Conquer Club

That all looks quite good. You could have put the Yaghan label on the north side of the island, above the number, but by the time anyone builds up enough troops to run the number over the label, they will likely have the map memorized.

The label for Igneri couldalso be a touch closer to the island too, but this is just supreme nit-picking

is
<territory>
<name>Aonikenk</name>
<borders>
<border>Alakaluf</border>
<border>Te'uesh</border>
</borders>
<coordinates>
<smallx>246</smallx>
<smally>582</smally>
<largex>330</largex>
<largey>769</largey>
</coordinates>
<neutral>2</neutral>
</territory>
correct?

Why don't you use XML wizard? (yes it's correct)

natty_dread wrote:Why don't you use XML wizard? (yes it's correct)

why don't you hush? I do use it, and everything says correct. I wanted to know from a human that that was the correct format to make that one territory a neutral 2.

that is the correct format to make that one territory a neutral 2.

natty_dread wrote:that is the correct format to make that one territory a neutral 2.

why thank you very much natty_dread!

http://h1.ripway.com/Tisha1276/FirstNat ... merica.xml

Once it's all been double-checked, we should be good to go

MrBenn wrote:Once it's all been double-checked, we should be good to go

*waits for it to be double checked..

Hey, that stamp is great news!

No kidding! Could use another grey stamp, the one that has the CC logo on it... You know which one I'm talking about?

Sully

Tisha wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:Can we put the neutral on Aonikek instead of Alakaluf? It serves the same purpose but is more out of the way.

Sorry, what was the reasoning behind Alakaluf?

none, I just haven't moved the neutral 2. what's the reasoning behind Aonikek? more out of the way of what?

Sorry, just saw this.

Out of the way of the game. If it's in Aonikek, it borders less terts that are more integral to the map (i.e. aren't one of the extremities). If Alakulaf is neutral, you have to go around it to get down into the furthest reaches; if Aonikek is, you don't have to go around it nor through it, and the game is more fluent.

the.killing.44 wrote:

Tisha wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:Can we put the neutral on Aonikek instead of Alakaluf? It serves the same purpose but is more out of the way.

Sorry, what was the reasoning behind Alakaluf?

none, I just haven't moved the neutral 2. what's the reasoning behind Aonikek? more out of the way of what?

Sorry, just saw this.

Out of the way of the game. If it's in Aonikek, it borders less terts that are more integral to the map (i.e. aren't one of the extremities). If Alakulaf is neutral, you have to go around it to get down into the furthest reaches; if Aonikek is, you don't have to go around it nor through it, and the game is more fluent.

I have to say, that that makes no sense. no matter where a neutral is you have to through or around to get
where ever you're going.

Lovely map tisha.

I have a very small nit-pick, and I know that I should have spoke up sooner, when this map was still in GFX. It is such a small thing, and maybe I should not mention it at all, but the geogliph of the bird is not placed next to Nasca, where it belongs. I would like to see it moved down a little, and maybe even change the territ name of Inca or Aymara to Nasca. Not sure exactly where Nasca is located, but I know that it is somewhere over there. Please do not yell at me for this belated comment. Like I said it is such a small thing, but Still, I think that it does have some merit.

Again, kudos on this wonderful sequel. Can't wait to play it.

porkenbeans wrote:Lovely map tisha.

I have a very small nit-pick, and I know that I should have spoke up sooner, when this map was still in GFX. It is such a small thing, and maybe I should not mention it at all, but the geogliph of the bird is not placed next to Nasca, where it belongs. I would like to see it moved down a little, and maybe even change the territ name of Inca or Aymara to Nasca. Not sure exactly where Nasca is located, but I know that it is somewhere over there. Please do not yell at me for this belated comment. Like I said it is such a small thing, but Still, I think that it does have some merit.

Again, kudos on this wonderful sequel. Can't wait to play it.

I'll rename Inca to Nazca, since that is about where it is.. but I'm not moving my bird. It's exactly where I want it.

Risky_Stud wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:

Tisha wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:Can we put the neutral on Aonikek instead of Alakaluf? It serves the same purpose but is more out of the way.

Sorry, what was the reasoning behind Alakaluf?

none, I just haven't moved the neutral 2. what's the reasoning behind Aonikek? more out of the way of what?

