Moderator: Cartographers

I agree with you RJ. I love it when a map is authentic but I also know this is not always possible when it involves gameplay as I have tried to do a CC map myself. Lupo probably does not know how difficult it can be as he never tried to make a map.RjBeals wrote:Lupo's post was insane. I remember reading it and getting disappointed. I know he/she has strong feelings for the map, and I realize there are few borders / rivers that aren't true to the italian landscape - but it's only a game. It's not going in a textbook. Lupo had a huge post with reference maps and such. Would have almost taken a fresh start to fix some of the areas. I have much respect for Lupo, but I wasn't planning on making some/most of the changes requested.
I am not the map creator so he will not penalise the map because I am asking for it to be quenched. It is probable that he will take a note and penalise me on my map in the future.Wisse wrote:you can better day "andy will you look at this" because he don't likes people asks for quenching
edit:
on the map, the right border of the unplayable lands has a in-land shade too, delete that please
Perhaps the sea routes could be made of a darker blue and the piers slightly smaller to solve these issues?AndyDufresne wrote:Hm, it's looking stunning. I'll look it over a little more thoroughly later.
A minor suggestion, maybe make the sea routes stand out slightly more from the water. I'm afraid it might blend in a little too much. But I don't think you need to bolden it so much, just perhaps tinker with it a little more.
Also, is there a reason why Messina doesn't have Dock? I can perhaps understand the Islands near it (and the same goes for Elba Island on one side...). Anyways, minor things, but consistency is good.
--Andy
now that i think about it, there is sense in that. im sure the goal is to make those spots highly competative, and to give people a base to expand to the rest of the continent from, but i think its going to have a lot more to do with luck than strategy. samus has a good alternative, similar to the usapoc map, except that having one capital doesnt hurt you. its quite a bit more lucky to start with 2, and then more strategically difficult to keep 2.Samus wrote:I think you should change the capitals to be based on how many capitals you hold.
1 Capital = +0
2 Capitals = +1
3 Capitals = +2
4 Capitals = +4
5 Capitals = +6
As you already know, I feel a bonus for 1 territory is just wrong. They reward players who just happen to be on them at the time. They do not fit the idea of fighting for and holding a region of territories, and then being rewarded for your play.
This is the biggest new fad in map making here and I'm afraid we're going to have 5 maps with these 1 territory bonuses before people realize "oh crap, the lucky bastard who gets them in the beginning has too much of an advantage. All these maps are unplayable."
Hmm you made me think and I agree with you but to a certain extent. I think the bonuses should be like this:Samus wrote:I think you should change the capitals to be based on how many capitals you hold.
1 Capital = +0
2 Capitals = +1
3 Capitals = +2
4 Capitals = +4
5 Capitals = +6
As you already know, I feel a bonus for 1 territory is just wrong. They reward players who just happen to be on them at the time. They do not fit the idea of fighting for and holding a region of territories, and then being rewarded for your play.
This is the biggest new fad in map making here and I'm afraid we're going to have 5 maps with these 1 territory bonuses before people realize "oh crap, the lucky bastard who gets them in the beginning has too much of an advantage. All these maps are unplayable."
