Moderator: Cartographers
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
If the multiple routes coming off Cagliari were to be tied together, it would imply more attack routes than the current arrangement has, for example, Genoa vs Calatafimi. I'm not saying that's bad, it's just different.jefjef wrote:Hi Industrial!
Thought I'd stop & peek. (when do we get to play Amer colonies?)
Just a few minor things. I sure like blueish water.
Sea routes. White would look better. I liked the dashes you had in previous version.
The multiple routes coming off Cagliari. How about ya tie em all together?
The route from Ajaccio maybe connect it to Sassari instead.
The Lissa sea route. How about joining it a tert or two south? OR better yet an additional route to like Bari. You could use a little more flow and weight added to that bonus.
Thanks.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
i agree with all of this. however, elba should have a connection only to toscano, as it wasn't a trading or transport crossroads, nor did it play any part in battles. this will give to stati della chiesa one non-border region out of four. corsica can also be tied more closely to france by connecting ajaccio to either nice or cote d'azur (this helps with fortification by linking two border regions).Industrial Helix wrote:it made sense that France would connect with Corsica and Piedmont would not. The same applies to Piedmont's connection to Sardinia as France would have no business with a connection there. The Corsica/Sardiana connection seemed logical to me given the closeness of the islands. I figured Piedmonte/Sardinia needed a connection to the southern tip of the boot as historically there was an invasion there. I believe there was historical precedent for the link to Rome.... though i can't recall it off the top of my head. I believe Garibaldi left from south Italy to Rome at some point.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
The "With ..." entries in the legend indicate an additional bonus for holding the extra territory in addition to the bonus above:The Neon Peon wrote:I'd like to see the drop shadow leave the sea lines.
I'd also like to see the opacity of the glow on the title reduced.
Both just seem to pop off the map a bit too match. They are gathering all of my attention.
Very nice style on the two maps.
Why is " [7] With Savoy " in the legend twice?
seconded. lissa is now the convergence point for a battle!jefjef wrote:Looks good! Nice clean up on the sea lanes.
good catch on nice and savoy: since they were handed over to france together, it makes sense that they are treated the same way on our map. i agree with the +2 extra for holding nice and savoy with either france or piemonte. the newly-reduced france, being in the corner, is a much easier bonus than piemonte and therefore ought to have a lower bonus of +3 (+5 with nice and savoy - 8 regions with 4 borders, similar to regno delle due sicilie). move the troop circle for nice to the south-west, so that we can see the border with genoa and the purple colour of the bottom stripe.Industrial Helix wrote:those bonuses now read "with Nice and Savoy." I'm open to reducing them, but I think some consideration ought to be given to them as it now requires two territories to get the bonus.
once u amend france to +3 (+5 with nice and savoy) in the legend, so that this bonus balances regno delle due sicilie, i see no major gameplay issues for italy. a single stamp will be applied for both maps together, unless u prefer one for each.iancanton wrote:the newly-reduced france, being in the corner, is a much easier bonus than piemonte and therefore ought to have a lower bonus of +3 (+5 with nice and savoy - 8 regions with 4 borders, similar to regno delle due sicilie).