Texas

This is a big map favourite. Looks great, fun to play on, played 40+ games so far, no issues.

Wow, I didn't realise this was still a Beta map - I think it can definitely be released now, would you agree? It's been Beta for over 2 months.

[quote=naathim - Aug 15, 02:52 AM]I think a bridge between Cherokee and Limestone would not be unreasonable. It shouldn't mess with distances between ports. But I'm sure it would effect caps somewhat. Thoughts? Keeping the center wide open is good for if you get a bum start and can't get going anywhere, let's you live a few rounds and get a second chance. [/quote] Here are the current Cap positions, take a look at the effect that a bridge between Cherokee & Limestone would have? [spoiler=Cap Positions][img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/map_resources/Texas/Texas-Cap-Positions-2-5.jpg[/img][img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/map_resources/Texas/Texas-Cap-Positions-6-9.jpg[/img][/spoiler]

Looks a great job. I still never played it, but I would say the gameplay is not bad the way as it is. Though the bridge addition proposed by Naathim may have a sense. It could be useful some more opinions on that subject. To make clear what we are speaking about: [spoiler=Bridge Addition (Image)][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/Texas_bridge_zpseq5jybd0.jpg[/img][/spoiler] What I can remark is that we got two easy-to-defend "super-regions" with less than 4 borders, one western and one eastern. The bridge addition doesn't effect this: it would only reduce the eastern one a bit in size but still it stands with 3 borders only. Plus the eastern river as it is now is less rich in bridges compared to the others, so that the eastern area seems to be somehow the most a part from the rest. What is cool is that the capital placements seems to be improved by the bridge addition, making the distances from the eastern capital equal to the others rather than one hop longer. It may be a proof that the eastern area needs to be more connected. It's hard to get a perfect evaluation of such a large map, hard to say if it is better to add that bridge or not. However I tend to see more positive effects than negatives, since I have nothing against it.

Yes, I also thought it improved most of the Capital steps, however in 6p Caps, it reduced the steps too much. Yes, it does create a bit less of an easily defended super region in the east. However, it is something to be thankful for in Quad Team games (like I am currently playing) where if one team gets the west super region with natural neutral buffers and very few of your team's troops in the area (which is what our opponents got), it allow the your team the chance to even the playing field in the east, because for that many of an opponents troops to be spawned in the west, of course more of yours are going to be spawned in the east. The only thing that allows a team a better super region in the east is the lack of a Sheriff Post inside the super region.

Yeah you are right Aero, I had noticed that problem in 6p Caps, then I focused on the others and I forgot about it. As for the east area, even with the bridge addition it will still form a super-region with 3 borders only (Cherokee, Gregg and Hardin); just a bit reduced in size, not a +6 super-region anymore but a +5. Do u think it would be crucial? I don't know. If you think the bridge may be added I can study a new placement for 6 Caps, unless you want to do it by yourself. The proposal came directly from Naathim 2 months ago, but nobody argued about it. Since what people think? Should we add the bridge or not? [b]Should we announce a poll on it?[/b] Personally my vote is favourable. Another remark, I think the suggested number of players should be set to "8-9", accordingly to what I said [url=http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=2201&board=20]here[/url]. On a last note, maybe this very large size map would be suitable for the D12 context if Admins are allowed to create a special game with 12 players ("inventing" 3 new colours, let say for example white, brown and dark-green). Since we should finalize at best!

I am happy to change or add whatever is needed for the best of the map! I should not really vote on it, but take a neutral stance. I will only give known facts and helpful advice on whatever decisions are made and then make it all happen. I don't think naathim thought of the bridge as needed, it was in direct response to 'huskers01' requests. http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=2077&page=12#post-35978 He plays the map a lot in team games and regularly sees most of the action take place on the outer territories due to the huge size and indefensibility of the map centre, however, it was designed this way to ensure that in 9 player games, going last and being in everyone's way for bonuses, doesn't mean you die early, you can sit where nobody wants to expose themselves and build, build, build until you are scary or at least off putting!!

Oh now I see, the proposal didn't come from Naathim but from Huskers01, well but doesn't change, in any case Naathim said it was not unreasonable and I agree with him.

I haven't played this map a lot and find it hard to vote on it. I can see no influence of that bridge to the two most obvious super regions (except that there is another way out, which makes the right one a bit better, but there's also a second way in of course). I don't know what the general feeling of this map is. Is it highly connected? Easy to go from one way to another? If so, don't add another connection. Just from a theoretical view the extra bridge looks good though.

Thanks for your opinion Matty. Nobody else commented. Probably the bridge addition is not considered such a significant change and most of people are neutral on this subject.

Yeah, I just clarified what Huskers brought up, that he felt the East might be better connected. A Cherokee/Limestone connection was the best place I felt for a bridge. Once I got to looking at it, I felt that it would probably be a good idea so you don't have to go the long way around there, just open it up some. But the map is open enough that it wasn't really necessitated. Especially since I think caps is favored on this? And cap placement is finicky. The way they're laid out now seems to be pretty good. Looking over Aero's maps, looks like the already identified 6p caps would be the only real issue. Since nobody really seems to be running in here demanding that it be changed, I think it's a bit of a moot point. While I think it would be a good addition, I don't think it's in any way necessary or that it would be a drastic improvement to gameplay.

Here he is! ;) You know how it was intended. It's very true that nobody is knocking down the door to get a new connection and many games are played on this map regularly, especially Long Term. [quote=huskers01]Ive played this about 15 times already and I love it. The gameplay is smooth and fluid. I think maybe a bridge in the east is needed. Most of the gameplay is on the perimeter because the middle is so big its impossible to control and/or defend. maybe a lake or two could help with the middle play. Again love this map cant wait to see if its changed or left alone. either way im going to continue playing it. Thx d12 for the great work your putting in to make this site a great place to play risk. THIS SITE ROCKS[/quote] Even huskers01 didn't think it was essential, it would be good if he could give the benefit of his knowledge from the many more games he's played on it since posting?

I had a PM from -NoXoN- about a couple of misspellings. Duvall should be Duval Kennedy should be Kenedy I have checked the Texas Counties online and I believe he is correct. I will change this on the map and edit the names in the Cartographer Panel. Perhaps Robert Duvall & John F Kennedy were a big influence in the error?! ^^ If anyone can find any more, please let me know as soon as possible, before the map goes live preferably.

[spoiler=Texas 15 for reference][img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/map_resources/Texas/Texas15.jpg[/img][/spoiler][spoiler=Texas 16][img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/map_resources/Texas/Texas16.jpg[/img][/spoiler] I have corrected the misspellings above and while I was there I corrected a few graphic things I was unhappy about: I cut off the left river, top & bottom to make a sharp edge where the map edge ends rather than a fade, which you'd only have over the sea. I got rid of the sharp corners on the paper for the Key and put a bit more wear on it. I narrowed the outline all around the Panhandle, because it was slightly thicker than the rest. I will now edit the two labels in the Control Panel and overwrite the image with the amended one above.

I checked all county names and the few cases of town names and [u]I cannot find any misspellings other than those 2.[/u] But... but... Alpine (eastern side of Texas) doesn't seem to be correctly placed. It has been used to represent the southern part of Brewster county. But Alpine is in the northern part of Brewster county, almost next to the border with Jeff Davis county. Perhaps those two names should be changed each other -- Alpine and Brewster -- in order to make it geographically more correct. Or... you can keep Brewster as it is and name the southern part as Foley: it's a historical county abolished in 1897 and absorbed by Brewster. Just learned it right now from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foley_County,_Texas