Moderator: Cartographers
JupitersKing wrote:Also, I wonder if the members who know about XML programming could help enlighten the rest of us as to how hard it is to create new features, and also what the limitations of XML are. Several ideas in the XML thread were shot down because they where not XML issues.
JK
Balsiefen wrote:i like geographical maps most really, they are always more interesting than maps like chinese checkers or king of the hills.
even if theyre not origional it always feels better to conquer italy than to conquer red circle 12
Balsiefen wrote:i like geographical maps most really, they are always more interesting than maps like chinese checkers or king of the hills.
even if theyre not origional it always feels better to conquer italy than to conquer red circle 12
Ruben Cassar wrote:Balsiefen wrote:i like geographical maps most really, they are always more interesting than maps like chinese checkers or king of the hills.
even if theyre not origional it always feels better to conquer italy than to conquer red circle 12
Agreed geographical maps are by far the best. And would you believe we still don't have a map of the biggest country in the world...Russia? Will someone make a decent map of Russia please? Maybe Keyogi?
KEYOGI wrote:I think there's still plenty of room for more geographical maps, and I don't think we need to rely on the new XML features to make them interesting. Sure, some might help, but it's not critical to a maps success. Personally I'd hate to see the new features overused, which is what I fear will happen....
Balsiefen wrote:i like geographical maps most really, they are always more interesting than maps like chinese checkers or king of the hills.
even if theyre not origional it always feels better to conquer italy than to conquer red circle 12
DiM wrote:russia is really tricky. i wanted to do a map on that area. not exactly the russia we know, but a future russia where americans invade it. the problem is that some territories are huge and some are tiny. and to start dividing the huge ones and grouping the tiny ones gives you a administratively inaccurate map.
boberz wrote:i like fictional/non geographical places for a while but i always end up coming back to britain europe and classic and worls 2.1 for gameplay they are simple yet effective in my opinion
Jack0827 wrote:I don’t really like all of the new maps that are turning into less and less like risk and more like something unrelated, maps like age of merchants are just messing up the old risk.
JupitersKing wrote:boberz wrote:i like fictional/non geographical places for a while but i always end up coming back to britain europe and classic and worls 2.1 for gameplay they are simple yet effective in my opinion
Seems that most do...
What do you want from these other maps to keep your attention?
JK
Kaplowitz wrote:Jack0827 wrote:I don’t really like all of the new maps that are turning into less and less like risk and more like something unrelated, maps like age of merchants are just messing up the old risk.
This isnt risk, its Conquer Club! There is a difference. (plus: the regular map is still there, if u want old fashioned risk, than just play that map!)
unriggable wrote:The regular map doesn't have an england-scandinavia connection, the real version does. You're wrong.
unriggable wrote:The regular map doesn't have an england-scandinavia connection, the real version does. You're wrong.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users