Talk:The New Map Game (Map Game)

A ship goes off course and ends up in the new world? They would have run out of supplies and all died of scurvy during the extra several months at sea.21:06, April 17, 2010 (UTC)Oerwinde

I agree that's a little werid, but it makes an interesting story! Oh and by the way, Oerwinde, can you take a turn on The New Map Game so I can go again?- Eastward Expansion

I have a little problem... I am writing on a macbook right now and... it doesn't have paint or photoshop or anything to edit images... plus i don't know how to upload them directly to Map Game (lol, that is nooby) Fedelede 05:16, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

They're plenty of free online photo editors ( I'm using a macbook too) such Pixlr. Just type in Pixlr in google and to upload just click far left button under insert-Eastward Expansion

Hey, 1226 guy, (Dont know your name.) you missed my edits in Indonesia/Southeast Asia.Paaaad 23:00, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

'''1227 guy, change the map or explain better! Kingbirdy 23:39, April 21, 2010 (UTC)'''

I changed Japan's color to red for increased visibilty. Kingbirdy 00:17, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

New Rome
Since the Roman Empire already exists, there wouldn't be a need for a "New Roman Empire" The Byzantine empire is the modern term for the Eastern Roman empire used to differentiate it from the Western Roman empire. They still referred to themselves as the Roman Empire. So if these nations were to unite as the Roman Empire, it would be under the Byzantines, rather than Sicily. Willing unification is also not plausible. Kings would not give up their kingdoms willingly.Oerwinde 07:06, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Its kind of like Greece and the City States in OTL. And they did it so as to oppose the Tsardom, sice they didn't want to be killed and absorbed. And yes, I know about the Byzantines, but this more straight forward. And Sicily is a remnant of the Roman Empire.Kingbirdy 17:03, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both these sentiments. i think that if the New Roman Empire wins the war against Russia, it would break apart into it's component parts. I wonder what would happen to it's colonies? anyway, i plan on breaking it apart following the conclusion of the war. Destroyanator 00:27, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

The Tsardom
I don't think they're that powerful as the 1218 post made them lookKingbirdy 00:30, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Until the invention of gunpowder, the most powerful military force in the world was the nomadic peoples of central asian (for example: Ghengis Khan/the Mongolian and Attila/the Huns). While they wouldn't have access to the well trained and well equipped western european armies, they would be able to conscript huge numbers of nomads from central Asia, who had basically been born in the saddle, and who were masters with a bow and arrow. Destroyanator 00:36, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they are powerful, but I dont think they can take over most of Asia in a few years. Kingbirdy 00:44, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

i disagree. large areas of the earth have been conquered by nations in short periods of time. once again, the best example is Ghengis Khan. Destroyanator 00:46, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

large areas are one thing. continets are somethind different entirely. Kingbirdy 00:57, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kingbirdy -Eastward Expansion

Conquering an area that size is one thing. Holding it is quite another. The area being conquered is mostly peopled by nomads. With no defensible locations such as forts or cities, the land wouldn't hold long. Holding the territory is much harder, as you would need to either settle the land with your own people, or attempt to alter the way of life of the indigenous people. Either way, just because they hold all that land doesn't mean it couldn't be lost just as fast.Oerwinde 21:12, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. but I think they conquered it a little to fast, you know? Becuase while conquering nomads is fairly easy, I doubt they were just sitting there staring at the clouds when they were attacked. I'm sure they fought back, and that would have slowed progress. Kingbirdy 23:49, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

new, looking for partner
I'm sorta new here, so could someone explain the rules (and if I can join in now that the game is going on, and/or if I can be somebody's partner [maybe sweden's?])? Thanks ya'll.

BoredMatt 00:23, April 23, 2010 (UTC)BoredMatt

the rules are pretty simple: you can just post a few things each year, as long as they're not to crazy (for example, Ukraine couldn't just conquer all of russia in a year....) any way, as long as things are plausible, you can say them. and yes, you can help me make sweden awesome Destroyanator 00:32, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

just FYI, you do not represent any one country. More like you play god to the whole world! [insert appropriate evil laugh here] And if you try to make one country super-powerful, someone, at some point, will come along and screw you over. Like the Tsardom. It had its moment, but it's moment is fading. Kingbirdy 00:50, April 23, 2010 (UTC) yes, i know. i just find it strange that made any other countries colonies south America (it's just as good as north America).Destroyanator 01:53, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Picture Problems

