Carefully checked. All territory names are okay. All connections are coherent.
Thanks for inputting my 5 cap scheme Commodore! Really it's long time I was thinking the way to make up a map giving perfect equality in 5 palyer capitals and I found this one actually is close to perfect distancement.
This 5 cap scheme can be good also for 4 players removing one capital: possibly Hamakua, being in such a larger region compared to the others.
The almost perfectly equal path scheme will result to be a bit ruined (but not that much in the end). So having the following distances from one cap' to the others:
Waimea: 4, 6, 6, (total 16)
Kalaupapa: 4, 4, 6 (total 14)
Haiku 2: 4, 6, 6 (total 16)
Ewa 2: 4, 4, 6 (total 14)
2 cap's a bit more in the middle and 2 a bit more apart, a common issue in 4 player capitals (since I am not so worried). The position is pretty good relatevly to the region control: 2 cap's are pseudo-internal controlling +3 regions staying with 1 exit only in case they own it and 2 cap's are on the border of +2 regions staying with 2 exit in case they own it and they also touch +1 regions that if conquered makes same condition as the other 2 cap's in +3 regions.
If you want you can adjust the distances a bit moving Waimea to Koloa with the following result:
Koloa: 4, 5, 6, (total 15)
Kalaupapa: 4, 4, 6 (total 14)
Haiku 2: 4, 5, 6 (total 15)
Ewa 2: 4, 4, 6 (total 14)
But the equality on the regional control then it would be a bit compromised.
Both are good and I woukld prefer either one of my 4 cap' proposal rather than the current one that is more vary in distances, from 4 hops to 7 hops, and more vary in regions, from +1 to +5; and also more vary in adjacenties (3 to 5) mine have always 4.
[b]Carefully checked. All territory names are okay. All connections are coherent.[/b]
Thanks for inputting my 5 cap scheme Commodore! Really it's long time I was thinking the way to make up a map giving perfect equality in 5 palyer capitals and I found this one actually is close to perfect distancement.
This 5 cap scheme can be good also for [b]4 players[/b] removing one capital: possibly Hamakua, being in such a larger region compared to the others.
The almost perfectly equal path scheme will result to be a bit ruined (but not that much in the end). So having the following distances from one cap' to the others:
Waimea: 4, 6, 6, (total 16)
Kalaupapa: 4, 4, 6 (total 14)
Haiku 2: 4, 6, 6 (total 16)
Ewa 2: 4, 4, 6 (total 14)
2 cap's a bit more in the middle and 2 a bit more apart, a common issue in 4 player capitals (since I am not so worried). The position is pretty good relatevly to the region control: 2 cap's are pseudo-internal controlling +3 regions staying with 1 exit only in case they own it and 2 cap's are on the border of +2 regions staying with 2 exit in case they own it and they also touch +1 regions that if conquered makes same condition as the other 2 cap's in +3 regions.
If you want you can adjust the distances a bit moving Waimea to Koloa with the following result:
Koloa: 4, 5, 6, (total 15)
Kalaupapa: 4, 4, 6 (total 14)
Haiku 2: 4, 5, 6 (total 15)
Ewa 2: 4, 4, 6 (total 14)
But the equality on the regional control then it would be a bit compromised.
Both are good and I woukld prefer either one of my 4 cap' proposal rather than the current one that is more vary in distances, from 4 hops to 7 hops, and more vary in regions, from +1 to +5; and also more vary in adjacenties (3 to 5) mine have always 4.
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein