I think the circles are a little to bright. They should be almost invisible. The problem with doing this is that if there are blue armies on Europe or something similar, it becomes very hard to read the numbers. Brighter circles, while some people may not find them as aesthetically pleasing ...
I think the circles are a little to bright. They should be almost invisible. The problem with doing this is that if there are blue armies on Europe or something similar, it becomes very hard to read the numbers. Brighter circles, while some people may not find them as aesthetically pleasing ...
small but significant issue with the "Europe Map".... the line indicating a connection from Albania to Sicily is covered by the circle indicating the number of armies in albania. can this be adjusted? I played this map for the first time recently and did not find out until it was too ...
Biggest problem: Three digit troop counts. I like the idea, and a numbering system would have to be used. Easy numbering system: Make all of the territories in a grid (not all of the grid squares would be used) and use a Battleship like territory naming system (ie, A7).
He's right. I totally missed C and A. That's actually FIVE borders (Tap, A, AA, C, H.) If I may revise my earlier comment, I think that the bonus should be increased to six.
oil storage should be 4 m8...Apart from that looks awesome..QUENCH QUENCH lol please explain 4 and how you arrive at that number....both WM and I agree 5 for oil storage.
Well, let's use a benchmark. North America is worth five and it has (if I remember correctly) 9 territories to defend, three ...
Is the original guy that was doing this even here anymore? Anyway, I think a TP map might be a better choice. But anyway, this is actually coming along very well.
I remember the first time I played that map I only got to place two troops...it was one of my first games, too. It certainly wasn't very welcoming. I would vote start them out with neutrals, but maybe only two per?
That pissed me off, too. I had a bunch of convincing evidence and filled out the form properly and it got completely ignored. I'm beginning to think that it's mostly a waste of time coming here.
As much as I disagree with the gameplay on Indochina (maybe it's just me), I do agree that revamps should just be graphics and MAYBE changes the original mapmaker wanted to make due to changes in coding and such.
BelJoDoe wrote:What do you suggest I do to make it more obvious that the Hive doesn't border the two Orc territories? I thought the cliff and deep shadows would be sufficient :-/ ... do you disagree?
I didn't say I disagreed. I said some people will STILL find it confusing. There are people that dense.
This is the third time something like this has come up. Before you make the map you need to get clearance from bungie which isn't easy...at all
He's right. Someone just tried this a little while ago (I think the thread is still down a page or two). If you do get bungie approval, look there for ...
The Hive...does it border Clan Red-Eye and Borehole Clans or not? Though you think it would be obvious with that cliff animation, SOMEONE is going to try it anyway. The arrows message doesn't look right obscured like that; I think you could budget some space in Beastlands to make a larger second ...