I make picture using Paint and I try upload it and when I get to the part where it allows me to click the button that says 'edit page again' or some such phrase I get an error on the page. Every time. And if I try to upload it again I see that it is on the recently uploaded screen that pops up. P.S. Everyone screwed me over with the whole Ayyubid and Mamluk thing, although the Mamluks should last the century. And how does this random idea of selling guns to a random country to make them more powerful work?ProfessorMcG 00:52, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Rebelling Colonies
Ok, new rule proposal: Colonies can't rebel until there has been at least two generations grow up in that colony (minimum 40 years). New Japan rebels 5 years after the colony is established? It would take a single unit to quell that rebellion. Not to mention 5 years isn't enough time to develop a colonial identity. Personally I think the colonization in general is dumb. Sea exploration didn't really take off until the late 1600s early 1700s.Oerwinde 01:44, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, but it was ok in the case of Islamic Ethiopia, which was basically where Ethiopia was magically given guns and magically fought off three armies by itself and created an Islamic state, which belongs to a Christian state. In that case, the people living there would have been there for a long time and they would have resented Christianity and they had enough resources ot rebel. Ethiopias army is clearly depleted and their resources have run dry. They are on the decline. But otherwise, unless the place has been established it is dumb. And colonization was also started way too early.ProfessorMcG 02:13, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Whoever did 1249 second completely ignored everything the person said that edited it first. They need to change it.ProfessorMcG 02:13, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Islamic Ethiopia rebelling is plausible. But Ethiopoa fighting off 3 armies by itself is an exaggeration. The Arab Caliphate was a newly formed group of nomadic tribes. It was unorganized and lacked tactics, and the Ethiopians had established themselves in the south of Arabia for years. The Mamluks were decimated by fighting the Turks, Greeks, and Ethiopians for years. Not to mention with the gains it was making on the Turks, a much more established empire meant that the bulk of their armies were to the north. The only ones that were any sort of decent threat was Sudan.Oerwinde 03:21, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a sec Islamic Ethiopia was ruled by Islamic Ethiopians not Christian Ethiopians why would they rebel against being ruled by members of thier own religion?Vegas adict 03:58, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Puppet government. The ruler installed was subsurvient to Ethiopia, people didn't like this.Oerwinde 04:21, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Sweden-Held South America?
Sweden didn't occupy all of the non-Inca lands... and now the Incas fall and suddenly Sweden is the equivalent to OTL Spain PLUS Portugal! I call that a bit exaggerated... Fedelede 02:17, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing has degenerated. I was trying to keep it somewhat plausible, small gains each year in wars, taking into account the toll multi-front wars would take, especially for nations in the 1200s. But its gotten silly. Widespread guns 300 years early, mass colonization 300 years early, and independent kings and dukes suddenly giving up their thrones and independence willingly to a nation they were all engaged in a war with 5 years earlier. Thats like in 1970 suddenly Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria just going "Hey Israel, you can have our land now"..Oerwinde 03:13, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Completely right... I bet that if this continues as how it is, we will have space exploration within the 1310's and a galactic war within the 1400's. When the game ends, we will be even more advanced that the original Map Game's.

How about we stop everyone at 1250 and take a look at the map taking into account where each country was in real history and what their history has been in this game. We clean up the map a bit. Then we let the game go, but we look at each post, this will take work, but we look at each post and come to a general concensus on whether it is plausible, all it has to be is plausible. And by the way, the Muslims living in Islamic Ethiopia would NOT want to be controlled by Christian Ethiopians, that's what I originally tried to say but I meant that Ethiopia couldn't fight 3 armies. Yes it had a foothold on Arabia but that was for 10 years or so.ProfessorMcG 04:22, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

I believe that colonization should be wiped out of the game... that's a little bit too much early

A country wouldn't have enough resources to colonize a large amount of area in the 13th century.ProfessorMcG 22:41, April 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK people, settle down here. the inpluasability factor is high on this one, we need to make a standardize ruling on stuff like this as ProfessorMcG pointed out. Sweden wold have no one left in the homeland if they only colonized all of South American Coastline with their holdings in Central America also being weekend drastically because of the huge move. Cuban and other island holdings might get a boost in population and military, but very little benefits for Sweden would happen, and if people don't like that, then Sweden would have the South and Central America's colonies become protectorates or become "slave" nations (ruled by the military more then anything else). Tsardom would size up Sweden and take their near empty homeland, or their severely weakened homeland and take it along with the Franks and Prussia-Germany. New Japan would crumble in less then 2 months in civil unrest and Islamic Ethiopia would have the Arabian peninsula as most there would have been living long enough near Muslims to convert, or to just choose it anyways and last but not least Byzantine Rome and Tsardom of Russia are at high probability to become close ally's in order to take out the Turks once and for all, with some help from the Arabian Caliphate.--DaBigUn 23:02, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. ProfessorMcG 15:04, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

The Byzantines wouldn't ally with the Arabian Caliphate, and vice versa, unless there was some sort of mutual threat. The Arabian Caliphate is more likely to ally with the Turks against Byzantine Rome. Byzantine Rome and the Russian Tsardom would be likely allies being the major Orthodox nations. Ukraine likely would have been a Byzantine ally as well due to their origins and religion.Oerwinde 17:53, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

The Turks would be the thereat that make Byzantine Rome and Arabian Caliphate allym of course after the war, well how knows what well happen. --DaBigUn 18:44, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

We need a set of rules. Check out Doomsday 1983 they have a large set of rules. We need to address each topic and each event that is likely to happen i.e. we need to address alliances, agreements, colonization, diplomatic events like assassinations and government upheavals and natural disasters and so on.ProfessorMcG 19:54, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as of late I have read a lot of the Domesday:1983 and have to say it is well written and not to jumbled like either map games or alien(?) space bats--DaBigUn 20:47, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

The problem there is having to discuss every move defeats the purpose of it being a game.Oerwinde 23:19, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I would have to agree there. BUT still opt for a good set of rules which make the map game's more organized, otherwise it seems like playing a video game with God-Mode enabled.--DaBigUn 23:22, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I only tried to say that we needed a more constrictive set of rules, more like guidelines that a person can follow for each of thier edits.ProfessorMcG 23:31, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

I think the only thing we really need is for every time someone makes a major change, such as a country conquering huge swaths of land or wiping a nation off the map in a year, it can be overruled. Also, major tech bursts should be disallowed. Alternate History is technically a subgenre of sci-fi, but that doesn't mean we need galactic empires in the 1980s or steamships in the 1200s(although I am aware that steam technology existed in ancient greece).Oerwinde 23:41, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

But how will the common person know that we have the power to overrule them? Even if we don't create new rules we still need to change the pages rules section. This is more for them than for us. We are sensible enough to come here and discuss and try to come up with a solution. We aren't going to go and do something crazy. Everyone else who doesn't know about this discussion will.ProfessorMcG 00:05, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

?
How the hell do you have a sultunate of sudan in chad? Sudan is names after the Sudd swamps along the nile river.

The Sultanates of Sudan are where Sudan is, go out buy your first atlas and take a look at Africa.