For example Vatnsfjörður, Drangsnes, Höfn, Raufarhöfn, Húsavík, these are all fine, no worse than any suggestions I made.
Moderator: Cartographers
I found this to be an extremely funny comment made in the midst of a HUGE post on names! No offense meant, Viking, and the input is very valuable - I just laughed when I saw that.The Viking wrote:Dalvik - Dalvík is just a tiny town/village in that general area, not much bigger than other nearby towns, so Dalvík if not a fitting name.
(This area would more correctly be called 'Tröllaskagi'.)
<snip>
After all the names don't really matter that much.
<snip>
Reykjahlíð - Definitely Ódáðahraun. It's lava-covered ground + moss + some bushes for miles and miles. Definitely the most well known part of the region.
<snip>
No, my Charleston, SC map fell into the furnace - I don't want to let this one also !! I've been slowly winding down at work, and will shortly begin working on this map again. Sometimes it's good to take a long break because you can start fresh again with new ideas! This map will be quenched one day !AndyDufresne wrote:RJ, any news on an Update? This map is also one that has an exceptional amount of potential, and I'd hate to see if fall into the Foundry Furnace.



Code: Select all
<continent>
<name>Russian Sector</name>
<bonus>5</bonus>
<components>
<component>Rahnsdorf</component>
<component>Müggelheim</component>
<component>Grünau</component>
<component>Treptow</component>
<component>Köpenick</component>


I thought about that too, but the names are light against a light background and shouldn't be confused for territories. of course, somebody always finds a way to surprise me.CatfishJohnson wrote:Damn man, i like it, looks freakin sweet, glad to see it back in action, i like how u added glacier names, but i bet a dollar someone is gonna bitch that its gonna confuse them, so i hope u keep them good work

RJ - did you see this post?Herakilla wrote:if the image on the first page is the one with 36 territories i would advise try to get in some more territories or take a few out so then when ppl play 2 or 3 player games the player going first doesnt have such a huge advantage since they start with 4 armies and if they take one territory the player that lost it is already down to 3 armies a turn (since everyone starts with 12)

Yes. But that's a huge change. Sorry I didn't respond Herakilla. I see your point though, but there are other maps with only 36 territs that seem to work. Do you think the bonus values are too high? Should I reduce them?yeti_c wrote:RJ - did you see this post?Herakilla wrote:if the image on the first page is the one with 36 territories i would advise try to get in some more territories or take a few out so then when ppl play 2 or 3 player games the player going first doesnt have such a huge advantage since they start with 4 armies and if they take one territory the player that lost it is already down to 3 armies a turn (since everyone starts with 12)
C.

I suppose you could always tweak the XML to give 3 armies for 12 territories?RjBeals wrote:Yes. But that's a huge change. Sorry I didn't respond Herakilla. I see your point though, but there are other maps with only 36 territs that seem to work. Do you think the bonus values are too high? Should I reduce them?yeti_c wrote:RJ - did you see this post?Herakilla wrote:if the image on the first page is the one with 36 territories i would advise try to get in some more territories or take a few out so then when ppl play 2 or 3 player games the player going first doesnt have such a huge advantage since they start with 4 armies and if they take one territory the player that lost it is already down to 3 armies a turn (since everyone starts with 12)
C.

Seeing as how we can use those fancy schmancy characters on our maps, here's what I've decided to change based on your post.The Viking wrote:
Name Suggestion Post HERE

