new game type, territories

posted on November 20th, 2012, 10:15 pm

The only oddities in that map are that I thought that DS9 stated somewhere that both the Romulans and the Klingons share a border with the Cardassians. Oh, and that according to SFB/SFC the Gorn and the Romulans hate each other and are bitter rivals over territory, which ergo means a border between them too. But that's not "canon" so doesn't count.

Lots of detail though. Whoever made it put a lot of time into it.

posted on November 20th, 2012, 10:42 pm

thats the trouble,
i found loads of maps but they all conflict with each other. i mean if i was writing a si-fi, i would of drawn up a pretty conclusive map with all the main civilizations and boarders and stuff. at the beginning!

and left plenty of room in-between for others i thought of later that i wanted to add.
the ones you see tend to be created afterwards (at-least seems to be that way)

saying that i would like to get my hands on this book..


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Star-Trek-Chart ... 466&sr=8-1

posted on November 20th, 2012, 10:51 pm

memory-alpha seems to mention a few books that might be pretty good for maps..
the links iv given give a fair bit of info of them



http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Star_Charts



http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Maps




http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Fl ... cal_Manual

posted on November 20th, 2012, 10:59 pm

saying that i would like to get my hands on this book

I have a copy of that book, it's not really that great. it's just a load of conjecture (some of which is now contradicted by canon), i don't use it for actual reference.

posted on November 20th, 2012, 11:14 pm

some of which is now contradicted by canon

oh thats disappointing, what is it your refering to thats contradicting?

posted on November 20th, 2012, 11:43 pm

some of which is now contradicted by canon

oh thats disappointing, what is it your refering to thats contradicting?

one example off the top of my head is klach dkek brakt, which it puts in klingon space.

posted on November 22nd, 2012, 2:46 am

I have an idea that can go along with this. FO Territory Server.

What it is that there is a special division where there are System Specific maps. The Race that wins a match on a certain map gains the territory.

Systems that are exempt from Territory Maps:
- Homeworlds of major races
- Systems with key objects (Bajoran Wormhole, Federation Argus Array, and the like)

posted on November 22nd, 2012, 8:12 am

ah with that i ran into problems with the stations having shields and couldnt be captured

Well, for the shields, thats easy.

Make a reference ODF and give it '0' for the shields. This will be placed in each map, and will be included as part of any map pack you use.

Getting it to be captured is more tricky. You may be able to do it by setting the standard crew to 0 and max crew to what ever. No guarantee it will work though.

posted on November 23rd, 2012, 2:09 am

ah with that i ran into problems with the stations having shields and couldnt be captured

Well, for the shields, thats easy.

Make a reference ODF and give it '0' for the shields. This will be placed in each map, and will be included as part of any map pack you use.

Getting it to be captured is more tricky. You may be able to do it by setting the standard crew to 0 and max crew to what ever. No guarantee it will work though.

If you set the standard to 0. Then it would be able to operate even when unmanned. I did that during an experiment with unmanned turrets that could be captured. It is very risky doing that because the game can become tempermental with it.

posted on November 23rd, 2012, 6:25 am

I also have the Starcharts book and while there is alot of conjecture i didnt think it was too bad. Honestly asking someone to map out Star Trek and make it accurate is a nearly impossible task given the lack of continuity in trek at times, I think the did a fair job in their task and found the book to be pretty neat.

As far as the idea I love it, Ive also thought of such a thing so I have created my own "territory" maps, i basically make a huge map (50k X 50K) and make resource moon clusters that you want to try to control. Is designed as a team vs team map and you have to pick and choose where to expand/defend, and where to attack. Due to the size of the map scouting is a must and quick rushes really dont work so well. I also put larg nebula in for hiding lots of ships. Obviously maps like this take along time to play out, but thats the idea, you end up using some really different strategies on a map that large.

posted on November 23rd, 2012, 7:01 am

The only oddities in that map are that I thought that DS9 stated somewhere that both the Romulans and the Klingons share a border with the Cardassians. Oh, and that according to SFB/SFC the Gorn and the Romulans hate each other and are bitter rivals over territory, which ergo means a border between them too. But that's not "canon" so doesn't count.

Lots of detail though. Whoever made it put a lot of time into it.

Something to consider, the maps they show are only in 2D, space being 3D means that both the Romulan and Klingon territory could extend under federation territory and intersect with Cardassian territory. So the may could be accurate to a degree from the orientation thats shown, but its pretty hard to see whats going on without being able to see it in 3D. I dont recall for sure if the Romulans and Klingons share a boarder with the Cardassians but im pretty sure they state the Kingons do in DS9.

posted on November 23rd, 2012, 10:47 am

Yes I did consider that, but trying to imagine a map in 3d space is well, daunting! I considered it when I saw the relative positions of Achernar and the Pleiades Cluster. Relative to Sol, in most star maps i've seen, Pleiades is to the "East" and Achernar to the "South", whereas this map shows Pleiades to the "South" and Achernar to the "East", which is mirrored and rotated, so, you'd have to rotate the map so Achernar was "South" and then look at it from the "other side" if that makes sense.

Stellar Cartography is not for the faint of heart is it!

And, that's also me being a bit obsessiveness over where real stars are in a sci-fi series. Not my fault I grew up on Frontier Elite II with an accurate 3d starmap and newtonian physics



I can't find an example online big enough to show the Pleiades Cluster and Achernar, but, in this map, see Beta Hydri? Well Achernar is another two of those grid sectors down past it. The Pleiades Cluster is another 10 or 15 "blocks" to the right of the map (from YZ Canis Majoris) to give a sense of scale. Notice you can see the old trek favourites (Alpha Centauri, Epsilon Eridani a.k.a Vulcan, Wolf 359 etc.).

I completely ignored that when making my map for KA2 though, since as i've said, boggles the mind to try and think of it in 3d terms!

EDIT: Doh! Forgot to mention, the 3d element is why Alpha Centauri doesn't look closest to Earth. The same site has this map that is, well, mind melting and shows it as it truly appears:-



Nicely explains why sometimes it takes forever for the Enterprise to get to a system that is "right next door" and other times zips along to "distant" systems in a matter of hours (besides "Speed of Plot" needs obviously)

posted on November 23rd, 2012, 11:58 am

I actually had a very similar idea planned for maps in my BSG mod. Dominus actually came up with it for mine, and I think it could make for some very interesting gameplay if implemented.

posted on November 23rd, 2012, 4:33 pm

3D maps are not really possible. I'm a fan of not getting too complex and complicated at the cost of fun/replayability. What could be done in a greater context is to create different maps that reflect a 2D slice of a 3D environment.

But still, why not just stick to a great map size that holds different sections to control. It must not be Federation centered space but another, fictive, part of the milky way or even another galaxy.

First sticking to the station idea standing representative for a sector that needs to be controlled sounds good enough for me. What comes after has to be seen. First it must be fun based on an easy principal on which other creative heads can build upon.

BTW: What about the map size issue?

posted on November 23rd, 2012, 5:28 pm

Oh I concur completely, stick to 2d for maps, saves any brainache! I was actually just demonstrating how mind melting 3d maps are!