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
edbeard wrote:right now I'm not worrying about graphics at all (though I'd rather get someone experienced (no offense)).
whitestazn88 wrote:i think its a step forward because it doesn't seem like there are so many attack points.
but at the same time, i still think they could be more accurately placed if you're gonna drop down to that few.
for example: the one in alaska is do-able because one can think that the bering strait is pretty shallow, land bridge, etc. same with the one in the new york harbor, and the mexico one is roughly placed where one could picture the rio grande.
but then what of the two africa ones? don't really make sense... move one to western europe instead of north africa in my opinion, and maybe move the one in se africa to the other coast? i think the tanzania or congo rivers flow out to that side.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Shouldn't S. America be worth +2? Each of it's territories is an attack point.
I think you should drop Antartica, shrink it down, and try and add some other territories. Who ever would attack Antartica in real world?
edbeard wrote:right now I'm not worrying about graphics at all.
Users browsing this forum: Kernel_31