The cost/benefit ratio for doing anything about this is way too low.

I have no idea about programming, but it does seem to work nicely with Iceland. Why should it be such a hassle to do the same with Crete and Sardinia. I'm sure its just a matter of pointers and variables.

It's already done with Iceland. All the things are currently programmed. The minimal benefit attained from this wouldn't be worth going back in to "fix" it to make it work.

Well, how would it be accomplished? shouldnt it be just a matter of defining the islands as zones and having the ownership point to the respective provinces? depending on the setup of the map, the islands probably already are defined as a zone or something.

shooting this idea down by saying "nah, too much work" strikes me as sort of .. half-assed. you dont redo a car paintjob and leave out the hood, cause its too much work. back when i worked the lights for some theater productions, the director would constantly rearrange stuff and perfect every little bit. he'd say "everynight is opening night for the audience."

why not perfect the map here? why leave it undone?

I think the issue would be this: If Corsica were linked w/ Marseilles, would that mean that a Fleet in Marseilles could move to the Tyr Sea? And that a fleet in Rome could move to Western Med or that a fleet in Greece could move to the Eastern Med? IMO, that is the reason the islands are linked as they are. Linking Clyde and Iceland doesn't change the borders at all. The same goes for Liverpool and Ireland.

I see your point. That actually makes sense

Thats where an actual programmer would have to help us out. Deep in the routines of the site, are the provinces and their borders defined by their actual location on the map? Or is it just written out like "from province A you can go to province B, C and D"

See, in my mind, the actual borders and provinces are programmed to be quite abstract, while the map is simply an attempt to visualize the abstract info of the game. And if I'm right, the actual readout of the map really should have no consequences on the game mechanics.

In my mind you could declare any part of the map as belonging to the abstract province A, which has the possible exits to B, C and D. You would just need to define these parts of the map as belonging to the abstract entity of "province A".

From what I've learned over at VDiplomacy, it's just coded in where you can go, not by their location.

However, mr brown, since the codes are open source, you yourself can fix this problem! Hooray! I look forward to it!

To "correct" this would take about 5mins, including the time taken to upload the file. However, the reason they're not coloured is that there was some disagreement over which territory they should be attached to.

As for moving, the map is treated in two ways, with the picture generated separately from the orders. Movement/orders etc are worked out using a directed graph which is defined by the developer when they put together the variant classes. aside: I'm still hoping to see someone truely exploit the fact its directed to make a cool map with 1-way doors...

Theatre lighting and painting cars are done for money, vdip is done for free.

But, yes, each adjacency is individually coded in.

Hm, a waterfall territory, perhaps, on the subject of a one-way door? Maybe once I get full-time work and can justify the time-sink, I'll try my hands at a Diplomacy map...

"The cost/benefit ratio for doing anything about this is way too low. "

the benefit may be low, but the cost is almost nil.

check out how to make a variant, modifying the map in this way is very easy!

Ahh, thanks for pointing me in the right direction, guys. I didnt know about the support and developing forum until now. just found the code for everything, it seems. of course it would help if i could actually write code.
but i'll dive into the dev forum and see if it satisfies me.

thanks again
=)