Moderator: Cartographers
MarshalNey wrote:Looks good
One other small thing in your first post: delete the entry for starting regions for 3 players. It's the same as the entry for 2 players, so just say, "2 or 3 players..." for the 2 player entry.
-- Marshal Ney
MarshalNey wrote:One question: are the 2 added sea routes going to be neutral or start open to deployment? I'd recommend starting them open for deployment, that way 1v1 games would have better starts. But the choice is yours.
Flapcake wrote:Players 2=18 areas + 19 random neutral areas =55
Players 3=14 areas + 13 random neutral areas =55
koontz1973 wrote:Flapcake wrote:Players 2=18 areas + 19 random neutral areas =55
Players 3=14 areas + 13 random neutral areas =55
2 and 3 player games start the same. In a 2 player game a third opponent is deployed (as neutral). This does not happen in 3 or more player games.
2 or 3 players would be 18 starts is the 2 extra territs are neutral. 6 starting troops each.
2 player games have a problem. With 6 starting troops, the player who goes first only has to take one so the second player starts with 5. Open your two new territs to open deployment and you get 19 territs each (6 start) and P1 needs to take 2 for advantage.
koontz1973 wrote:Flapcake, you are going to have to open up the 2 neutral territs for better game play.
This is done with those included, so an open drop of 57.
2 player - 19 territs each - drop of 6
3 players - 19 territs each - drop of 6
4 players - 14 territs each - drop of 4
5 players - 11 territs each - drop of 3
6 players - 9 territs each - drop of 3
7 players - 8 territs each - drop of 3
8 players - 7 territs each - drop of 3
Either open up those two as I said above or place extra neutrals into the map. Remember, these will always be neutral, no matter what the game. If you do that then the above numbers will need to be revised.
natty_dread wrote:There's no way to program "random neutrals" in the map, you can only set fixed neutral territories.
koontz1973 wrote:OK, that's the large map done, where's the small one?
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:Hi flapcake,
This map has come along way since its infancy. You are doing a wonderful job, but there is still a bit of work to do I feel.
For a start, the queen. She ain't doing it for me. The detail of that picture simply doesn't work for the simplistic nature of this map. I feel she has to go. The flag isn't quiet right either. I think in general the title space could use a rework, it looks a little slap dash compared to everything else.
I also don't think your impassable trees fit your map. For me they look a bit like molded play-dough. Again something that doesn't really fit the the aesthetically simplicity of the map.
Those are my two main concerns at the moment, ill come back to nit pick at a later date. Once the map ha less major concerns.
Keep up the good work mate.
Cheers,
gimil
RedBaron0 wrote:With the trees is there a native Danish tree that more fits the overall theme?
RedBaron0 wrote:I agree with gimil on the queen, the photographic nature of her isn't the best, and sorta clashes with the rest of the overall style of the map. Neither of us are saying the queen can't be a part of the map, just needs a bit of creativeness thrown her way to be added within the style of your map.
With the trees is there a native Danish tree that more fits the overall theme?
koontz1973 wrote:Would the most common tree be a fir tree like the ones we use at Christmas?
With the queen, less detail would fit better if you want to keep her.
With the flag, I always wanted to see this go across the map. So start it behind the queen, have it go behind the map and then have the top half go behind the mini map so only the bottom point is seen going out the right side. More like a medevil banner than a flag.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users