World Double

Me! I found Kazakhstan 2 being named Kasakhstan 2.

If you don't mind I'll start to check things a bit...

I think ocean names are not relevant as we can't fit all of them... it's already a really crowded map.

Not a fan of the Greenland label. Nor the font in general but can't propose a different one now having tested it(maybe this one? http://www.dafont.com/es/goodfish.font Looks readable and thin which we need for such a big map with many small territories).

Alberta looks very weird (and fake). Wouldn't it be better to enlarge the part of Alaska that goes along the coastline to make that connection more obvious, but without fully changing the real shape of the territory?

Coherence. There is NE, SE, WE, but N.W. Territories, W. US, E. Australia. If I'm not wrong cardinal directions never are abbreviated with a period.

Colour in Oz 1 and 2 seem different.

Thanks Psymon. I don't know exactly how to use a different font that is not implemented in the program really. Agree with Alberta looking weird.

I don't know about the dots. I see in most of other maps cardinals are abbreviated that way. When it is the name of a country or region things are debatable. One should write U. S. A. but then along the centuries it became very common so that people write USA or US because everybody knows it is an acronym. In the other side NE, SE and WE are just the shortest forms to save space, like in W.Expanded we have UK, FGI and UG. UK is another very common acronym, instead FGI and UG don't exist at all in reality, they are fictional. So I used NE, SE and WE the same way, as fictional acronyms, and for all the other cases I abbreviated cardinals with dots. Just to explain my interpretation though it can be wrong.

What Oz stay for, Australia or Oceania? And what of the two names you think is more correct to designate that region?
This is especially addressed to Psymon.

P.S. Give me your address, I'm going to send you 100 tokens!

Just to be clear, Yakutsk, NW Territory, and Greenland can attack each other? If this is so, you might want to add just a little bit more clearance between Alaska and Kamchatka and the border.

For the title it would be cool if you could make it like the map. Have WORLD DOUBLE and then underneath it in a reflection have DOUBLE WORLD or something like that.

This might be a big change, but with the way the map is currently made, with very delineated lines, I think it would be okay to disconnect E. Africa and the Middle East. Might make Africa a little easier.

Other than that, I don't have anything much else to add to the connections. i think they're pretty good as you have them.

For me Oceania (both cases). I mean, isn't Australia that big chunk in the middle?

I understand your point from the context but North abbreviated is "N", not "N.", the same way than meters abbreviated is "m" and not "m.". As long as it's properly explained in the log/database name, I'm fine with it.

You can install fonts in your pc downloading them then open the file and click install and it will automatically appear in the list of any program that uses fonts.

I agree with the points that Psymon discussed. BTW you owe him 100 tokens

Here is a comparison of the both Australia regions:
There's a difference in texture clarity.
This is the case with most duplicated Regions, but more noticeable in Australia.

You will need to duplicate the Northern map Texture Layers and Rotate them 180 degrees the same as the land. Basically use all the same duplicated graphics for both parts of the map.

For the font, I would go with the same as World Classic.

Alaska's border with Alberta could be just one straight line North to South.

I don't think 3D letters work for the Title.

The Mini Map is too raised, it looks floating. The numbers look Pink to me, not a good combination for most of the mini map colours.
It would probably look better if it looked like it was sitting on the map, with a very small shadow and the font was White or Light Grey.

(Edit) I would suggest W.Eu, S.Eu & N.Eu

(Edit) I believe the Continent that has Australia within is called Australasia?

(Edit) The feedback is too quick here, by the time I made a snap shop demo of Australia and wrote my feedback, it had moved on 4 posts.

(Edit) Just read naathim's post.... What The!? No way! Please don't tell me that the top of the map is connected to the bottom... this will cause no end of problems.

Naathim, how do you think that Yakutsk, Northwest Territory, and Greenland can attack each other? I can't understand.
Anyway I like your title idea.

Removing that connection between Middle East and Eastern Africa would improve the defensibility of Africa, but it would be so anti-geographical! I prefer to keep it as it is in World Classic.

I might tell a long story of the game Risk and how that connection had been added and removed several times but I think it's not the case.

Thanks Aero -- Yes, those differences between twin continents are because of the background textures. I thought textures could stay different from one world to the other (as long as they show the same colours) to avoid the map looking too much pattern. But I can be wrong.

As for the minimap, yes it looks floating, it was my purpose really. Without the shadow it looked sitting on the map and gave me the feeling of it being squashed between Central America and New Zealand 2.
The numbers are pink, true, I don't like it, I will change it to white.

