As far as the flags go, the darker they are the harder it is to read the territory text. I might just update the map without them to see what everyone thinks.Serbia wrote:I also like the flags, I didn't notice them all right away though, is it possible to try to darken them up a touch, so they are more visible?
I will look into fixing that. How and what do you suggest I do?casper wrote:Woah... yeah this looks great!!
As a resident of Illinois, gotta disagree with the naming of some of the territory names though. Springfield should be renamed Champaign / Urbana or just Champaign if that's too long. (home of U of I). Springfield is actually due south of Peoria..not east or north. Granted Springfield is the state capital but the way you have the state split up it doesn't make any sense.
Goshen is my hometown. I have taken some liberties as the map author to put in Goshen.casper wrote:Moving on to Indiana and Michigan..Goshen should be South Bend.
Done!casper wrote:Lansing should be Kalamazoo. Cadillac should be Traverse City. Or move the circle down and rename it Grand Rapids.
I downloaded maps of each state with specifically made to show rivers. There are rivers there. They may not be as large as I have described but I did not make them up. I needed to have some borders and as some of us know, there are no mountains in Indiana.casper wrote:And then the rivers. There is no major river that splits Indiana and Illinois that far north or in Michigan either. And the Ohio River certainly does not flow north where you have it splitting Dayton and Columbus. Dayton is also a lot further south btw. I realize though that you probably put these there for strategic reasons but overall it's just not realistic.
Thanks. I try to get my idea out right the first time. It saves a lot of posting and talking for no reason. This way everyone can get a feel for my vision of the map at the start.casper wrote:Overall very impressive. Needs a lil work but I think it's a great start. So nice to open a new thread and not see complete crap.
There are 45 territories. I think after I clip the west side of the map and maybe shrink the Large one down a bit, it will be much more appropriate for the site.oaktown wrote:at first glance, my only concern would be the size - but you've already mentioned that you're on it.
Can you give us the territory count?
Sorry.Jedimika wrote:Nice. But, once again Vermont and Lake Champlain get the shaft. *sigh*
DiM wrote:casper wrote:DiM wrote:so this is the geographical map you were talking about.. nice.
i don't quite like the idea that the lakes are territories. i would have preffered the lakes as impassable borders with some routes between ports.
and i don't get the ports attacking lakes thing.
one port can attack each lake or what?
Chicago can attack Lake Michigan but Milwaukee cannot.
i understood that part but can chicago attack lake ontario??
I said in the 1st post that this portion was not worded correctly. Basically the port territories can attack the lakes they touch. From there the lakes can attack each other by way of the rivers and such that connect them. The lakes can only attack the land at port territories. It is very wordy so I need to get some advice on how to condense it better.