Moderator: Cartographers
Incandenza wrote:So, to recap:
1. keeping the Jordan River impassable the way it is (I tend to agree with you on this one)
2. leaving Aragon the way it is (I also agree, Iberia's pretty dialed in at the moment, no need to upset the apple cart)
3. making the Denmark terit look a bit more substantial by expanding the island
4. coding 2 starting positions in Scandan
5. for that matter, Scandan should probably be "Norse Kingdoms" as ian suggested
6. keep the starting terits at 60 (I'm not going to be a bother about this one, just means I'll probably eschew dubs in favor of a lot of trips/quads, to which this map is fantastically suited)
Since the changes we're discussing are basically xml and graphics, with no real change to gameplay after some smart blokes cruising by the thread, this map is ready to move on:
Congrats, Beko. Can't wait to play it.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:Hi Beko the Great,
I read on page 16 that your next update was going to be completly graphical, so I have waited for it before giving you any feedback, when can I expect this update?
Cheers,
gimil
Beko the Great wrote:Thanks for the continuous support jefjef.
Just noticed a minor issue. Seljuk Turks and Italian States are "continents" virtually in the same situation and one is worth 3 and the other 4... I'm not sure in the common value to give both...
jefjef wrote:Beko the Great wrote:Thanks for the continuous support jefjef.
Just noticed a minor issue. Seljuk Turks and Italian States are "continents" virtually in the same situation and one is worth 3 and the other 4... I'm not sure in the common value to give both...
Well Italy will be a LOT harder to hold. Let that guide you.
Beko the Great wrote:jefjef wrote:Beko the Great wrote:Thanks for the continuous support jefjef.
Just noticed a minor issue. Seljuk Turks and Italian States are "continents" virtually in the same situation and one is worth 3 and the other 4... I'm not sure in the common value to give both...
Well Italy will be a LOT harder to hold. Let that guide you.
It's as harder to hold as Seljuk... I think I'll give them +3 due to their proximity to Yerushalayim or Rome, and to have 1 shield/crescent each . Will update this in the next version.
jefjef wrote:Beko the Great wrote:jefjef wrote:Beko the Great wrote:Thanks for the continuous support jefjef.
Just noticed a minor issue. Seljuk Turks and Italian States are "continents" virtually in the same situation and one is worth 3 and the other 4... I'm not sure in the common value to give both...
Well Italy will be a LOT harder to hold. Let that guide you.
It's as harder to hold as Seljuk... I think I'll give them +3 due to their proximity to Yerushalayim or Rome, and to have 1 shield/crescent each . Will update this in the next version.
Center of this map will be a battlefield. The turk bonus is in a corner. I would make Italy worth more. It has more of a strategic value without a doubt. No matter what you do you will have 3 terts to defend to hold Italy. The S Turks you can bottle it to 2 terts to defend.
jefjef wrote:Well whatever you decide I will for sure play this map. One more point.. Italy borders/connects 3 bonus areas. S Turks borders 2. And Italy is the short route North/South route & borders the largest bonus & is very near a port. The center will be a busy area. THANK YOU! for putting up with my ramblings.
iancanton wrote:can u redraw the border for portugal, castilla, qurtuba and al-gharb to make it clear which region can attack which? it's not good for all four regions to meet at the same point because players who haven't seen the map before will always be unsure whether portugal can attack qurtuba or whether castilla can attack al-gharb.
ian.
Beko the Great wrote:iancanton wrote:can u redraw the border for portugal, castilla, qurtuba and al-gharb to make it clear which region can attack which? it's not good for all four regions to meet at the same point because players who haven't seen the map before will always be unsure whether portugal can attack qurtuba or whether castilla can attack al-gharb.
ian.
I know this kind of borders is not the best in terms of graphics, though I don't know how can I make them better. Can you give some tip? And I think the one-way attacks help to understand the connections... One thing I can do is put something in the legend saying Portugal can One-Way Attack Al-Gharb and Castilla can one-way attack Qurtuba...
iancanton wrote:the explanation in the legend has made the iberian attack routes clearer now. graphically, the best way is to put a mountain in the middle of the 4-way border, as ender516 said, but i'm thinking that u don't want to put one there - am i right? a river is possible (the river tejo), though u'd need a one-way bridge to allow the attack from portugal. i think what u have in the legend is enough.
my own feeling about the italian states is that they can be attacked from more directions than the seljuks, especially if jerusalem is held by a player who has an alliance with the seljuks player, so the bonus ought to be worth more. however, u have also given good reasons for setting each bonus to +3.
ian.
Beko the Great wrote:Do you think the title is small? I find it in the right proportions
jefjef wrote:Beko the Great wrote:Do you think the title is small? I find it in the right proportions
I don't think it's too small... May wanna darken it more for better contrast.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users