Moderator: Cartographers
edbeard wrote:41 + the 3 cities
The1exile wrote:edbeard wrote:41 + the 3 cities
If Hispania gets one extra then, that brings it to 6 terits 2 borders 3 bonus which is good, as well as the map starting with 42 playable terits (assuming the cities are all neutral) which is pretty good IMO.
Ruben Cassar wrote:The1exile wrote:edbeard wrote:41 + the 3 cities
If Hispania gets one extra then, that brings it to 6 terits 2 borders 3 bonus which is good, as well as the map starting with 42 playable terits (assuming the cities are all neutral) which is pretty good IMO.
I agree that we need 42 territories then but not in Hispania. There are other options like adding Hibernia to the map with Britannia or making one of the islands like Corsica, Sicilia, Melita, etc a territory.
Also there is only one attack route to Britannia and it gets a bonus of 2 while there are 8 attack routes to Italia and it gets a bonus of 3. I am assuming that Roma compensates for this with a 3+2 bonus? Still a bonus of 4 seems more reasonable considering the importance of Italia in this map.
Edit: Shouldn't that be written Bithnyia? Achaea/Achaia still wrong in legend.
Guiscard wrote:Does anyone else think that confusion between which continent Byzantium belongs to will be a major problem?
Guiscard wrote:As for the spain/africa border, is this a problem for anyone other than Hulmey?
Ruben Cassar wrote:Shouldn't that be written Bithnyia? Achaea/Achaia still wrong in legend.
The1exile wrote:Hispania i feel is an unbalaced continent, but I am willing to change my view if you have a different idea. Perhaps another terit to Gallia?
Ruben Cassar wrote:You are missing the whole point of this map. This is an historical map. You cannot invent or add a territory at your own will.
The1exile wrote:Ruben Cassar wrote:You are missing the whole point of this map. This is an historical map. You cannot invent or add a territory at your own will.
You are missing the whole point of this game then.
Historical accuracy should be secondary to the map's playability.
Ruben Cassar wrote:The1exile wrote:Ruben Cassar wrote:You are missing the whole point of this map. This is an historical map. You cannot invent or add a territory at your own will.
You are missing the whole point of this game then.
Historical accuracy should be secondary to the map's playability.
This map is both historical and playable.
The1exile wrote:Ruben Cassar wrote:The1exile wrote:Ruben Cassar wrote:You are missing the whole point of this map. This is an historical map. You cannot invent or add a territory at your own will.
You are missing the whole point of this game then.
Historical accuracy should be secondary to the map's playability.
This map is both historical and playable.
I thought we had agreed that with 41 territories it needed another.
The1exile wrote:OK - so instead of saying "we can't add one", could you help me find a historically accurate one that helps playability?
How about Armorica added to Gallia?
Ruben Cassar wrote:The1exile wrote:Ruben Cassar wrote:The1exile wrote:Ruben Cassar wrote:You are missing the whole point of this map. This is an historical map. You cannot invent or add a territory at your own will.
You are missing the whole point of this game then.
Historical accuracy should be secondary to the map's playability.
This map is both historical and playable.
I thought we had agreed that with 41 territories it needed another.
Read my previous posts and you have the answer to that question. Add another territory - yes, but it must be an historically accurate one.
Guiscard wrote:As for the bonus that is a reasonable suggestion so I'll take it down 1 next update.
Ideally I'd like some debate about gameplay at this point... Good? Bad? Bottlenecks? Bonuses? Enough / Too many sea routes?
nmhunate wrote:Speak English... It is the language that God wrote the bible in.
hulmey wrote:yeah andy like australia in the Classic map.........I think its cool apart from the bonus should be 2 ......
Also going of topic, im hearing alot in the Map foundry OH its not historically correct and its not going to be....Why is this? Lets try and make maps as historically correct as possible![]()
![]()
(just my opinon)
icemonkey wrote:I think the picture of the romans looks really awesome, but the filling in the territories looks really bad. Its such a stock fade, its looks really MS paintish to me when compared to the picture you included. Could you add some texture or something to the filling on the territories instead of the fade, I think that would look a lot better. Also maybe change the colors so they aren't so flourescent?
gimil wrote:icemonkey wrote:I think the picture of the romans looks really awesome, but the filling in the territories looks really bad. Its such a stock fade, its looks really MS paintish to me when compared to the picture you included. Could you add some texture or something to the filling on the territories instead of the fade, I think that would look a lot better. Also maybe change the colors so they aren't so flourescent?
i disgree. the whole map style is excellent and origonal. teh color arnt floresent.
i really dont think this map needs any MAJOR graphical changes
nmhunate wrote:Speak English... It is the language that God wrote the bible in.
Return to Melting Pot: Map Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users