happysadfun wrote:i have no problems with all the pradeshes, i like original names. but if you decide to change them, just get rid of pradesh and call them uttar, andhra, madhya, etc.
Ah well. I appreciate you trying.Telvannia wrote:sorry for being so long getting back to you about the arrows
i cant it to work some reason
Just adding it to this pagegavin_sidhu wrote:
by attractive do you mean appealing? Attractiveness i can fix, appeal is a little harder to change.Marvaddin wrote:Really, this map is not attractive to many people, by the way...
About the font, I would go with Lakshadweep or Madhya.
In the troubled north i have (even though its not written there) a rule which allows any country in the region to attack any other country in the region eg. Badakshan could attack Himachal Pradesh. Also if i split the north up like that it wouldn't be too geographically correct, Badakhshan is part of Afghanistan and AC although claimed by india, is occupied by China. I think your idea about the 5 bonuses for holding 2 subcontinents is good but i dont think it will work with this map because the area is not in the centre of the map, but off to one side.mightyal wrote:I find this map appealing.
What do you think about exending the Afghanistan & Pakistan concept by splitting The Troubled North in half?
ie. 1 army each for either Indian Controlled North (J&K, HP and AC) or Pakistan Controlled North; 5 for holding both.
Or you could offer a 5 bonus for holding any 2 of the 4 continents with 1 bonus.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users