exactly!Pedronicus wrote:thats a great looking map - without going mad like the World 2.0 map
The enhancing of the existing Classic Map
Moderator: Cartographers
Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
Oscar Wild fan,
There are same good changes:
I think this new map is more balanced... Oceania that is the best place to start, now have lots of connections and other countries.
South America is now more difficult to hold to as well as N. America.
Africa on the classic is very difficult to hold for been in the middle, now with Oceania and S. America bigger would balance the game.
I will love to play this map… I would forget about the old classic.
There are same good changes:
I think this new map is more balanced... Oceania that is the best place to start, now have lots of connections and other countries.
South America is now more difficult to hold to as well as N. America.
Africa on the classic is very difficult to hold for been in the middle, now with Oceania and S. America bigger would balance the game.
I will love to play this map… I would forget about the old classic.
-
everywhere116
- Posts: 1718
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:37 am
- Location: Somewhere on this big blue marble.
i have the game at home and I saw 2 changes in that map and the map here.
1) Probably already addressed, but the G.B.-Scandinavia connection was severed, although the link is in the xml.
2)In the real map, Kamchatka borders Mongolia along the coastline, but in the map we have here, Irktusk reaches the coastline, severing the connection. The link is not present in the xml.
1) Probably already addressed, but the G.B.-Scandinavia connection was severed, although the link is in the xml.
2)In the real map, Kamchatka borders Mongolia along the coastline, but in the map we have here, Irktusk reaches the coastline, severing the connection. The link is not present in the xml.
I don't agree about your last sentence, in fact, have a look at the bonuses:Molacole wrote:that alternate map looks great and all, but for playability I think it's garbage... Whoever gets oceana basically wins.
North America 6
South America 4
Europe 6
Asia 8
Oceania 4
Africa 5
PS: Actually i am winning a game holding North America and i was able to destroy my enemy strongholds in Oceania!
Last edited by Lupo on Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Nature is a temple in which living pillars
Sometimes emit confused words;
Man crosses it through forests of symbols
That observe him with familiar glances."
Sometimes emit confused words;
Man crosses it through forests of symbols
That observe him with familiar glances."
Classic is a good map
Risk II Classic is also a good map more strategic options and balanced better IMHO
World 2.0 is awesome due to the scale of it but it needs to have an 8 player option.
I do not see why having 3 world maps is so bothersome to so few, it can only benefit to have quality maps I like that not every map is gonna make it through but there are a few maps that should...come on it's the world there are bound to be a few good maps of it. After all it is a place we all know well.
I still have yet to hear another reason besides a slippery slope argument and the we already have two...how about the fact that this map strategically speaking is a much different map than the other 2 world maps?
edit spelling
Risk II Classic is also a good map more strategic options and balanced better IMHO
World 2.0 is awesome due to the scale of it but it needs to have an 8 player option.
I do not see why having 3 world maps is so bothersome to so few, it can only benefit to have quality maps I like that not every map is gonna make it through but there are a few maps that should...come on it's the world there are bound to be a few good maps of it. After all it is a place we all know well.
I still have yet to hear another reason besides a slippery slope argument and the we already have two...how about the fact that this map strategically speaking is a much different map than the other 2 world maps?
edit spelling