Arctic

I've joined into the Canopy faction for the preparation stage. Sitting snug there and building shields. I'll try to periodically jump out, join Polar, contribute to the shield bank there, and then leave again. Goal at this point would be to build up shield reserves without drawing any attention to us. As a 'strategic specialist' it's also most useful for me to focus on shields. If anyone gets the focus on generating nukes then do go for that. Then towards the end of the event you can join Polar, pick an equally matched low-shield faction, and score hits on them for points while the shield bank protects you.

If you do that, remember to be polite to your hideout faction. Check their strategy, don't go against it, even contribute a bit if possible. I thought about also sending some shields to Canopy's shield bank as a polite thing to do, but they're already at maximum number right now.

Well done ✔ Polar faction

Map thoughts. Presented as my questions and what feel like the most logical answers. Feel free to disagree or call for a poll on something.

Q1. What should be the extent of the map? Only the Arctic Circle or should I expand it southwards to 60°N or even 50°N? Maybe not a perfect circle and instead something like the 10°C isotherm?
A: Clearly the whole of Greenland should at least be included, but without also including too much of Europe. So I would go for the 55°N as the cutoff (essentially all of Scandinavia and Scotland, and include little cuts away from the line here and there as needed.

Q2. To what detail should geographic features be defined (glaciers, rivers, mountain ranges and biomes)?
A: Only the major rivers and topography and to a rough extent.

Q3. Should map slots be pre-defined (e.g. like in Antarctica)? And if yes, then how to best define them so it's not unfair.
A: Yes, a patchwork of ~100 reasonably-sized territories. Following the topography and with smaller areas in regions of higher population density. Large and long-residing nations could claim more than one slot.

Q4. Where to draw the line between real and fantasy additions?
A: If a someone says "mark me as a dot in the ocean since my nation is canonically an abandoned oil rig", that's fine. But drawing new landmasses? Nope.

Q5. To what detail can nations define their map claims?
A: Most likely just the choice of map slots, preferred fill color (although I'd like to make it as flag-based as possible) and name+location of the capital city.

dictators of the arctic get ARMMMMMED

Greenland denmark wrote:

hello?

Hello what’s up?