A couple of months ago I talked with Tom about updating the Global Warfare map with a bunch of scenarios and better graphics.  Finally getting to it.

See the thread "Global Warfare Scenarios Update" for details on the Scenarios.

Graphics are not my strong suit, so I need someone else to help here.  Preferably many someones since each scenario can get it's own image.

I am not exactly sure how to handle this, but I can here some people shouting "contest".  So, if we get enough submissions we will hold a vote on best looking graphic and we will make that the base board and give that image to more of the scenarios.

Since we need a deadline how about March 15?

PM me when you have a graphic and we can discuss how to get it to me.

Basic guidelines -
Keep the size the same (101 x 594)
Make it so the territory markers don't need to move.

"Sign" your image if you wish.

Here is a link to the current image
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24525669/Global%20Warfare.png

Custom fog is ok also -

Any thoughts on this post in this thread -

I think this is a great idea and I think it would be nice if there could be a number of maps/scenarios by different designers if possible.

Why not make this competition replace all the current standard risk maps?  (War, Wargear Warfare, Global Warfare)  Top X designs would all become scenarios under the new board. 

Amidon37 wrote:

Keep the size the same (101 x 594)
Make it so the territory markers don't need to move.

FYI - image size is 1010px × 594px

Is there a reason that the dimensions and placement of territories has to be exact?  After all, everything in the designer is adjustable from scenario to scenario.

And besides, what about those tree-hugging Hobo-Dyer fans that are offended by the inherent discriminatory implications of the Mercator cartographic technique?

Some players want to play on their laptops and prefer a compact board, while others are going to play on their large screen HDTVs, and don't want to see pixels.  If we're really thinking about the future of the site, we should consider that one 1010 x 594 size doesn't necessarily fit all.

M57 wrote:

Is there a reason that the dimensions and placement of territories has to be exact?  After all, everything in the designer is adjustable from scenario to scenario.

Make it so the territory markers don't need to move.

Probably to avoid the pain and potential breaks/more drastic changes.

@Attila - retiring boards is not clean, so it seems best to keep all the current ones in circulation.  Wargear Warfare is by far the most popular board on the site - so not touching it seems to make sense.  Global Warfare needs a reason for being, so this is it.

@M57 - I love this site, but I have other things to do also.  I'd rather not take the chance that I have to go through every scenario I created and move things around.  If someone wants to create a board for a scenario titled "Compact" and a board to go with it for small screens that sounds fine to me.

Amidon37 wrote:

I'd rather not take the chance that I have to go through every scenario I created and move things around.  If someone wants to create a board for a scenario titled "Compact" and a board to go with it for small screens that sounds fine to me.

Moving everything around would be the responsibility of the designer ...not you.

The way to do this is to have prospective designers create their boards under their own accounts.  Then go through the normal Development and even Review process.  When approved, tom simply moves the image and xml files to the new scenario location.

Fine with that.  What I am looking for primarily is a base image to replace the one that is there.

At that point why doesn't someone just submit a separate map?  You could retire yours ..or not.

Or is it all about the stats the site wishes to preserve?

I'm assuming the new image needs to be dual layer and support Fill mode?

@M57 - not sure what you mean with your last comment - Right now I am looking for a new image for Global Warfare and suggestions for basic scenarios.  If someone wants to do more then that is cool too.

@Attila - Support Fill mode - yes - I should have said that -

Dual layer - not necessarily - there are a number of really nice looking boards that are not dual layer.

I agree there's no need to keep territories in the exact same spot, it's really easy to move them around.

There's no question the current map works fine and gets the job done.  I think the need for scenarios is probably more important at this point.

That said..  I think there's a medium-term need for boards that take advantage of dual layers and fog.  I think it would be cool to have a new board (or even better to stats purposes to use WarGear Warfare) that is populated by a number of scenarios by different designers.

Boards large and small could be featured, some simple, some highly stylized.  The only requirement would be that the borders are identical from a game-play point of view.

Another possibility would be for there to be a competition for boards in a number of categories. The first year there could be something like 3 size related categories using the same game-play criteria. (small, med, large).  Over time competition for these slots could be yearly or bi-yearly.