Moderator: Cartographers
Wisse wrote:Coleman wrote:Wisse wrote:you say "+7 for each ship" but much people forget the tiny ships then
... I think you messed up what you were trying to say, that doesn't make any sense.
i meant much people would not mind the tiny ships they would think that they only need the big ships for the bonus
Coleman wrote:Well if we assumed everyone who voted for 1 would vote for 3 if 1 wasn't an option then we have a tie right now. I can't believe it looks like what I want is going to lose again, after the flagets won in Great Lakes I'm not sure how much more I can take.
qwert wrote:Well i must say that if you go historical corect no2, then i must say that if Germans have 3 division only in omaha beaches, then nobody, or very small number of ally soldier will survive in these beaches, and they have no chance to go in land.
mibi wrote:Wisse wrote:Coleman wrote:Wisse wrote:you say "+7 for each ship" but much people forget the tiny ships then
... I think you messed up what you were trying to say, that doesn't make any sense.
i meant much people would not mind the tiny ships they would think that they only need the big ships for the bonus
well that is ridiculous for two reasons, 1. peopel would have to think they get a +4 bonus for holding 2 territories, and 2. people would have to think they get a bonus for holding only half of the numbered territories around them.
so im not too sure it would be a problem. but if others think it might be confusing I can add some outlines to all the ships to make it more clear, but that might not look too great.
Wisse wrote:mibi wrote:Wisse wrote:Coleman wrote:Wisse wrote:you say "+7 for each ship" but much people forget the tiny ships then
... I think you messed up what you were trying to say, that doesn't make any sense.
i meant much people would not mind the tiny ships they would think that they only need the big ships for the bonus
well that is ridiculous for two reasons, 1. peopel would have to think they get a +4 bonus for holding 2 territories, and 2. people would have to think they get a bonus for holding only half of the numbered territories around them.
so im not too sure it would be a problem. but if others think it might be confusing I can add some outlines to all the ships to make it more clear, but that might not look too great.
well you have those stupid peoples i just know that there will be duizends of people who post it in the suggestion/bug forum
"i hold a ship but didn't get any bonus why"
but keep it as it is than we have an advantage and those dumb people not
mibi wrote:Wisse wrote:mibi wrote:Wisse wrote:Coleman wrote:Wisse wrote:you say "+7 for each ship" but much people forget the tiny ships then
... I think you messed up what you were trying to say, that doesn't make any sense.
i meant much people would not mind the tiny ships they would think that they only need the big ships for the bonus
well that is ridiculous for two reasons, 1. peopel would have to think they get a +4 bonus for holding 2 territories, and 2. people would have to think they get a bonus for holding only half of the numbered territories around them.
so im not too sure it would be a problem. but if others think it might be confusing I can add some outlines to all the ships to make it more clear, but that might not look too great.
well you have those stupid peoples i just know that there will be duizends of people who post it in the suggestion/bug forum
"i hold a ship but didn't get any bonus why"
but keep it as it is than we have an advantage and those dumb people not
maybe they will think they get a +4 for the little ships too.. and so a +40 for all 'ships'!
edbeard wrote:for me, the biggest concern is west/east. since you use names like west/east in territory names, I think the west should be on the left side and the east on the right side. Since there are no North/South names, I don't care which way is north or south.
Or, scrap the east/west names for the divisions and the flyovers and put something else. then you don't have to worry so much about all of this.
It should be about easing confusion while making sure it looks good at the same time.
mibi wrote:Wisse wrote:Coleman wrote:Wisse wrote:you say "+7 for each ship" but much people forget the tiny ships then
... I think you messed up what you were trying to say, that doesn't make any sense.
i meant much people would not mind the tiny ships they would think that they only need the big ships for the bonus
well that is ridiculous for two reasons, 1. peopel would have to think they get a +4 bonus for holding 2 territories, and 2. people would have to think they get a bonus for holding only half of the numbered territories around them.
so im not too sure it would be a problem. but if others think it might be confusing I can add some outlines to all the ships to make it more clear, but that might not look too great.
Coleman wrote:Am I the only one that sees it is +4 per ship and +7 additional for all 3? Why is everyone saying +7 per each ship?
Also I thought it was obvious that there are 3 ships and the little boats are a part of the ship by the way each ship is labeled... I guess not.
glee wrote:ok, i voted 2 mainly because north is up, i can agree that #3 is visually better
so i guess you can count my vote as a number three instead
great work with the map, the graphics are great as many before me have said
Users browsing this forum: No registered users