Texas

It appears that swapping Alpine & Brewster must be my fault. All naathim's demo's show them the other way around to the Beta map.

I have looked through most of this forum and can't find where it was requested to swap them, so perhaps it's been done inadvertently by me.
It would be handy if naathim could remark and let us know if or why he might have requested that they be swapped.

Perhaps someone might know where in this forum it is requested to change them? Something is nagging in my mind that recalls a discussion about these two territories.

As soon as I get clarity, I will swap them.

Whoops. Names are my fault. Presupposition on my part.

Brewster was split in two because it's gigantic. Alpine was chosen because it was the largest town in that area and the county seat. That way it still had a connection to Brewster too since the county itself was divided.

Foley would be fine with me.

Wow, everybody says "it's my fault" !

Anyway you surely did a great job guys! Now we are just discussing details.

I think splitting a county in 2, one with the county name the other with the county seat name, is a right technique. The problem is only that Alpine is in the northern part of Brewster, not in the southern. Since a simple swap can solve the issue pretty well for me.

I also launched the idea of Foley as historical name but I don't know, may be a bit not consistent with the rest of the map that has got modern county names. A county abolished 150 years ago... Probably not even who lives there know it! To be consistent you should use historical names on the whole map that it would require such a great historical research...

As you prefer, I can live with both solutions. The first seems the easier though. Also, thanks Noxon for signaling those 2 little misspelling, nobody noticed them!

I agree with the swap. Don't think we should make a big deal out of this.

Thanks guys!

Okay, I suppose a simple swap will suffice. However, I am unsure of what will happen in games if I was to swap territory names, especially if these cards are owned?

If I rename one as the other, due to it being a duplicate label even for a few seconds, I'm guessing this may be catastrophic, so I would of course first rename one e.g. ( Alpine 1 ) then change Brewster to Alpine and finally rename ( Alpine 1 ) as Brewster.

If any programmers read this, will there be any problems swapping labels in this manner?
I am guessing "No", because labels have previously been changed whilst games are active, with no problems.

Nothing will happen. They have a different ID and everything is dependant on the ID. Well I'm assuming...

Chaos Aero, absolute, maddening chaos. If you choose to release this plague upon this hapless, innocent map, god have mercy on your soul.

Or, nothing, nothing might also happen.

This would be my guess as well.

@naathim.... LMAO!

I have swapped Alpine & Brewster and will edit the labels now.

Thanks Aero, as a last comment, now that I am playing a couple of games on Texas, let me just say that graphic is sublime and game-play is very well accomplished, everything works fine: bonuses, connectivity and defensibility.
I definitively applaud it.

I must say at first I had my doubts about this region because to me it felt like lump of territories that's been forced into a risk map but after playing a couple of games all those doubts vanished and instead turned into admiration. I don't know how but aeronautic definitely succeeded with this.
I agree with His Eminence, this map should be applauded and receive way more attention than it has.

My conclusion: Never have doubts when it comes to aeronautic.

Why thank you! However, it was naathim that created the game-play with the help of V98 and the forum peeps!

Note: after having played some (deathmatch) games on this map, I must say that it's really hard to get into that right part. It's kind of a must to have a territory inside it, otherwise you can be blocked from the kill very easily if your target has a territory there.

This makes the map a bit harder. I'm not really saying that that's a bad thing.

There have been 2 occasions where I could have killed a player except I had no territories on the right of the map and to go around the river would be far too many other players troops to get through. This was frustrating.

In this case, the Bridge would have been good.
----------------------------------------------------

I am also in a game where I am a prisoner there (East) and there is another player who tried to hold the 7 bonus in the centre and as a result, has been attacked by everybody, whereas I was unreachable by some players and too strong for others, as well as being concentrated and a dangerous counter-attack deterrent.
This allowed me to survive whilst the other player will continue to be slowly reduced until it's worth killing them in a (20) Capped Game.
All regions are spoken for (apart from the (7 bonus) Red region), so there is nowhere to go and I have to wait before I can break out.

In this case, the Bridge would have been bad.