![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
I think one of the most difficult things about this map will be that it is about an 'ongoing' war/conflict/what-have-you. Because it isn't a part of the past yet, I think it will be harder to get some people on board with this idea.
---Andy
Moderator: Cartographers
cairnswk wrote:Mibi, I'd be lying through my teeth if i didn't say to you...this is too close to home and country at present.
I would like to be on board with you on this one, but I think you'd need to remove the Americans from the map and make the map more based around internal conflicts within Iraq rather than involve a country like the USA, Australia, or any other that is receiving current pressure from home to withdraw troops on all fronts; maybe something back as far as Sadams' days and the Iraq/Iran conflict without the USA would be more appropriate...still hot, but a little less sensitive.
jasnostj wrote:I like the idea.
I say you add more parties to it. It's not only Americans, Baath and Al Qaeda linked insurgents fighting - the latter two rooted in the Sunni community - but several Shia and Kurd factions as well. Like this the conflict is represented too simplisticly, and from an educational point-of-view (my idea of a good map is that you can learn something from it as well) that's not helping people to understand it.
Also, what to do with the (vast) mixed areas?
Coleman wrote:I'm not understanding how this is controversial. It isn't any secret what all is going on over in Iraq. This is a true to present geography/war map with involved sides represented. There is no bias I see except for that the US isn't the sole combatant that is not a part of the other two groups.
I'd recommend the use of Coalition, although I personally don't have a problem with USA.
ps2civxr20 wrote:1. also make nafja and salahaddan mixed
2. maybe make a small bonus for having all the non mixed teritories for one ethnic group and another for all of the terretories
3. Make it so that if you hold bagdad and eather the sunni or shia contenent that you get a bonus
4. possibly make the rivers kind of like a railroad in that tere are stations (ports) that you can attack along the river. Some ports could be cities
mibi wrote:ps2civxr20 wrote:1. also make nafja and salahaddan mixed
2. maybe make a small bonus for having all the non mixed teritories for one ethnic group and another for all of the terretories
3. Make it so that if you hold bagdad and eather the sunni or shia contenent that you get a bonus
4. possibly make the rivers kind of like a railroad in that tere are stations (ports) that you can attack along the river. Some ports could be cities
I like the first two suggestions, but i think the last two would add some unnecessary complication. There is already a road which follows the river mostly.
1. Since the baathists were never too strong in kurdistan or shia areas because they oppressed them so i think you should take it out of kurd and shia dominated areas same with al-qaeda in shia area. you should replace the baathists in kurd area with some group for kurdish independence. Also replace the baaths and al-qaeda with some shia groups. Maybe the iraqi government in all places.
2. Still think you should mix nafja and salahaddan
3. Also maybe add other countries as one or two territory places because this isnt happening in a vacuum. Maybe give a bonus if you control southern iraq and iran or bonus if you have the kurdish parts of iran, sirya, and turkey along with kurdish iraq. Also if you implement this make it so that they all are neutral with a 10 garrison
4. Maybe have a small bonus if you control shia or sunni parts of bagdad
5. add arbil as a city
6. Not to get political but if this seems unnecessarily complicated it because the whole thing is unnecessarily complicated.
I found this statement more confusing then the map by far.ps2civxr20 wrote:6. no you shouldn't make it playable at all, you should make it so everyone can do anything and it is confusing what you can do.
Rictus wrote:Question - are the city bonuses 'stackable'? If I control two cities and have captured both the Sunni and American neutral areas, do I get both bonuses? I really like the idea of allied cities, but I’m unsure how this is gonna work in a practical sense… Also, I assume these territories are one way? Because otherwise, my opponent takes the city, then I come piling out of the ‘neutral’ flag area to take the city back, which seems at odds with what these areas are meant to represent… or am I missing something? I really really like the idea of aligning the cities, which is why all the questions about the mechanism. Good luck with this one, I hope it goes somewere.
mibi wrote:Rictus wrote:Question - are the city bonuses 'stackable'? If I control two cities and have captured both the Sunni and American neutral areas, do I get both bonuses? I really like the idea of allied cities, but I’m unsure how this is gonna work in a practical sense… Also, I assume these territories are one way? Because otherwise, my opponent takes the city, then I come piling out of the ‘neutral’ flag area to take the city back, which seems at odds with what these areas are meant to represent… or am I missing something? I really really like the idea of aligning the cities, which is why all the questions about the mechanism. Good luck with this one, I hope it goes somewere.
No they are not stackable, there will be a negative bonus for owning two oposing sides, but i still need to work out the logistics of this. and yes the territories are one way, except al-queda which connect out the other way to sunni cities, I guess thats also one way tho.
it was a jokeColeman wrote:I found this statement more confusing then the map by far.ps2civxr20 wrote:6. no you shouldn't make it playable at all, you should make it so everyone can do anything and it is confusing what you can do.
Explain please?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users