Moderator: Cartographers
isaiah40 wrote:Well, hold on, let me get the honey out so it will be sticky!
iancanton wrote:nice to see another map with this theme progressing well.
can i suggest reducing mongolia from 8 regions to 4? such a difficult bonus in the middle of the map will make it rather unfair for anyone who has a concentration of regions there in a multi-player game while his opponents are picking off the easy bonuses elsewhere. conceptual justifications for the reduction include the population being only a poverty-stricken 3 million that is largely dependent on herding sheep, with chinese trade being responsible for so much of the rest of mongolia's economy that the title fracture will hit mongolia much harder than the coastal areas, which can obviously trade relatively unimpeded by conflict, via the sea.
if u do this, then there are 54 starting regions, so one more will need to disappear for the map to reach āgolden numberā status. i suggest that nepal and bhutan are merged to become nepal-bhutan.
jilin, not liaoning, is the part of china that has a significant korean-speaking minority, so it makes sense for korea to invade jilin, where at least some people might welcome their troops. recommendation: jilin to join korea.
liaoning belongs more to manchuria. u can change the name to mukden, a historic name for shenyang, the largest city in the area. the old manchu imperial palace is in shenyang (mukden, as it was then), which served as the original manchu capital before the manchus invaded china to defeat the ming empire. recommendation: liaoning to be renamed mukden and join manchuria as its capital.
haipan ought to be hainan.
TheSaxlad wrote:The Dice suck a lot of the time.
And if they dont suck then they blow.
Joodoo wrote:After looking at the original Fractured America map, I feel like some territories on this map could be divided into smaller chunks.
AndyDufresne wrote:Joodoo wrote:After looking at the original Fractured America map, I feel like some territories on this map could be divided into smaller chunks.
I think there are enough regions---any more and there'd be too many and and give off the cluttered feeling that WWII Europe sometimes has.
--Andy
isaiah40 wrote:Yes mongolia can be reduced to 4. So what would be a good bonus for it +4 or +3?
isaiah40 wrote:Also watch out for those Burmese, although they will give you clear passage, any army you leave behind they will eliminate all of them and leave 3 neutral armies standing!!
isaiah40 wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Joodoo wrote:After looking at the original Fractured America map, I feel like some territories on this map could be divided into smaller chunks.
I think there are enough regions---any more and there'd be too many and and give off the cluttered feeling that WWII Europe sometimes has.
--Andy
True. Now that I reduced the number of territories in Mongolia, the map is looking less cluttered. Although now I'm thinking about the possibility of combining Bahar with either Uttar Pradesh or Jharkland.
24Keyser wrote:suggestion for map
sea route across indian ocean
The Bison King wrote:24Keyser wrote:suggestion for map
sea route across indian ocean
uh, actually that is the bay of Bengal
TheSaxlad wrote:The Dice suck a lot of the time.
And if they dont suck then they blow.
The Bison King wrote:24Keyser wrote:suggestion for map
sea route across indian ocean
uh, actually that is the bay of Bengal
Joodoo wrote:The Bison King wrote:24Keyser wrote:suggestion for map
sea route across indian ocean
uh, actually that is the bay of Bengal
I was thinking of the same thing...from Jharkand to Nay Pyi Taw I guess?
isaiah40 wrote:Okay what would be the good reason as to put a sea attack route there?
Evil DIMwit wrote:I still think East Turkestan would make a good bonus.
iancanton wrote:Joodoo wrote:The Bison King wrote:24Keyser wrote:suggestion for map
sea route across indian ocean
uh, actually that is the bay of Bengal
I was thinking of the same thing...from Jharkand to Nay Pyi Taw I guess?isaiah40 wrote:Okay what would be the good reason as to put a sea attack route there?
the sea route connects two zones that are already adjacent to each other, so doesn't do very much.Evil DIMwit wrote:I still think East Turkestan would make a good bonus.
u can give the uygurstan name to xinjiang, since the latter is the chinese name for this area and therefore unlikely to be kept by a muslim insurgency.
the capital of han ought to be moved to xi'an which, as well as being a former imperial capital, is a bit further away from beijing. also move the capital of chu (i propose naming this bonus wu, one of the three kingdoms, instead of chu) from jiangxi, which is adjacent to hong kong, to jiangsu (where nanjing, another former chinese capital, was located).
in a similar vein, delete the sea routes from hainan to macao and hanoi, then draw in one from hainan to nanning (renamed as guangxi in my previous post). this increases the distance from the taiwan bonus (shouldn't this be taipei, if we're calling them cities?) to macao and hanoi.
i'm conscious of the fact that, in fractured america, the capital cities remain untouched throughout many 1v1 games. if all capitals start neutral, then +3 for holding 3 capitals is unattractive compared with +2 for one city. +3 for holding 2 capitals will encourage more action around the capitals.
also see if u can straighten out that india-myanmar border, even if it means undoing that illogical (and rather unhelpful) merger i suggested of hindu nepal with buddhist bhutan.
ian.
natty_dread wrote:Map is looking nice!
I don't really have any input on the gameplay... it seems pretty solid to me.
I agree with ian about the capital bonus though... I think maybe autodeploys could work there.
I do have lots of graphical suggestions for this map, but I'll hold my tongue since this is still in gameplay... let me know when you hit graphics!
Users browsing this forum: SkiJunkie