yeti sorry I didn't update the first post. Here are the newest images. please remove the images from your post.
mibi wrote:I don't like how PA1 can attack IN2 and PA4 to AT3. It seams that there is enough openess in the map already that you don't really need to attack over a land mass. And if there is canals there, then Ms shold be able to attack IN1.
Further more, what is the point of the arrows? Why restrict the land/sea launch points? It seems random and not a reflection on anything in reality. New York, the worlds busiest port for the better part of this century is inaccessible by sea. Nor is the netherlands. If I want to sail from South America, I shouldn't have to go around the tip of South America, that shit just doesn't make sense.
Just open that map up, that's purpose of this map right? Plus the arrows are amateur anyways.
Also, you should consider putting a neutral count on all the sea territories. This seems logical as no one should really start in the middle of the ocean, but if you want to open up an ocean route, you can do so by slogging through a few neutrals, say 4 per territory. This would also open up 'shipping lanes' as certain routes would be preferred if they were already conquered and had 1 army on it. Or a player could chart their own course at their own expense.
I think this would give the gameplay a better feel, and reinforce the logical notion that we are primarily land bound.
1. MS can attack IN1.
2. neutral on ALL sea territories goes against what I'm trying to do with this map. That would make about 31 starting territories which is not something I want this map to be. I want it to be a slightly larger than classic map. the idea sounds like a good one for another map though.
3. the land/sea restriction is for gameplay purposes. having everything able to attack everything is not a good idea because continents would be WAY too hard to hold for the gameplay I want.
edbeard wrote:Depending on where you live, you were taught that there are either 7, 6, or 5 continents in the world. Some people learn that America is one continent. Some learn that Eurasia is one continent. No other map has Eurasia. We already have four mini-continents. Another one doesn't serve any general gameplay need. Not sure if you're a jury member but you've made no argument to have Europe and Asia other than "I want it" and for this type of situation, that only works if you're the mapmaker. The same really goes for the Pacific comment.
Ed, there really isn't a need to be prickly with me here, I was asked to come and give some thoughts and I tried to do that. It seems silly to me that the world's largest ocean isn't treated as such but you're right I'm not the mapmaker. (although to dismiss the argument as "I want" is condescending and ridiculous). I'll accept your argument for Eurasia as being taught in other parts of the world as one continent-not a fact that I was aware of. I can certainly see why, however, people don't bother to come into the foundry because when they do you jump down their throats. My apologies for trying to contribute as I was asked, I'll be happy to spend my time over in tournaments instead.
wow. I wasn't being prickly at all. how you read that as prickly I don't know. Your points DO come down to "I want" though because they represent your point of view of the world and had zero gameplay reasoning behind it. as for "jumping down your throat", I was just refuting your point which is a necessary part of the map making process if I want it to proceed to final forge. someone makes a point and you have to either comply with it or give a reason why it's not viable. it's either refute your points like a debate or get told I haven't answered / commented on everything and have the map stay in the main foundry.