Moderator: Cartographers
You're sticky enough, honey.isaiah40 wrote:Well, hold on, let me get the honey out so it will be sticky!
First of all let me say thank you!iancanton wrote:nice to see another map with this theme progressing well.
Yes mongolia can be reduced to 4. So what would be a good bonus for it +4 or +3?can i suggest reducing mongolia from 8 regions to 4? such a difficult bonus in the middle of the map will make it rather unfair for anyone who has a concentration of regions there in a multi-player game while his opponents are picking off the easy bonuses elsewhere. conceptual justifications for the reduction include the population being only a poverty-stricken 3 million that is largely dependent on herding sheep, with chinese trade being responsible for so much of the rest of mongolia's economy that the title fracture will hit mongolia much harder than the coastal areas, which can obviously trade relatively unimpeded by conflict, via the sea.
if u do this, then there are 54 starting regions, so one more will need to disappear for the map to reach “golden number” status. i suggest that nepal and bhutan are merged to become nepal-bhutan.
At first when I started to read this it was "But that is going to reduce Manchuria to 3 territories", and then I finished reading and thenjilin, not liaoning, is the part of china that has a significant korean-speaking minority, so it makes sense for korea to invade jilin, where at least some people might welcome their troops. recommendation: jilin to join korea.
liaoning belongs more to manchuria. u can change the name to mukden, a historic name for shenyang, the largest city in the area. the old manchu imperial palace is in shenyang (mukden, as it was then), which served as the original manchu capital before the manchus invaded china to defeat the ming empire. recommendation: liaoning to be renamed mukden and join manchuria as its capital.
Yea I can make this minor spelling mistake.haipan ought to be hainan.


TheSaxlad wrote:The Dice suck a lot of the time.
And if they dont suck then they blow.
I think there are enough regions---any more and there'd be too many and and give off the cluttered feeling that WWII Europe sometimes has.Joodoo wrote:After looking at the original Fractured America map, I feel like some territories on this map could be divided into smaller chunks.
True. Now that I reduced the number of territories in Mongolia, the map is looking less cluttered. Although now I'm thinking about the possibility of combining Bahar with either Uttar Pradesh or Jharkland.AndyDufresne wrote:I think there are enough regions---any more and there'd be too many and and give off the cluttered feeling that WWII Europe sometimes has.Joodoo wrote:After looking at the original Fractured America map, I feel like some territories on this map could be divided into smaller chunks.
--Andy
although either are possible, i prefer +3, so that this smaller bonus doesn't become too attractive.isaiah40 wrote:Yes mongolia can be reduced to 4. So what would be a good bonus for it +4 or +3?
it looks as if myanmar no longer has killer neutrals. time to amend the back story in the opening post?isaiah40 wrote:Also watch out for those Burmese, although they will give you clear passage, any army you leave behind they will eliminate all of them and leave 3 neutral armies standing!!
bihar is fine as is, even on the small map. the india-myanmar border does look very awkward. u might do something there. on the other hand, it’s possible to increase the number of land regions by 2, if u let the sea routes be killer neutrals, so that the total number of starting regions is the nice 52 that i believe u’re wanting. let’s see if we can come up with a scheme that makes some gameplay, religious, racial and linguistic sense, such as putting qinghai (amdo) into tibet. this leaves 2 zones of 3 regions, which can each be increased to 4 (but this is only an example and u might have other ideas).isaiah40 wrote:True. Now that I reduced the number of territories in Mongolia, the map is looking less cluttered. Although now I'm thinking about the possibility of combining Bahar with either Uttar Pradesh or Jharkland.AndyDufresne wrote:I think there are enough regions---any more and there'd be too many and and give off the cluttered feeling that WWII Europe sometimes has.Joodoo wrote:After looking at the original Fractured America map, I feel like some territories on this map could be divided into smaller chunks.
--Andy
24Keyser wrote:suggestion for map
sea route across indian ocean
I was thinking of the same thing...from Jharkand to Nay Pyi Taw I guess?The Bison King wrote:24Keyser wrote:suggestion for map
sea route across indian oceanuh, actually that is the bay of Bengal
TheSaxlad wrote:The Dice suck a lot of the time.
And if they dont suck then they blow.
My mistake xDThe Bison King wrote:24Keyser wrote:suggestion for map
sea route across indian oceanuh, actually that is the bay of Bengal
Joodoo wrote:I was thinking of the same thing...from Jharkand to Nay Pyi Taw I guess?The Bison King wrote:24Keyser wrote:suggestion for map
sea route across indian oceanuh, actually that is the bay of Bengal
the sea route connects two zones that are already adjacent to each other, so doesn't do very much.isaiah40 wrote:Okay what would be the good reason as to put a sea attack route there?
u can give the uygurstan name to xinjiang, since the latter is the chinese name for this area and therefore unlikely to be kept by a muslim insurgency.Evil DIMwit wrote:I still think East Turkestan would make a good bonus.
agreediancanton wrote:Joodoo wrote:I was thinking of the same thing...from Jharkand to Nay Pyi Taw I guess?The Bison King wrote:24Keyser wrote:suggestion for map
sea route across indian oceanuh, actually that is the bay of Bengal
the sea route connects two zones that are already adjacent to each other, so doesn't do very much.isaiah40 wrote:Okay what would be the good reason as to put a sea attack route there?
u can give the uygurstan name to xinjiang, since the latter is the chinese name for this area and therefore unlikely to be kept by a muslim insurgency.Evil DIMwit wrote:I still think East Turkestan would make a good bonus.
the capital of han ought to be moved to xi'an which, as well as being a former imperial capital, is a bit further away from beijing. also move the capital of chu (i propose naming this bonus wu, one of the three kingdoms, instead of chu) from jiangxi, which is adjacent to hong kong, to jiangsu (where nanjing, another former chinese capital, was located).
in a similar vein, delete the sea routes from hainan to macao and hanoi, then draw in one from hainan to nanning (renamed as guangxi in my previous post). this increases the distance from the taiwan bonus (shouldn't this be taipei, if we're calling them cities?) to macao and hanoi.
i'm conscious of the fact that, in fractured america, the capital cities remain untouched throughout many 1v1 games. if all capitals start neutral, then +3 for holding 3 capitals is unattractive compared with +2 for one city. +3 for holding 2 capitals will encourage more action around the capitals.
also see if u can straighten out that india-myanmar border, even if it means undoing that illogical (and rather unhelpful) merger i suggested of hindu nepal with buddhist bhutan.
ian.

Capitals are autodeploy. Go ahead and hit me with graphics!natty_dread wrote:Map is looking nice!
I don't really have any input on the gameplay... it seems pretty solid to me.
I agree with ian about the capital bonus though... I think maybe autodeploys could work there.
I do have lots of graphical suggestions for this map, but I'll hold my tongue since this is still in gameplay... let me know when you hit graphics!
