Moderator: Cartographers

where is this map from?Telvannia wrote:Personally i think if you are going to do an india map you should base it on this map, (which i always preferred)![]()
Ah, you're right - two have the same terits.edbeard wrote:I'd say that's a good idea. You really only have three maps there though since Kyle just copied the one Telvannia posted. I forget the name of the guy who did it.
It was made by Contrickster, in this threadwhitestazn88 wrote:where is this map from?Telvannia wrote:Personally i think if you are going to do an india map you should base it on this map, (which i always preferred)![]()
Though funnily enough, this was the map i was looking for when i found Jewel of the Empire. But i think they are equally as good.oaktown wrote:huh, I immediately thought it was the old Indian Presidencies map, which I really liked, but that's this one...
No, that's gimil...ZeakCytho wrote:I think Oak's on vacation right now
shukriyaZeakCytho wrote:I think it's a great first draft.
Hmm, needs more explanation I see... the red lines are simply representing where rail lines will fall - didn't want to spend the time drawing them unless I thought it would be supported. The idea is that the territories along a line connecting two cities is a bonus region - it's still "classic" in that it's just territories and regions, but the twist is that some bonus regions share territories with other bonus regions.ZeakCytho wrote:I'm a bit hesitant to support rail-lines and city bonuses. For geographical maps like this, I think classic gameplay really works best. The whole thing might be less confusing if the rail lines looked like rail lines instead of just plain lines. Right now it's a bit hard to tell them apart from the territory borders. I think you also need to define "connect by rail" - do you mean "hold X cities and the territories between them that the rail goes over" (which I think you mean), or just "hold X cities"?