Texas

lmao....Where the Tx flag was born....I can't even get my OWN DAMN flag right..haha

Well, I was going to defend it's placement, but I don't think moving it to Houston will hurt gameplay like I thought it would. It'll really just be swapping the distances between Austin and DFW (I know DFW is not REALLY in the right place, but you seemed very determined to have it in there and there's no room in that region to spell Fort Worth, and there's already a Dallas, so I hope that's a good enough compromise). It just makes the East a teeny bit less reachable. But nothing too bad. I think if we change the bridge to connect Houston/Hardin instead of Harris/Hardin that'll even it out. So I will change it!

Although re-reading your comment. Do you want it in the territory named Harris, or in the territory named Houston? Houston was previously named Austin, but since you wanted Austin where the city was, I renamed Austin Houston, since the city is close there. The other two counties in that territory are Waller and Montgomery. Let me know for sure which county you want it in and what you would like the territory currently named Houston to be called.

I messed up in the Central/south region between Calhoun/Brazaria and Austin/Blanco.

Guadalupe is Guadalupe, Comal, and Hays counties. Gonzalez is Gonzales, De Witt, and Fayette counties. I think Fayette is actually Caldwell, Bastrop and Lee. Which would make Caldwell, Williamson and Travis counties. Which means Austin should be THERE. And where Austin currently is is Llano and Burnett. And Blanco should really be Gillespie and Mason counties.

Sorry all I just want it written down. I think I've got it sorted out. I'll have to fix it on the map.

But that makes a problem because you can't move the airport which should be in Austin, east a territory and at the same time move the airport in Houston west a territory, that really would be too close.

So we can move Austin/Travis to where it SHOULD be (where Caldwell is now) and leave the airport where it is. Or leave Austin/Travis and it's attendant airport where it is (which geographically is a incorrect). Let me know what you guys think is best.

Wow, what a mess...

I think we should put a Chile flag on the map to see how many people notices

 First of all I know all the counties could not be put in. Just too many. But at the same time I would like to try to be as close to accurate as possible on some things people would pickup on.

 I wish I was better at explaining. lol

Hood territory changed to Tarrant
Harris territory gone for good.
Houston would be the new name.
Airport moved into the new Houston territory
Old Houston territory now could be Montgomery territory

I think that still is a fair map. Especially if you did actually find a way to make the Midland airport work. Just ideas naathim

Sorry JB, I must have skipped the last post you made where you explained what you wanted. That's my fault, not yours!

Still two problems.

First- the Austin mess which I described. It's in the wrong place, but the airport really should stay where it's at. So we can change the territories to be more accurate, but the airport really needs to stay where it is.

Second- As it is now the airport cannot go into Harris(Houston). The reason being is that it would create another border for that region. And the region is actually a little over-bordered as it is. 4 borders, 6 territories. If we put the airport in Harris(Houston) that makes it 5 borders, 6 territories, which is just silly.

Solutions to Houston airport problem:

1)Put the airport in Galveston, which I think would still be pretty acceptable.

2) Eliminate the Walker territory and incorporate it into Houston(Montgomery) That would give more room for the name anyhow. But it would still leave the majority of territories in that region as 5 territories/4 borders. But I think that's a little more manageable.

3) Make Hardin/Jefferson it's own region, eliminate Walker and make the current blue region a 3 territory/3 border region with the airport in Harris(Houston). This would keep the overall bonuses the same +3 becomes a +2 and a +1. But I did kind of like the one territory divided by a river idea. I don't think we really get too much of that, kind of interesting. And idk, but I feel like Harris(Houston) and Hardin are pretty well connected IRL and should be in the same region. However, I think this might be the best option/compromise overall.

I think any/all of those would be fair adjustments/changes, so let me know which one sounds best to you.

All the other name changes, no problem. Although I did like Throckmorton, it's such a catchy name! I didn't put in Tarrant for the same reason you suggest changing it though. I'm not sure it'll fit in that little tiny territory! The only other quibble I got with names is that I prefer Hidalgo to McAllen. I know it throws off the theme of cities=airports. But idk Hidalgo just sounds more Texan to me lol. Not a big deal, if you want it to be McAllen, it'll be McAllen, just wanted to bring that up for your consideration.

I don't know if an airport is really doable at Midland. It may be more factually correct. But I think it would just be superfluous for gameplay. Even if you put one there, most of the surrounding territories can still reach either Elpaso, Amarillo, or Austin in just as many moves. Plus it's such a small territory to fit a graphic in.

I like idea 3 I think naathim. Can we give that a look.