Sorry, just saw this.

Out of the way of the game. If it's in Aonikek, it borders less terts that are more integral to the map (i.e. aren't one of the extremities). If Alakulaf is neutral, you have to go around it to get down into the furthest reaches; if Aonikek is, you don't have to go around it nor through it, and the game is more fluent.

I have to say, that that makes no sense. no matter where a neutral is you have to through or around to get
where ever you're going.

False. If the neutral is on Alakuf, to get to Aonikek, Te'ush, and any of the islands off the coast from Chilote or wherever, you'd have to either go through Tehuelche or the bloody neutral, which no one wants to attack. If it's on Aonikek, it literally hinders nothing but the bonus drop, which is all we wanted it for.

Tisha wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:Lovely map tisha.

I have a very small nit-pick, and I know that I should have spoke up sooner, when this map was still in GFX. It is such a small thing, and maybe I should not mention it at all, but the geogliph of the bird is not placed next to Nasca, where it belongs. I would like to see it moved down a little, and maybe even change the territ name of Inca or Aymara to Nasca. Not sure exactly where Nasca is located, but I know that it is somewhere over there. Please do not yell at me for this belated comment. Like I said it is such a small thing, but Still, I think that it does have some merit.

Again, kudos on this wonderful sequel. Can't wait to play it.

I'll rename Inca to Nazca, since that is about where it is.. but I'm not moving my bird. It's exactly where I want it.

That's cool. Like I said it is such a small thing, and besides, it is in the approximate vicinity.

There is something about this map that makes it much nicer in appearance to the first one. I will have to look at them side by side to determine what it is. It just seems so much more crisp and clear.

Any more for any more?

porkenbeans wrote:There is something about this map that makes it much nicer in appearance to the first one. I will have to look at them side by side to determine what it is. It just seems so much more crisp and clear.

the parchment is cleaner than the other, and the colors are lighter/thinner

MrBenn wrote:Any more for any more?

Yes…

the.killing.44 wrote:

Risky_Stud wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:

Tisha wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:Can we put the neutral on Aonikek instead of Alakaluf? It serves the same purpose but is more out of the way.

I just haven't moved the neutral 2. what's the reasoning behind Aonikek? more out of the way of what?

Sorry, just saw this.

Out of the way of the game. If it's in Aonikek, it borders less terts that are more integral to the map (i.e. aren't one of the extremities). If Alakulaf is neutral, you have to go around it to get down into the furthest reaches; if Aonikek is, you don't have to go around it nor through it, and the game is more fluent.

I have to say, that that makes no sense. no matter where a neutral is you have to through or around to get
where ever you're going.

False. If the neutral is on Alakuf, to get to Aonikek, Te'ush, and any of the islands off the coast from Chilote or wherever, you'd have to either go through Tehuelche or the bloody neutral, which no one wants to attack. If it's on Aonikek, it literally hinders nothing but the bonus drop, which is all we wanted it for.

Yes…

the.killing.44 wrote:

Risky_Stud wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:

Tisha wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:Can we put the neutral on Aonikek instead of Alakaluf? It serves the same purpose but is more out of the way.

I just haven't moved the neutral 2. what's the reasoning behind Aonikek? more out of the way of what?

Sorry, just saw this.

Out of the way of the game. If it's in Aonikek, it borders less terts that are more integral to the map (i.e. aren't one of the extremities). If Alakulaf is neutral, you have to go around it to get down into the furthest reaches; if Aonikek is, you don't have to go around it nor through it, and the game is more fluent.

I have to say, that that makes no sense. no matter where a neutral is you have to through or around to get
where ever you're going.

False. If the neutral is on Alakuf, to get to Aonikek, Te'ush, and any of the islands off the coast from Chilote or wherever, you'd have to either go through Tehuelche or the bloody neutral, which no one wants to attack. If it's on Aonikek, it literally hinders nothing but the bonus drop, which is all we wanted it for.

[/quote]
shut up.. I moved it a long time ago, I said that when I said I just hadn't MOVED the neutral 2 on the map image. and like I said.. (and you said), you wouldn't NEED to attack the neutral if it were on Alakuf.