D
BTW for a Membership i test also ;)

You realize that the max size is bigger then 2440 * 3330, Right?

The owner of the game put a limit because if you make a map 10000 * 10000 with 250.000 territories, It would take minutes to load, And it will lag every game that'd be playing, Since it'd lag the main server.

It is not about how many terrotories you have, the map still has to be playable, i admit when i started i didn't really care and just wanted to have biggest map, but i realize now why they put a limit, because you're a douchebag, fuck you.

No, the maximum size is definitely 3330*2440. I don't know if you ever tried to make a map bigger than that and tried to upload it, but if you do, you simply get an error message telling the maximum map size. Live with it, and stop scolding please.

Killer... are you trying to get yourself suspended? Only possible reason for acting so childish.

Jkiller should get himself one of these shirts:

*What do we want?
- A cure for Tourette!
When do we want it?
- C\*nt!*

Moros.. speaking as an american, I was momentarily highly confused by how you got 77 connections from that hypothetical map.. then I remembered that much of the world uses ,'s and .'s contrary to how americans do.. "*a fact I'd like to point out, I had just learned in the last year...*"

and Jkiller, he made the limit 3330 * 2440 because of army numbers, not lag.. he made the territory limit 3200 because of lag, and on my old system, Big US would take minutes to load so..

and I noticed that you completely ignored the useful feedback I provided.. I had provided the formula's that could of been used to make the map symmetrically pleasing, and I don't want to bother making a map.. I find it mind boggling when someone makes a map, and spends a considerable amount of time making it, but won't spend the slight amount of time it would take to make it visually pleasing.. a good map may be unplayed if visually unpleasing.

what's more, I examined your current map, and gave you a method in which to accomplish the task, without really making the map unpayable.. providing more strategy in one aspect, while removing a railroad theory in one area.. ofc' I don't know how you foresaw the games to play out, but it seemed like it would be an acceptable modification in order to complete the objective you portrayed yourself as having

Moros, my numbers at the end of my last post were probably off, due to the fact that I figured a 2 px gap between every territory, rather then a 2px gap between every bonus.. It would require a slightly more complicated formula taking that into consideration..
assuming that each block is a bonus, then that would be (3330-9X2)/73 by (2440-6X2)/52. since all the double lines would be effectively around the connecting pieces at the middle.. although this would likely result in it being off center as compared to the outer ring..
Perhaps just 3330/73 by 2440/52 with the bonus edges being slimed individually to make it look appropiate *"the entire edge of the bonus ofcourse, not just the ones actually touching the chokepoint"*


I know that last paragraph was choppy, but I was theorizing the entire idea as I was typing it up, so bear with me :P

It wasn't 77 connections, rather 77.082! That means the same as 77082, the point is just for clarification when working with large numbers. Were it a comma, like in 77,082, then it would indeed be about 77 connections, and not seventy-seven thousand eighty-two.

Oh, sorry, I didn't read your reply well...
Here's a funny fact: more and more people in the Netherlands, and I guess also in other countries, are starting to say in public: "That will be five point ninety-nine euros." It's mostly low-educated people, but it is happening! I personally hope it doesn't go too far, since the whole world doesn't really **have** to follow the US's orders, or do they?

It's not because of the lack of education, however. All our calculators use full stops for decimal numbers as well, because commas are used for the syntax in e.g. logarithms.
I am yet to meet someone who uses the point in speech, though. Usually we say *five euro ninety-nine* or in that particular case just *six euros*.

as I was raised, when you speak or write a number on words, it is ,*seventy seven thousand eighty two and forty cents*, the -and- signifying the dividing point from wholes to decimals..
and as an american, I was just raised with xx,xxx.xx and it took a flame war in a chat room before i realized that other countries used xx.xxx,xx as I said, maybe about a year ago.. it still feels highly unnatural to me, however...

Okay, the euros was a bad example, I couldn't think of something better.

Well, what I suppose could make it even more confusing is that some countries prefer little gaps instead of full stops, so they would use xx xxx,xx.
Personally, I think these differences aren't so confusing as the Anglophones' reluctance to use the metric system. The reason we speak English is that it's so internationally renowned. You using metric only seems like a fair trade, eh?

And now back on-topic...
Jkiller, take Perrin's advice seriously and you might still have a chance to make the biggest map. Otherwise take your loss and the ensuing mockery like a man.

Learn something new everyday... was aware that much of the world uses a period to break up large numbers but did not realize that a comma was used to provide the break to decimals. Interesting. I guess the name decimal point must strictly be an American thing.

As for the metric thing, one problem would be in the switch from miles to km. Would throw all the old school off dramatically (and much of the lesser new school). I agree that it should be used but understand why the transition has never gone into effect.