Moderator: Cartographers
Tisha wrote:i like it how it is.. but i think he means Maryland not part of the Sherman bonus.. like it's own color n such. and for someone to drop the key cities they would have to be lucky....if that's what he was saying
if u have all of sherman with of course maryland.. do u get five men? four for sherman and one for maryland?
trk1994 wrote:sorry, i didn't read all the other posts. but i think you should bump the bonuses for the southern territories. seems a little lopsided. lets give them equal chance and see who wins.
other wise, great map and great idea. i suggested it someone a while back and am very glad that someone who knows how has made the map. i wanna be the first to play!!!!!![]()
bryguy wrote:ok, i like the map and all, but whats with the badlands being above the dakota territory? i went to the badlands for vacation this year and they were at the southern border of South Dakota, so i want to know why they are up so high??
Elijah S wrote:bryguy wrote:ok, i like the map and all, but whats with the badlands being above the dakota territory? i went to the badlands for vacation this year and they were at the southern border of South Dakota, so i want to know why they are up so high??
In earlier versions The Badlands was placed below the Dakota Territory... and I thought it was correct, but someone suggested switching them.
I will switch them back... easy fix!
Thanks... -Elijah
Actually they would not even be on this map, being in the western part of the state. ND should be badlands because it sucks...bryguy wrote:ok, i like the map and all, but whats with the badlands being above the dakota territory? i went to the badlands for vacation this year and they were at the southern border of South Dakota, so i want to know why they are up so high??
I GOT SERVED wrote:Is there any way you can make the border between Kansas and Missouri less choppy/more smooth? Right now it doesn't look that great.
AndrewB wrote:5. You should try to get rid of small text size in the legend too. If text does not fit, try to re-phrase it. I.E change "Union States in addition to other bonuses" to "Union States total" or "All Union States". Look into World 2.1 for examples.
13. Border in Kansas-Nebraska-Missouri corner does not represent the actual border line there. And as results looks quite "blocky", when in reality it is a river border.
14. The line which connects land masses to the water has different sharpness. For example compare left Michigan shoreline to its right shoreline. Same happens around Florida and some other places.
Coleman wrote:Sure, if you can show me flawless xml.Suzy1 wrote:I think this map is perfect and ready for play. Can I get a second from anyone to say it should be quenched?
Elijah S wrote:Spiesr - What you're referring to is called a bevel affect.
I like the bevel I have around the entire continent and think this is a matter of personal preference.
Elijah S wrote:Andrew B- The legend is remaining the same. I think it's very uniform and legible and I don't plan to change it.
Elijah S wrote:The border between Kansas, Nebraska and Missouri I will take a look at, but I'm not putting any more rivers in the map. -I think there's a balance between being geographically correct and creating good gameplay.
There are many rivers in that part of the country, but it would not enhance the game to try to place them in the map. -The Ohio and Mississippi are the most prominant in the region depicted and that's why I chose to put them there.
Elijah S wrote:As I stated previously, I'll make the minor changes that are warranted, but I can't make everyone happy...
Throughout the development of this board I've tried to remain open to all suggestions and feel that this map is very close to completion.
It's not my intention to be rude or appear unwilling to address valid issues, but some of the recent complaints seriously seem more like nitpicking than constructive criticism/advice.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users