isaiah40 wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:What are you doing with the grey and white territories?
Did you read the legend?
Oh, I guess I was a little confused by the term, city.
Moderator: Cartographers
isaiah40 wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:What are you doing with the grey and white territories?
Did you read the legend?
Victor Sullivan wrote:isaiah40 wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:What are you doing with the grey and white territories?
Did you read the legend?
Oh, I guess I was a little confused by the term, city.
Industrial Helix wrote:I was confused for a bit as well. Maybe it could be labeled like a region instead of the ambiguous name "cities" Something like "Confederation of Autonomous Cities"
Victor Sullivan wrote:So the white territories do nothing? That's kinda lame, no offense...
isaiah40 wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:So the white territories do nothing? That's kinda lame, no offense...
So what is so lame about having neutral countries that you have to go around? As far as I can tell, Nepal and Bhutan are rather peaceful countries, whereas Tibet would rather be out from underneath the control of Beijing.
AndyDufresne wrote:isaiah40 wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:So the white territories do nothing? That's kinda lame, no offense...
So what is so lame about having neutral countries that you have to go around? As far as I can tell, Nepal and Bhutan are rather peaceful countries, whereas Tibet would rather be out from underneath the control of Beijing.
I'm fine with it. Think of it this way, they are autonomous mountainous peaceful regions for the most part. Maybe the invading armies of various sides decided that it wasn't worth it to expend their troops trying to conquer a region they know they could just surround and overwhelm if a real issue came.
--Andy
isaiah40 wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:isaiah40 wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:So the white territories do nothing? That's kinda lame, no offense...
So what is so lame about having neutral countries that you have to go around? As far as I can tell, Nepal and Bhutan are rather peaceful countries, whereas Tibet would rather be out from underneath the control of Beijing.
I'm fine with it. Think of it this way, they are autonomous mountainous peaceful regions for the most part. Maybe the invading armies of various sides decided that it wasn't worth it to expend their troops trying to conquer a region they know they could just surround and overwhelm if a real issue came.
--Andy
Well put Andy!. Besides having a neutral country you have to go around means you will have to think about taking out someone by splitting your troops and taking a chance on not making it.
Victor Sullivan wrote:All you get from holding the white territories is something to go towards the standard territory bonus and maybe it would help to guard a bonus area, but the strategic benefits of conquering that territory is miniscule at best. There needs to be more... Why did you decide to not include them as bonus areas anyways?
isaiah40 wrote:Well if look, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Thailand have no effect on guarding any bonus. Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan are confined within the Indian bonus so whoever holds India would also hold these three. Myanmar is a killer neutral so in effect it helps to guard BOTH India and Indo-China. Thailand is down in the corner and of no consequence to anyone who holds it.
When you say there needs to be more, please expand and explain what you mean!
Victor Sullivan wrote:Okay... So why have the white territories at all? And I dont understand why Myanmar would be a killer neutral at all, aside from the extra gameplay feature. My suggestion would be to drop Myanmars killer neutral aspect and the Jharkhand/Myanmar attack route, then make all the white territories an interesting bonus area, like The Burman Alliance, or something, with a +6 bonus.
isaiah40 wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:Okay... So why have the white territories at all? And I dont understand why Myanmar would be a killer neutral at all, aside from the extra gameplay feature. My suggestion would be to drop Myanmars killer neutral aspect and the Jharkhand/Myanmar attack route, then make all the white territories an interesting bonus area, like The Burman Alliance, or something, with a +6 bonus.
Okay, if I do it then I think that the bonus should be reduced as if someone holds India, Indo-China and those neutral countries they would be looking +13 with only access through 6 territories. I think that is a little excessive. Maybe a +3 for the neutral countries at the most. I believ that a +10 with only 6 ways in is more inline.
What do others think??
isaiah40 wrote:Fair enough. I'll see what others think of the idea and then we'll proceed from there, fair enough?
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
Victor Sullivan wrote:Looks fine, though I would call the bonus area Burma. One of my pet peeves, you could say, is having a territory with the same name as the continent. You should probably get rid of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Thailand from the Impassables section.
isaiah40 wrote:Okay so how is this?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users