Moderator: Cartographers
NW is already pretty easy to hold though, it's only 3 territories. I'm not sure if it should be any easier, in the context of the other bonuses.isaiah40 wrote:So looking at this I think that there could be another impassable between Northwest and West to make NW a little easier to hold. As it is now I believe it would be impossible to do so. I'm thinking between Brent and Westminster/Kensington/Hammersmith would be a good place for one. I know there really isn't any RL impassables around there, but for gameplay yes.
Why?isaiah40 wrote:Southeast could be raised to +4 while East could be lowered to +4. Southeast, I can hold off until Beta to see how it plays, but for East I think you could lower it now to +4.
Hm, I don't think the argument could be made that this makes West any easier to hold, and I certainly think you overestimate the difficulty of holding it. Nonexistent impassables should not be put in unless imperative to gameplay, and I don't see how it might be, honestly.isaiah40 wrote:Since MarshalNey is having major modem problems, I have moved here.
So looking at this I think that there could be another impassable between Northwest and West to make NW a little easier to hold. As it is now I believe it would be impossible to do so. I'm thinking between Brent and Westminster/Kensington/Hammersmith would be a good place for one. I know there really isn't any RL impassables around there, but for gameplay yes.
Hm, this also puzzles me. Now, I'll agree that both are bordering between two values, but I heartily disagree that both East and Southeast are equal in worth! East has 4 borders and 1 more territory than Southeast. The three options I see here are East +5 and Southeast +3 (as it is now), East +5 and Southeast +4, and East +4 and Southeast +3. With three territories aside from their border territories, it's hard to know if the bonus should be raised for them (as it increases the difficulty of getting the bonus), or not (since they don't affect the difficulty of keeping the bonus).isaiah40 wrote:Southeast could be raised to +4 while East could be lowered to +4. Southeast, I can hold off until Beta to see how it plays, but for East I think you could lower it now to +4.
It may only be 3 territories, but look at how many territories can attack it. All of West which has 5 territories and Camden from North for a total of 6 territories which can attack NW. Now if I were playing this I would not go for NW for this reason, it is almost impossible to hold because you have to build up on ALL 3 territories to protect it. If you don't want to add in any impassables there, then I suggest increasing the bonus value to at least +3.natty_dread wrote:NW is already pretty easy to hold though, it's only 3 territories. I'm not sure if it should be any easier, in the context of the other bonuses.
isaiah40 wrote:Southeast could be raised to +4 while East could be lowered to +4. Southeast, I can hold off until Beta to see how it plays, but for East I think you could lower it now to +4.
I can wait and see how these are during Beta.natty_dread wrote:Why?
Well, I have a feeling +3 would be too strong for it. Let's not forget NW has good expansion potential. It seems to me if I'm to make NW any better, it'll become like Australia, a no-brainer bonus everyone will go for.isaiah40 wrote:It may only be 3 territories, but look at how many territories can attack it. All of West which has 5 territories and Camden from North for a total of 6 territories which can attack NW. Now if I were playing this I would not go for NW for this reason, it is almost impossible to hold because you have to build up on ALL 3 territories to protect it. If you don't want to add in any impassables there, then I suggest increasing the bonus value to at least +3.
No no, if you have a reasoning for the suggestion I'd like to hear it. Maybe you've thought of something I've missed.isaiah40 wrote:I can wait and see how these are during Beta.
natty_dread wrote:Well, I have a feeling +3 would be too strong for it. Let's not forget NW has good expansion potential. It seems to me if I'm to make NW any better, it'll become like Australia, a no-brainer bonus everyone will go for. I could go for an impassable between Hounslow / Hillingdon. It wouldn't reduce the borders of NW, but it would reduce the amount of territories that can assault it.
Okay here is my reasoning. East has 7 territories to defend against 4 territories for +5, this is a little high IMO because Southeast has 6 territories to defend against 5 territories for +4. See the difference? It seems a little backwards to me. My suggestion is to just swap the bonus values around, at the same - IMO - you can leave Southeast at +4 and see what happens during Beta as it seems like a good number.natty_dread wrote:No no, if you have a reasoning for the suggestion I'd like to hear it. Maybe you've thought of something I've missed.isaiah40 wrote:I can wait and see how these are during Beta.
