Industrial Helix wrote:Not a fan of the roads, they look way to complicated.
Evil DIMwit wrote:Is there no crossing at Rockdale? It looks like it should have one.
ustus wrote:I like the roads as impassables idea. It lets you divide up an area that doesn't have any natural divisions by including what I'm guessing is a major roadway? anyway, just a thought, at first glance it currently looks like the four-way assaults EVERY territory. Upon reading what the other crossings do, I think you meant every territory that touches the four-way? might be a good idea to clarify that (though... the xml will only give you the options of the ones it actually attacks, so it doesn't have to be perfectly clear...)
ManBungalow wrote:Looks great! Sydney has awesome geographical potential to have very fun gameplay, and I like what you've got going for the ferry system.
However, I'm sure that it will need some more 'flavour'. I know it's in the 'gameplay only' stage, but I need to see the harbour bridge, opera house etc. on here before I give it the ManBungalow stamp of approval.
Victor Sullivan wrote:I think the weird shape of the picture in the top left needs to be changed. I assume you're trying to make it look like binoculars, but it doesn't really work...
Industrial Helix wrote:I wonder if some sort of bridge or overpass might be more appropriate instead of pedestrian walkways. Just the notion of armies looking for a zebra crossing seems a tad ridiculous to me.
I also think the army circle clutter up the map and are unnecessary.
Some sort of port icon for the water routes would be nice though.
I think the glow on the words is a bit heavy, tone it down a tad?
Meh! OK this can be worked into something else, but i want the impression of height, and will be adding that to other areas eventually. Most of Sydney lies on a undulating plain surrounded by mountains.Why does the BM National Parks have that fake 3d effect to it? I'd prefer that it was flat like the rest of the map.
That's actually mid-west, but it shows that if you're having trouble identifying it by colour then that colour needs changing or another colour given to an adjacent region. It is necessary to have the roads runnings through them because that's exactly where the main freeways run. Just because CC discourages four-way corners on normal borders doesn't mean the fourway corner can't be used. That fourway corner has an element that shows graphically that fourway attacks are actually possible if it's included in the legend instructions. Think outside the box.The four corner border in eastern suburbs... if they all border each other with the roads then why is it necessary to have a road running through it? Furthermore, four way borders are generally discouraged on CC maps.
I don't really understand what you're saying here, but can say that this is how i wish it to be displayed. Yes they allow connections between regions of the same type. I can't really understand why this is in question.Some of the roads just seem unnecessary on the whole. I'm not saying the roads are a bad idea but that maybe the roads aren't doing what you want them to do. There's the example I gave above. There's also the northern road where the ped. crossings essentially make it so that the road isn't there. The only way they act as impassables is blocking St. Ives, which you could do by changing chatwood's border so it cuts st. ives off. The other roads are much more effective as impassables though.
However, where does the ped crossing go to in Hurstville?
Lower blue mountains area is a bit cluttered... i wonder if cutting a territory out would help?
Some yes. Thanks for the feedback.Hope some of this helps!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests