The New World [Quenched]

[owenshooter]

i like it, cool idea... is sacajwea going to be her own bonus territory?-0

[gimil]

I see something, we need to bump Aztecs 1 up by 1.

I think a drop in Aztec 3 to 3 would be fine to compensate.

Reason is a 10v10 situation pops up if Aztecs homeland rushes for Comanche homeland first turn or vice versa.

We could also bump up that dock... Docks maybe should be 4 anyways. Would slow a Mapuches rush for Aztecs or Comanche if we did.

I don't like rushes you know. People should be safe for at least 1 round.

EDIT: Comanche 1 should be 2 not 4.

I rather keep it even. Give me a number of neutrals and ill rework the terrs so that there is a minimum number of neutrals between any two homelands

[Lone.prophet]

uhhh i didnt even see the names behind the territoria maybe make them more clear

[gimil]

uhhh i didnt even see the names behind the territoria maybe make them more clear

I plan on redoing these at some point since i personally dont like there blandness atm

[yeti_c]

Loving this - not quite sure about the brown - but it might grow on me!!!

C.

[Chirondom]

In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?

[gimil]

In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?

Not likely, with a high number of neutrals to go through. There a few placement unbalanced ive going to fix in the next update.

[Coleman]

In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?

Not likely. The landing zones are auto deploy, they would each have 3, there is no telling where they would be. They wouldn't have enough territories to place more then 3 on their own. It would be like normal only 2 of the starting zones would be retarded (not getting another 3 to deploy).

[tim02]

First, I'm not gay. There was no kissing.

there was lots of kissing . . .

(im not gay either, although coleman was rather tender)

[Coleman]

Still not gay, Version 6

[gimil]

Still not gay

No one said you where . . .

[oaktown]

As you have probably already figured out, I'm a fan of the antique map look!

there's a port on the eastern coast of S. America - can it attack the port in eastern canada? Same ocean, but the way the map cuts off it suggests that there is no route.

In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things.

[Coleman]

As you have probably already figured out, I'm a fan of the antique map look!

there's a port on the eastern coast of S. America - can it attack the port in eastern canada? Same ocean, but the way the map cuts off it suggests that there is no route.

In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things.

Possibly, It should be more obvious in live play. Are the watermark names not visible for you?

Back to the cut off, not sure what to do there, gimil level response required again.

[gimil]

there's a port on the eastern coast of S. America - can it attack the port in eastern canada? Same ocean, but the way the map cuts off it suggests that there is no route.

This is an issue ill look into.

In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things.

This is a concern, are you confused with all of them oaktown? Or is there jsut paticular one that confuse you?

[Chirondom]

In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?

Not likely. The landing zones are auto deploy, they would each have 3, there is no telling where they would be. They wouldn't have enough territories to place more then 3 on their own. It would be like normal only 2 of the starting zones would be retarded (not getting another 3 to deploy).

Oh, the European territories can't attack each other?