edbeard wrote:well the arctic is a bit deceiving at the moment without names. There's only four territories in it and only two of those are border territories. One of the border territories connects across the map. When names and circles are there, this confusion will be done.
The same goes for a few pacific ocean territories.
The only place I fuddled this up was in Antarctica. There's meant to be four territories but using the logic of the other areas, I've only made three.
edit I missed your point:
I don't think six is too huge a number. But, not every dot has to be used. EG: you can attack from Alaska to the pacific but not to the arctic and so on
whitestazn88 wrote:i don't know why alaska should have a connection to the ocean more than california should.
edbeard wrote:I chose them based on where land-land and ocean-ocean connections occurred on the map. I thought that was fairly evident. It cuts down on the total number of borders the oceans and lands will have by herding them all into one area. I think this makes for a unique setup as four continents converge in one spot on numerous occasions.
oaktown wrote:personally I never like it when folks put the arctic/antarctic in their maps... when has a nation ever used the south pole to transport armies, or given a rat's ass about controlling it? e.g. World 2.0.
Androidz wrote:You must add big Greenland to your map:O
edbeard wrote:Androidz wrote:You must add big Greenland to your map:O
it's there. it's the big green mess northeast of North America
it's based on this map http://www.fabiovisentin.com/world_map/ ... ld_map.jpg
Users browsing this forum: estwdjhn