Evil DIMwit wrote:I'm sorry, but Magadan just has no business being in this map. Could Vladivostok take its place without being too crowded? That city has about six times the population and fifty times the historical significance. If northeastern Asia looks a bit too sparse after that then: (A) Good. That's reality. (B) Try shifting the title rightward.
Anchorage is a little awkward too, particularly because Tokyo has a special connection to such a globally insignificant city. You might try shifting Anchorage -> Vancouver -> Denver or Anchorage -> Vancouver -> Los Angeles -> Honolulu, or even Anchorage -> Vancouver -> Los Angeles -> Mexico City -> Managua/Panama City/San Salvador/Tegus
Otherwise I'm rather fond of the latest city arrangement and especially glad to see the awkward Astana-Chengdu-Novosibirsk V is gone.
Moreover I absolutely agree that the flags need to come back.
That awkward V was just a mistake with the previous connections. I had a mislabeled city on the paper copy I use to determine the layout.
As for Vladivostok, I don't think that's an option because of the proximity to Beijing and Tokyo. If I wanted to put a city there, I would prefer Seoul any day (yes Seoul is a tighter squeeze but a much more important city).
As for Anchorage, I know it is a small city but people are familiar with it (at least Americans, and yes that is the primary user base). I think it makes sense to match the cities to their respective locations on the original Classic when possible and when it doesn't detract from the gameplay.
Back to the Athens/Istanbul debate: For no better reason, I think I prefer Athens because it is 2 letters shorter. Istanbul is crowding the neighbors a bit, but if others aren't concerned about that then I don't care either.