Moderator: Cartographers
MarshalNey wrote:Good heavens!!!
I take a week of vacation and now two of my favorite maps are dying or dead!
I have a great deal of interest in this map, if it matters TB. I haven't commented a lot on this one in a while I know, but really I only comment when I feel I have something to contribute.
If you needed me to pop in and say, "Looks great! Can't wait to play it!" then by all means I will do so in the future, and it will be sincere. Incidentally, I haven't commented on Northwest Passage, Russian Revolution, Orient Express or De Bello Gallico maps either, and they are ones I eagerly await as well.
Anyway, if you feel as though the map is grinding forward too slowly and you want to do other things with your life, I certainly understand. But if you think there's just no interest in these maps, *think again*.
Industrial Helix wrote:The only thing that concerns me is that the castles or towns might be too high as a starting position. If a castle autodeploys on up to six then it has a very strong starting position to grab a smaller bonus, like Rugen or take another town. I would suggest starting castles at 2... maybe. I'm not 100% sold on either two or three.
Industrial Helix wrote:Why are some of the neutral regions at 1, 2 or 3? Rather than the same number across the board?
Industrial Helix wrote:And how did you determine that they should start as neutrals?
Industrial Helix wrote:I was just curious as to how it worked out. To be honest, it looks decent. I'd have to take a closer look at the distance between starting points, which should be more or less equal.
theBastard wrote:only for interest. could somebody comment numbers of starting postions?
Industrial Helix wrote:"more or less equal" meaning the territories between starting points shoudl have the same number of neutrals in between them. For example, some castles have 5 neutrals between them and another castle. Others have 6 neutrals between them an another castle. there should be an equal number of neutrals between castles so as to not make dropping one castle more advantageous than another.
MarshalNey wrote:There is a bit of a qualifier needed here, however. 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 for neutrals is not the same as 2 + 2. The 2 + 2 is stronger. Similarly, odd numbers are slightly less defensive than evens when talking small numbers like 3 or even 5. So, 3 + 3 is not as good as 4 + 2, for instance, but this is a smaller thing than the neutrals involving 1's.
Evil DIMwit wrote:The starting position and neutral distribution seems pretty solid, actually. Maybe give Ragnit, Dunaburg, and Narva a little bit more (I'd say 4) since they give such a high auto-deploy.
Evil DIMwit wrote:You've got a four-way corner where Pomesania meets Prussia, which is bad. It's also not clear whether castles, towns, &c. border just the ground they're built on or any territory they graphically touch.
Evil DIMwit wrote:Finally, you might want to drop the army shadows. There shouldn't be a problem letting the army numbers just sit on these territories.
theBastard wrote:Evil DIMwit wrote:You've got a four-way corner where Pomesania meets Prussia, which is bad. It's also not clear whether castles, towns, &c. border just the ground they're built on or any territory they graphically touch.
how to resolve this corner? because I want to have attack "routes" how they are with corner... add trees here?
which settlement has not clear borders, you think? there are maybe Riga and Marienburg, but for me are rest clear...
Evil DIMwit wrote:Finally, you might want to drop the army shadows. There shouldn't be a problem letting the army numbers just sit on these territories.
you mean shadows under army numbers?
Evil DIMwit wrote:Just put a couple of trees in the corner. You have space for them.
Evil DIMwit wrote:Those, and Fellin looks like it might be touching Livonia.
Evil DIMwit wrote:Yeah, those little circles wherever you have the numbers. I don't think you need them.
theBastard wrote:Evil DIMwit wrote:Those, and Fellin looks like it might be touching Livonia.
you think that each settlement would lie in one territory? so has no more borders?
amazzony wrote:I realise I'm a stranger hopping in but just wanted to point out that the 2 islands at the top of the map (part of Estonia) should be written with a weird letter "ö". So, instead of Dago and Osel, they should be Dagö and Ösel. I understand that the font that you are using might not even have these letters but I thought that I'll mention it just in case and maybe they can be written grammatically correctly
amazzony wrote:Map is looking great, well done so far!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users