oaktown wrote:I have two issues with the red region.
1. I'm not sure it's worth +5. It won't be that much harder to hold than Nord.
2. "Oest" means "west" yet this region is in the East. For that matter, "Sud" means "south" yet that region is in the west. And "Centre" really isn't in the center of anything. Is this what they call these regions in Haiti? Because if so somebody needs to buy that country a map.
edbeard wrote:Nord only touches 3 continents with 5 territories attacking it.
Ouest touches four continents with 6 territories attacking it.
edbeard wrote:It also balances the North from the South since to hold the south you need to hold four territories. Whereas the North only require three territories to hold it.
edbeard wrote:I'd like to hear more thoughts on the bonuses though.
edbeard wrote:Mr. Benn's suggestion of the sea route change is an interesting one. My only problem with it is that it prevents the owner of the Artibonite continent from taking over Port-de-Paix to make the continent only a 3 border one. NB: the sud-est continent is like this as well. I'd rather not make the Artibonite that much harder to hold. Perhaps I could make the Cammon territory not border Port-de-Paix and do the sea route change.
Hmmm.. Interesting dilemma... what do others think?
I think the thickness difference and the style of the river vs the style of normal borders (thick blue line vs a thinner line with a glow around it) is enough to distinguish between them. I don't think putting them in the legend is necessary as impassables should be known especially when there's bridges elsewhere.
From all the maps I've seen, it's actually two river sections (perhaps a man made gap put in between?) and therefore a bridge isn't what it really looks like. Though, putting a bridge in would alleviate any argument that we need to show the rivers as impassable in the legend, and I've made a couple changes from reality already (moved the borders of districts to help with gameplay (specifically one I can remember is the Ouest border matching the river (it doesn't in real life))). At the same time though, is one more change like that going overboard? I'll think about this more and see what other people say about it. Uniformity certainly helps alleviate any questions.
The rivers look pretty obviously impassable to me, but as Cairns said, there are bound to be some people who can't appreciate that. I guess you could leave the border as it is and put the bridge in anyway? That would potentially sovle that debate about the northern river... 1 river or two - I guess not many people know Haiti well enough to mind the tweaking of reality... I think there needs to be a balance between accuracy and playability, which seems about right
I suppose I could take off the bottom of the map, but the space between 20 degree line and the top of the map is the same as the 18 degree line and the bottom of the map. When you also consider that this map is much smaller than the limits and that almost every map goes to 800x800 nowadays, it doesn't seem like a necessary or a particularly helpful option.
I nearly added that you could ignore this comment! It's one of those visual things really... I can see that it's equidistant from the contour lines.. swings and roundabouts really! If you decide to put an explanation about the impassable borders, see if it will fit in that gap somewhere?
edbeard wrote:what if everything was lowered by one?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users