Also, the tarrant county is a big deal because texans will call us out on the map. They will complain. lol
 
The McAllen deal is a big big deal. McAllen is our most highly populated hispanic community. Texans know where McAllen is, but not nearly as many know it is in Hidalgo county.

The Midland airport idea was just an idea. I am not pushing that too much.

And if you think you can put the Austin airport in a different spot if you like. But if you look it up on a map....it is in the most southeast portion of Travis County.

My whole thing with the airports is. I wanted the airports to be the names of big cities.

Hope I'm not being a jerk. I am not trying to be. ty

Cool. I should have the map updated by Sunday. I spent today plugging it into Hoods map editor and playing around with that.

Once you get all the connection lines in there right, it doesn't play too bad. But playing against AI and playing against people, I think we all know how different that experience can be. But the regions and super-regions seem to work out pretty well. The most problematic is the panhandle. I think I'm going to rejigger that so it's a liiiittle easier to defend and hold bonuses on.

It feels very empty with just 5 players lol

We'll go with option three then!

McAllen and Tarrant will be changed. Maybe we can call that region Hidalgo lol

We need names for all the regions though. So start putting a bigger list together.

check the avatar...I think I am geographically correct. The moron looking part, well, it is what it is.....lmao

Okay, I think I addressed everything...

Young, San Saba, Tarrant, McAllen, Houston/Harris/Montgomery all correct. Lee fixed. There's still the issue with Austin/Travis and I never got a definitive answer from JB about what he wanted done. So I changed Caldwell to Travis county, because that is correct geography. But I left Austin where it is because JB wants the territories with airports to be named after large cities and Austin is nearest.

Broke up +3 region in the East to a +1 and +2 region so that the airport could be moved to the Houston territory and still make a defensible region. Walker territory eliminated and added into the renamed Montgomery territory. Good luck to whoever has to try and get that name to fit!!

Stephens territory expanded westward, because you could block that whole movement with just two territories, Coke and Knox.

Adjusted the Panhandle region to be more defensible, although not sure if I made it TOO defensible now... Superregion stats(with and without Lamb territory)- 12-13 regions, 5-6 borders, +7 bonus. Hall territory eliminated. (and I forgot the territory circle in Wheeler, but I'm not changing it now lol)

Down to 108 territories. Not sure how I ended up there, but I think it's a pretty good number for neutrals. At least going by what I understand of the chart.

Played a bit with the graphics, just for fun, but that's kind of what I had in mind for the Wanted Poster idea. It ain't necessary or anything, so whoever does graphics can throw it out with the rest of my clunky looks lol.

The fact that you have made a basis, a theme and most importantly an accurate & organised game-map, is at least half the work of the Graphics guy that will turn it into a D12 map.
This sort of work is priceless!
Great Work!

As soon as I finish the remake of GB & Ireland, I will make this my next port of call, unless Psymon gets some available map time before then.

I foresee this being played a lot for 9 player games, I know JB will be on it all the time!!

It's good to see that our team is getting back to full strength once again.

naathim, could you please utilise your 'map OCD' and proof read all the label spellings before the graphic work starts, whenever you have time?
It would also be good if you could play it on the map tester with it's new connections etc?
It will ensure a smooth progression of the map without major remakes if everything is set in stone.

Thanks for the compliments Aero. I'll go ahead and play with it in the tester. And I'll make sure everything is written correctly.

I did notice two woops. The northernmost orange panhandle region is supposed to be +1, not +2. and the yellow region below it is supposed to be +3. So I'll fix that.

One question for people. To condense things a bit, do you think I should combine the two Easternmost regions (yellow/green, Hardin, Jefferson, Polk, Sabine, Jasper) into one +3 territory? I think it's fine as it is, but just curious as to what others might recommend.

I would prefer to keep the territories to a maximum if possible for large games.

I am totally good with the map on my part. I do not know map making and can only say THANK YOU to naathim for taking the time to do this.

I think after it gets to beta and we all play, then we will find if there is any little adjustment that needs to be done.

I have sent out territory names, as far as super region I guess. Did I not come up with enough regions. Let me know and I will see what I can do. Just let me know how many group territories we are doing. Are we doing Super Territories, I'm not sure how that would work, again just let me know.

Thanks again naathim and aero

I only use super regions to describe gameplay. It's just an easy way to describe a group of regions you can defend using good chokepoints and not too many borders. It's just an informal term. It won't have any actual bearing on naming or coding or anything. So we don't need any names for those.

We DO need names for every region though, which is every differently colored grouping of territories. So 27 different labels/names.