00iCon wrote:I like the way you did London and Paris, otherwise they would have seemed out of action. But i can't see any borders, such as mountains etc. They are an integral part of strategy and without them the map seems "flat"
DJ Teflon wrote:I agree - very nice work for the first draft - keep it up - proper feedback coming soon
Kabanellas wrote:N. – ‘Navarra’…. yes, I’m missing this one…. but I’m thinking it can appear in the gameplay when you scroll the game bar – N. Navarra or N. - Navarra (this way people could indentify it straight away) What do you think about it?
‘As for the Kingdom of Poland, Hungary and the Serbia- Bulgaria regions – I intentionally gave them a very small bonus... so they don’t get too appealing – the war should be fought in the Near East – let’s not forget it! Plus I don’t want to make the Holy Roman Empire to fat by easily gaining big bonuses from its neighbours.’
‘... I didn’t want to make a closed map rather than a circular one. I want players located in the east to be able to reach the Holy Roman Empire without having to necessarily pass through the Mediterranean.
If by any tactical reason someone needs to pass through Eastern Europe he/she should do be able to do it.’
‘The all idea about the English Channel having 10 neutrals is just so that France and England cannot attack each other EASILY. That’s why I gave negative bonus to Ratisbone owner when invading French territories, and same to Paris owner when invading Iberian territories.’
‘(I didn’t give negative bonus the other way around – France to Holy Roman Empire. I prefer to make it easier to defend (just 2 territories))
Also, I didn’t give any negative effects between England-France because they were actually at war right before the beginning of the Crusade – still those 10 neutrals are hard to pass’
Users browsing this forum: Maxi_G