Westeros & Essos

Fair enough guys.

I am upgrading my business website and have had to change a folder name that was previously used for all the map & tutorial images I have posted in these forums.

The folder was named "resources" and is now essential for other uses.
I will need to find out how I can change the the folder name on all my image links in the Map forum to "map_resources".

Until then, none of the image links will work.

As a temporary measure, I can perhaps make lists of image links to view the required image in each thread and perhaps a directory on a new thread.

Without going through them one by one and editing them?

I could write a php script to do it, but it's a bit of work as well - especially if you only want to rename the word resources when it's in a link, instead of just all occurances

Edit: is it that important for your old links to work?

Thanks for acknowledging this Matty.

Some of the early images have been replaced with a 2k image message for space saving, some map stages will still need to be seen for development, but most importantly, there are tutorial images as well.

The problem with me, is that 99% of what I upload is stored on my own server.

One thing that might help... when I have to replace something in html code that can affect other things with the same name or reference, I use little home grown tricks that distinguishes only what I want like this: Replace "/resources" with "/map_resources", now only the word resources inside hyperlinks will be replaced.

The only problem with that is if changing it to replace it in a whole site where it might also be used in other peoples hyperlinks. Perhaps if the php applet was isolated to the Map Creation forum, there wouldn't be a problem?

Ironically, it was the installation of e-commerce php on my site that forced the commandeering of this folder!

Images on a map thread can be reposted or edited (can you edit all your historic posts? I can give you that right for a while if not).

Not sure how many tutorial images you have placed, but anything outside a sticky can be ignored, otherwise they can just post a reply with "plaese update the image".

There shouldn't be that much left to do then.

The only options I have for thread posts are Pin & Close

Thanks Matty.

I now have access to edit this forum so I have just corrected all the file paths for the images here.

some notes :
-bridge between Saltpans and Harrenhall?
-south Essos need a territory to its east?
if both N. & S. Essos is owned by one person, they have a 7 (like the nearly unconquerable The North) But the N./S. Essos combo only has 4 borders to protect and stack. (The North has 6)(..and N. Essos has 6 territories)

Currently S.Essos has an advantage i think because its only 4 territories.
and N.Essos needs to cover 3 on the S.Essos border while S.Essos needs only 2
Perhaps Velantis has a 'no mans land' area to its East?
or a S.Qohor [nomad tribe?]

Nobody answered at Axobongo's notes. I see what he says. I agree that the region in the middle (Riverlands) is too much disconnected because of the rivers. In general I cannot see the reason to put impassables inside the regions, that's why I initially supposed the rivers was intended to be passable as a sort of different style to mark the territory dividers using natural boundaries.

A new territory on the East I don't think it's necessary. Also the total amount of territories it has been accurately set at 56, adding one terr. there would mean to take one other off somewhere. But I feel like Axo asked it mostly bcoz that area looks a bit empty, maybe some mountains or forest can fill there.

It's true that N. and S. Essos is much more easy to conquer and hold with its 10 territories and 4 borders (reduceble to 3) compared with The North with 13 territories and 6 borders.

Really many bonuses don't look very fair, for example regions with 2 territories and regions with 3 territories witch one of them is a deadend are almost equal, but the latters got a juicy +2 bonus. Westerlands having the same bonus of The Vale doesn't seem fair, it is more-or-less as hard as Dorne.

Deadends in small regions usually don't add anything to the game, nobody make "prisoners" there, simply bcoz those regions are held by someone. But here seems like the dividers are intentionally "cheated" to create deadends. Those +2 regions (The Vale and Stormlands) without the deadend they have now, with 3 territories bordering rather than 2, they would be more fair for the bonus they have.

Everything is debatable in that matter, I would also like to remove one port in the West for example, but Aeronautic might says that he likes the map as it is and he doesn't see the need to make any changes.

It's not completely fair, but that makes it kinda fun.
The game of thrones isn't fair after all.

But yeah, players have to make sure that not 1 person takes the whole of essos.
And yeah, that grazy region right in the center of the map makes it weird, but I like it none the less.
Still, I usually move around it using ports.

Overall I love playing it, enough small regions to get started with, some weird paths, and good connectability.

Sorry, I thought I'd replied to this, I agreed by PM that the Riverlands region needed a bridge, but I would prefer Riverrun - Harrenhall.

I always see regions that have to defend ALL of their territories such as S.Essos, as worth their bonus, because when you fight and win it, all of the extra reinforcements you get for it are eaten up to defend its borders and it is usually left too weak and this also restricts troop placement elsewhere, that's why I believe that 3 territory regions with one dead-end are the best bonus regions, because you can concentrate more troops at your borders more quickly and build elsewhere to gain superiority.

The North should not be compared to a super region, as it is a region in its own right which has its own calculated bonus for it's size, which I think is pretty accurate. It should be treated as a (kind of neutral) strategic land, unobtainable as a stronghold, a place where many different armies can reside, a place to retreat and survive, a place to train and improve your armies!

The dead-end in Dorne, actually won me a game, there was Fendi, Supiachao, epic (Dominator, Indiana Jones) & aeronautic left in the game and I saw I was about to be set upon and dropped a subtle hint for epic to protect me or he too would lose, which was actually true.
I then loaded up the dead-end looking too big and unnecessary to protect, which meant that when epic moved away from me promptly, I had a path of his troops to move through in any direction.

Then there's this:
9 Jun, 20:57 The_Bishop: oh jesus, i was starting killing black but then noticed that prisoner in vaith
9 Jun, 20:58 The_Bishop: have to make a different plan now

I see the dead-ends as, one less bordered territory to protect in the regions or as good strategic protection points, i.e. corners to hide behind other troops, where you can train and grow your army to become bigger than your protector. It is also true that you can be held under siege if spawned in a dead-end that another player blocks from turn 1, but you need to use that to your advantage and load it (recruit) more than the siege army (say nothing, just show your intention)... scare them away. This puts more variety of available strategies at your disposal, depending on your given positions and strength.

^ I agree with Aero

Got it, thanks Aero. I am not a fan of deadends in general though. Also, reducing region borders doesn't compulsorily mean to create dead-ends. But everybody has his own opinion and taste and you already eliminated 1 port to accomplish mine since it's okay for me.

Connection between Riverrun and Harrenhall can be good also to solve the complain about Riverrun capital. I tried to think in these days some better solution (mostly for 5 players) but did not find anything really satisfating. Rather then adding a bridge can also be done by simply shorten the river lenght.

Yes, I agree we could shorten the river, but I wanted to keep as much and as many of the rivers as possible here, because it's the River Land (Riverlands).

I also, forgot to mention S.Essos; On all the official maps that I have, it is quite baron (featureless), in contrast to the North of Essos.
I would not like to add any 3D graphics if they are not accurate to the official maps / stories.

(Edit): Also, a lot of what we are calling dead-ends, are not really. What we would normally class as a dead-end territory is one that has only one connecting territory, so "one way in and one way out", such as The Rills & Vaith.

I like this map. Maps can't be totally balanced. I would also like to note that there are more than one options for strategic placement, better than the 'aussie' strategy and I have won on this map from several different starting positions. I like a little bit of unbalance in a map.