I'm collecting all your welcomed feedbacks and then I will start modifying things.
Or maybe it's just an excuse to rest one day! I don't know

I won't comment much as I'm quite busy elsewhere, but:
- I don't really like the serif font for the text.
- I think it's weird that some text is upside down (as in: the ocean text) but everything else isn't.
- I don't care whether you use dot's after abbreviations or not, but please be consistent and use them either everywhere or nowhere.

is it too late to chime in on connection lines? I can make them to where each continent would be the same as world modified I think. So S. America isn't impossible to hold for just 2 points for example. Yeah I'm late to the party. I know.

This is just for gameplay, I did not make this pretty.

No you are not too late CBT, we still can change everything...

Honestly I don't like your proposal. South-Africa's are a natural bridge among the 2 Worlds, I wouldn't change it. And also India to Argentina2 looks logical. North-Africa's connected each other it's weird, I don't like to draw crazy connection lines like it is a labyrinth game.

Small regions with 3 borders are not so harder than small regions with 2 borders only. Asia is definitively harder in this map compared to World Classic, anyway in both cases nobody will go for Asia: so it is not such a problem, it's just a recovery area. Medium/large regions like Africa, Europe and North America will be much more conquerable in a map of this size than in a small map like World Classic.

A higher defensibility doesn't equal always to a better gameplay. I also had the idea, at the beginning, to do a World Double map saving all the defensibility of World Classic. Then I realized that, in large size maps, it's better to have a bit more of connectivity and a bit less of defensibility, so the game goes in the right way.

Basically I am open to any changes, but I believe it is just so good as it is, and we have to thank Clarke for this beautiful design.

I'm a bit unsure, these connections seem too long and not very intuitive even quite forced. But, I have to say that I like better Argentina-Middle East than the current Argentina-India, not because of defensibility, but because it gives extra interest to Middle East and makes N-S paths shorter. I don't want to say much anyway because I was out of the gameplay process.

Sorry cbt, but I agree with The Bishop. I actually really like the new gameplay.

It's good to see CBT back in the map forum, our team is really strong again.

BTW Bishop, I gave access to Italia & Texas source files for the email you sent, for Photoshop practise.

No one will ever take S. America. You can defend North America just as easily. If you like gameplay of World modified, then this makes sense - like Vexer said, the shortest line isn't an indication that it's good for game play. Too many borders will make a map unpopular, though this one is amazing in concept. Just want to make sure it is well received.

Other issues I have with the lines as is: You have 4 Europes now. Africa is essentially the same exact gameplay as Europe always has been expanding it to 4 borders and a bonus of 4.

Australia and S. America have 3 borders. There is no longer gameplay that supports early territory fighting. That can be good or bad honestly. But so much of Risk gameplay depends on two border regions imho. It's a backbone of the popularity of the original map. Early play always falls to Aussie and S. America - and I think that's totally lost here.

It is counter intuitive I happily admit, long lines sure. Like I said it was ugly. But the game play seems to be much better and diversified like this I think. Just an opinion, and a late one.

@Cbt, there's some chances you are right... But I feel you're wrong!
I don't know what kind of people you hang out with, but if they break your region only for a +2 bonus, then I think you should take a hard look at the company you keep!!

Just joking To be serious, if the gameplay will result bad during the beta test, because of regions too hard to defend, then we'll consider your proposal. I believe and I hope it won't happen, however it's nice to have a B plan. Change the connections it is not such a hard job.

We already added one (really they are two!) connection between Brazil and the 'alter' South Africa, initially proposed by Vexer's when commenting on Virtuosity's design -- similar design to this one, but with a different cartographic projection, and a significant lower defensibility.

Then, after Clarke showing his own design, the proposal was highlighted again by Naathim and finally put in place. This version has been gladly accepted by everybody. The only thing we are still discussing is if it is the case to add the New Zealand territory(-ies) or not. I had put a poll on this subject and I counted (including the less convinced) 4 to 3.

So now, keeping into account Cbt's design as a clear favourable take on New Zealand addition, I count then 5 to 3 for New Zealand. Most opposed were Vexer and Psymon, most favourable are Hoodlum, as first proponent, and myself. Although in Hoodlum's case, more than 'NZ addition', we should say 'NZ Addiction'! But I don't think he'll never recover.

So, you see, we proceed with small adjustments to the main design. This doesn't exclude that a total change is still possible, but at that stage, of course, it is not very welcome.