World Reduced

I also like the first one. I like the map in general. Thinking to give +5 to Asia... As for 4p capitals I was thinking: GB - Mongolia - S. Africa - USA Everyone with 2 ways out, except Mongolia with 3, but obviously is very hard for Mongolia to conquer the continent, it can be a compensation?

My two cents - If you focus on the water, the first one looks better. If you look at the land, though, it somehow gets better in the second one. (-the contrast with the new water?)

I like better the new one, because it masks the blurry texture on the old one. There is too much green and too much texture in the new one though.

The second sea looks way too stormy. I preferred the first 1

I like the second one (the first one looks too 'windy') but it feels like there's a bit too much texture. But maybe it could work if you played with the land more. Try reducing the saturation of the colours a tad and see how it works out.

[spoiler=Is Africa better, worse, good but not good enough? Thoughts please!][img]http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/5177135.jpg[/img][/spoiler]

I like the new colour of Afrika better, but the texture is a bit too much present right now.

Agree with Matty.

[spoiler=Better?][img]http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/5177294.jpg[/img][/spoiler]

Yep, defenitely better. Could be a bit better still I think, but don't change it too much. Compare it with the green region - that one is really good I think.

The latest one looks best but I agree with Matty, it could be better. But please lower the saturation a bit, it's hard to review the texture/colours with it being so high.

Please don't reduce it too much, I like it, its so happy :)

[b]About gameplay[/b] I have already said I think Asia should be lower to +5. Look at the "Asia+Australia" block giving a juicy +7. I don't say it is inappropriate as it is, but make a comparison for example with "NA+SA" giving only +4. It would get more equilibrium in my opinion to lower Asia a bit. I think it would be not bad to let North Africa to touch Middle East in order to improve the connectivity in the middle of the map, making more easy to translate from West to East. Just if Virtuosity wants if it is still possible. Not a great difference by the way but still a nice finalization in my opinion. [b]About capitals[/b] Sorry Virtuosity I had missed your proposals as capitals. By the way here it is what I think: In words... [spoiler]2 caps - Virtuosity's proposal is not bad, let's call it the "double A option" (Argentina - Australia), really I had in mind a "double P option" (Peru - Papua New G.), almost identical, just an aesthetic matter. Me too I also thought to Canada - India, not bad... But I prefer one of the previous. 3 caps - I thought United States, South Africa, Mongolia. 4 caps - The same, just add Great Britain. I am not a fan of Virtuosity's placement for 4 caps. It suffers a common problem: 2 caps are more connected (Scandinavia and India) and 2 are more a part (E.Siberia and Congo). Plus I like to have all caps internal when it is possible. 5 caps - USA, GB, Congo, India, E.Siberia. Or Virtuosity's as well, being better as paths scheme. (C.America and Greenland at the place of USA and GB) I'm undecided... By the way they are similar. 6 caps - Add Argentina or Peru. More than 6 players looks to me really overcrowded. By the way Virtuosity's suggestions are good avoiding the Australian cap problem. 7 caps - Alaska, USA, Greenland, Ukraine, N.Africa, India, Mongolia. 8 caps - Add GB. 9 caps - Add Brazil and change from N.Africa to E.Africa.[/spoiler] As image... [spoiler][img]http://oi62.tinypic.com/352q26u.jpg[/img][/spoiler] Note: making North Africa and Middle East connected doesn't mean to change any of the capital placements proposed. [b]About saturation[/b] Well, reduce saturation just a bit as asked by the boss. [spoiler][i]She decides... Be patient![/i][/spoiler]

[spoiler=Africa Saturation Reduced Substantially][img]http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/5180176.jpg[/img][/spoiler]

I like it! Not so happy, but looks more like the site color standards.