Hoff wrote:What makes up a presidency district that you get a plus one for holding? Is every territory a district?
AndyDufresne wrote:But a real issue is with borders
```Bombay (didn't India rename it mumbai?)...5 borders
AndyDufresne wrote:There have been a few name changes in India recently...I remember hearing something about bengalore also.
Hoff wrote:oh i see now. Thats cool, i would find a way to make them stand out more or make it more obvious as to what you mean.
sully800 wrote:I don't believe a map with so few territories and continents has any playability (except for possibly three man games)
Marvaddin wrote:As you possibly know already, geographical / historical accuracy is usually not so friendly to playability... In this idea, we should have some more territories, but mainly some more continents and unpassable borders.
gavin_sidhu wrote:get rid of the name Ceylon or change it some way, looks like part of the map
Dont have the artistic talent to finish it, so it is probably going to rot in the foundry.sully800 wrote:Also, there is another map of the Indian subcontinent that was being made (I'm not sure if Gavin is still working on that or not)
AndyDufresne wrote:As for gameplay:
- Bengal - 8 Countries, 6 Borders
- Bombay - 8 Countries, 6 Borders
- Burma - 6 Countries, 3 Borders
- Lahore - 7 Countries, 6 Borders
- Madras - 6 Countries, 3 Borders
Is it just me, or does everything look very similar? Burma and Madras...Bengal and Bombay and Lahore. It doesn't seem that there is very much diversity right now.
Borders are a big issue, along with 'replica' continents with the same number of countries. Are there any other ways to perhaps divy up countries to continents that eliminates the replicas?
gavin_sidhu wrote:ConformOrDie, where did u post the image with the changes outlined, cant seem to see it.
AndyDufresne wrote:be careful of 'angle border connections', a la Sind, Mhow, and Disa. It is hard to tell if Disa can attack Sind or not. Perhaps make that a little clearer when we get the next revision and update.
Lastly, do I count 35 countries? 36 makes a much better country count...less number of 'neutrals'.
AndyDufresne wrote:Lets see...
- Bengal -- 8 Countries, 6 Borders, Bonus of 4 (+1 Capital)
- Bombay -- 9 Countries, 7 Borders, Bonus of 5 (+1 Capital)
- Burma -- 6 Countries, 3 Borders, Bonus of 3 (+1 Capital)
- Lahore -- 7 Countries, 6 Borders, Bonus of 4 (+1 Capital)
- Madras -- 6 Countries, 3 Borders, Bonus of 4 (+1 Capital)
AndyDufresne wrote:How open are you to the addition of any more impassable borders? I don't mean to suggest making Bombay, Lahore, and Bengal like Madras and Burma, but perhaps give them a small break...but let them still offset the stronghold regions.
AndyDufresne wrote:As for Bombay, it s going to have a hell of a time defending 7 positions, as there really aren't any ways to take over more countries and limit your borders.
AndyDufresne wrote:It still seems like there are too many 'twin/alike' continents. I question the diversity again.
ConformOrDie wrote:The new breakdown:
Bengal - 5 countries, 4 borders, bonus of 3
Bombay - 5 countries, 4 borders, bonus of 3
Burma - 6 countries, 3 borders, bonus of 2
Disa - 7 countries, 4 borders, bonus of 4
Lahore - 7 countries, 4 borders, bonus of 4
Madras - 6 countries, 3 borders, bonus of 2
Marvaddin wrote:For those that think Africa is bad, look at Burma and Madras...
Marvaddin wrote:And, is a desert really like a barrier to an army? I think rivers and mountains are better options.
ConformOrDie wrote:Marvaddin wrote:For those that think Africa is bad, look at Burma and Madras...
I don't get your point. Can you expand on this thought for me?
Marvaddin wrote:Africa (classic map) has 6 countries, 3 borders, and with a bonus of 3 is considered for some the most undervalued continent of all maps here in CC. Really, take 6 and defend 3 for a bonus of 2... isnt it a bit... low?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users