Map change?

The continuity of the map as a sphere plays a key role in the game.

But why is the continuity only limited to east/west? Why not north/south? That is, why can't an army in Chile head south to capture New Zealand? Why can't London go north to get to Manchuria?

I guess my point is that it would be cool if the map simulated the globe better. Presently, a lot of the distances are very skewed, especially near the poles (yeah, the whole Mercator sitch). The straight line distance between, say, Norway and New York is at least 1.5x what it is in reality.

I think making the map more "globelike" would certainly change tactics, at least a little bit. Perhaps there could be a globe version of Afterwind, (of course the present one would stay) played on a less detailed version of Google Earth?

Also, I think it'd be sort of cool if Nuuk (Greenland) was added, not that it'd really matter.

Does anyone know what projection Afterwind uses? I seems like some Frankenstein blend of Mercator and Peters that includes the downsides from both. I know no 2d projection of a 3d object will be perfect, but the one used now could do with some improvement.

Written by Vespre, 23.02.2011 at 23:42

Also, I think it'd be sort of cool if Nuuk (Greenland) was added, not that it'd really matter.

I thought the same thing
http://afterwind.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=380

Written by Yaddo, 24.02.2011 at 04:06

Does anyone know what projection Afterwind uses? I seems like some Frankenstein blend of Mercator and Peters that includes the downsides from both. I know no 2d projection of a 3d object will be perfect, but the one used now could do with some improvement.

It's Miller cylindrical.

I realy don't see the problem with the current map, I think it's excellent, seeing as the closest thing ive made to a world domination game is copying a blank map off google and using it in MS paint

Written by Garde, 24.02.2011 at 07:22

I realy don't see the problem with the current map, I think it's excellent. . .

I can just agree on that.