Moderator: Cartographers
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
is there room? i suppose ill have to make roomMrBenn wrote:I think that the on-way attack should go from Ankawhatever in the blue region instead of A-M in the orange. This would help eliminate that bottleneck.
interestingMrBenn wrote: As for the little region at the top, perhaps you could have another one-way attack/bombard from somewhere down South??
gimil wrote:The one way attack arrow looks fantastic.
maybe with them reduced? shall i try that?gimil wrote: Personally thou I prefer version with the "vallays" between regions. They help keep the maps character compared with the non "valley" ones which look a little flat.
yea i agreegimil wrote: Reducing the bevel texture was also a good call. Now its strong enought to break up falt colours while being subtle enought so that its not to intrusive.
yesgimil wrote: The southern most mountain region still has the mountains to close together, I think they need to be spaced out a little more still.
thanksgimil wrote: Overall your maps potential is shining through and your doing well. Keep going bud
im back!oaktown wrote:hooray
yes as i said earlier - is there room?oaktown wrote: Moving the one way attack to come from the blue makes sense.
yes - problemoaktown wrote: But the larger concern seems to be that the top of the map is the better start... looking at it, I can see that putting the two smallest regions next to each other could be fine in big games, where two players get the bonuses and fight it out between them, but potentially bad in smaller games where one player gets both bonuses and overruns the rest of the map.
maybe if i redirected the boarder line for mampokinay (whatever its calledoaktown wrote: ideas??
ok will do - BUT what i need to know is: will the new terit be within the cont (i.e not touching any other cont) or would it be on the outside and boardering another cont - like will it be used to defend the cont aswel?oaktown wrote: 1. split the three-terit region into a four, but leave it a +2.
the terit elsewhere...could that be the one that i add to the orange cont?oaktown wrote:2. give a +1 bonus for holding the capital, adding value to the center region (if you add a terit elsewhere you can start it neutral)
people complained when they were more spaced apart, i cant winoaktown wrote:alright, i see you've got your work cut out for you, but here's one more thing... the trees look much nicer in the legend than they do on the map, because they are spaced out a bit and you can make out that they are trees. On the map they blur together.




i agree - i dont like the airport thingyMrBenn wrote: I'm not keen on the airport logo - it looks totally out of place, and I'm not convinced the map is big enough for airports.
hmm...MrBenn wrote: The harbours/ports are a little better, although I still think they look out of place, and a bit like an afterthought.
a catapult, are we thinking of the same kind of catapult?MrBenn wrote: For some reason, I think that something like a catapault would fit the style of the map a bit more. I'd want to see it based on/in Haut (?) in the yellow region though - somewhere more central.

ill try some things out...MrBenn wrote: I'd still have a look at opening up the mountain range between the green/orange/pink area at the top - the intention being to make the green area slightly harder to get early on, as this is the area that appears to be key to the map.
gdgd - just need a name now...MrBenn wrote: I like the addition of the new territory in orange. It looks like a good fit.
i like the national park ideahulmey wrote:no not a catapulat lol![]()
![]()
I quite like having a capital idea in the south and giving it +1 or as i said earlier, ading a few more regions and a bonus down south!!!
or instead of a capital, make it a national park and get +1 for it??




do you mean that they should stand out less?cena-rules wrote:can you make the ports more transparent
ouit-o-m wrote:do you mean that they should stand out less?cena-rules wrote:can you make the ports more transparent