There are a few factors you forget, such as the number of bonus areas, in the case of Fractured China. I think I have to go with natty on this one. Since NW is the only small bonus area, it will be sought after. In the case of Fractured China, there is a multitude of small(ish) bonuses, so there's more leeway.isaiah40 wrote:natty_dread wrote:Well, I have a feeling +3 would be too strong for it. Let's not forget NW has good expansion potential. It seems to me if I'm to make NW any better, it'll become like Australia, a no-brainer bonus everyone will go for. I could go for an impassable between Hounslow / Hillingdon. It wouldn't reduce the borders of NW, but it would reduce the amount of territories that can assault it.
Ok, let's take a look at Fractured China. I had to increase Manchuria to +4 because of Beijing being able to attack and Jilin being able to attack all 4 territories, with a total of 5 territories to defend against. Now transfer that over to here. You have 3 territories to defend against 6 with Ealing being able to attack all 3. Instead of an impassable between Hounslow and Hillingdon, put it between Ealing and Harrow. This way you should be able to keep the bonus at +2. If no impassable is added I would strongly suggest increasing the bonus to +3, as I had to do for Manchuria.
Hm, I think you are looking at things from the wrong perspective. How many territories border the bonus area is largely irrelevant, or enough such that it wouldn't affect the difficulty of holding the bonus area in any significant way. Regardless of whether Southeast has 6 territories bordering it or 3, I still only have to guard 3 border territories. See my point?isaiah40 wrote:Okay here is my reasoning. East has 7 territories to defend against 4 territories for +5, this is a little high IMO because Southeast has 6 territories to defend against 5 territories for +4. See the difference? It seems a little backwards to me. My suggestion is to just swap the bonus values around, at the same - IMO - you can leave Southeast at +4 and see what happens during Beta as it seems like a good number.natty_dread wrote:No no, if you have a reasoning for the suggestion I'd like to hear it. Maybe you've thought of something I've missed.isaiah40 wrote:I can wait and see how these are during Beta.
The neutral 3 I agree with, but, again, I don't think the impassable is necessary.isaiah40 wrote:Also looking at this again, I think you might want to consider making one of the Northwest territories start as a 3 neutral to eliminate the possibility of someone dropping that bonus, either Brent or Hillingdon would work if you place the impassable per my suggestion. You will still have a good number of territories so no worries there.
I don't think it's a comparable example. It's much larger and totally different type of map.isaiah40 wrote:Ok, let's take a look at Fractured China.
In my experience, the amount of territories that can assault a bonus is no where near as significant as the amount of borders, expansion potential, and (to a lesser degree) size. Southeast has 3 borders, while East has 4. Southeast has 6 territories while East has 7. Both have access to City, which is heavily contested by 2 other areas (4 bonuses connect to it in total).isaiah40 wrote:Okay here is my reasoning. East has 7 territories to defend against 4 territories for +5, this is a little high IMO because Southeast has 6 territories to defend against 5 territories for +4. See the difference? It seems a little backwards to me. My suggestion is to just swap the bonus values around, at the same - IMO - you can leave Southeast at +4 and see what happens during Beta as it seems like a good number.
What is the probability of someone dropping it, without neutrals?isaiah40 wrote:Also looking at this again, I think you might want to consider making one of the Northwest territories start as a 3 neutral to eliminate the possibility of someone dropping that bonus, either Brent or Hillingdon would work if you place the impassable per my suggestion. You will still have a good number of territories so no worries there.
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Nopes, sorry. The image is cropped from the right, ie. there's no extra on the left side, so I can't move the image to the right.gimil wrote:I love the new blue version. It is simplistic yet beautiful. would it be possible to work the background image so Big Ben's face is on the blue background? as Oppose to being hidden behind the green continent? Its the only major thing that is really bothering me.
Cheers,
gimil
I understand what you mean. Its a shame, that the main focal point of the background is slightly hidden.natty_dread wrote: Nopes, sorry. The image is cropped from the right, ie. there's no extra on the left side, so I can't move the image to the right.
The only option would be to move it up, but then the tower would be cut off by the edge of the image, and I really don't want to do that.
Anyway, I'm not totally sure if I want to go with the blue version. I kinda like the saturation contrast on the grey version. Let's hear some more opinions on that...
Meanwhile, can I get the GP stamp now?
. But you don't have a gameplay stamp and you ain't finished yet since you don't even know what your final background colour is.Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
