Kaplowitz wrote:I love the way it looks. Maybe now i will understand one of your maps!
ah...the simple style kaplowitz. good on you.
TaCktiX wrote:I think its chief weakness right now is its plainness. There's not even a bonus for holding capitals of multiple regions. It's plain Risk with pastel colors. Perhaps spice it up with a few unique features?
TaCktiX wrote:Another thing is the heavy amount of hyphens higher up the delta. It looks like you've got plenty of space to mess with, so de-hyphenate places that aren't normally hyphenate. The hyphenation makes it look more crowded than the map actually is.
Quite agree.edbeard wrote:I think the font does help
:oops: Oops...blundered there, didn't I?Do you mean for the yellow continent to be separated from itself somewhat? What I mean is that Semabehdet isn't connected to any other Mednes territory.
Memphis is WAY too high. 5 for two defending territories and only three territories can attack it? Seems like a +3 to me.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the only difference between Buto and Tanis is that Tanis has one more continent that can attack it? It has the same number of defensive territories, the same number of territories overall, and the same number of territories that can attack it. I'm not sure if the +3 vs +4 difference makes sense here.
Maybe someone else has a different opinion on that.
You could argue that all the continents are +3 worthy except Sile
edbeard wrote:I'd probably switch the bonus numbers for memphis and alexandria. But, I still think they're all +3 except for the right most continent.
Not sure that can be changed too much (in my mind) unless there's more territories added (which I don't think you should do).
I'm not too fond of continents with bonuses larger than their territory count. Or, quite large compared to it. Which you have here in a couple places I think.
Users browsing this forum: GoranZ and 4 guests