Map in process
  • 113 posts
  • Page 8 of 8
pygmyhippo277 wrote:
And don't forget you can have capitals in the same place for different numbers of players.
“Emigrate or Degenerate.”

pygmyhippo277 wrote:
Also there are some regions that are unreachable... add some bridges probably.
“Emigrate or Degenerate.”

orzhovboss wrote:
The nearly-final map and the caps example map are quite different, I assume when thinking about caps I should essentially translate the positions to the nearly-final map?
pygmyhippo277 wrote:
Ohhhh I didn't see that... I think that maybe you should put a capital over on those islands?
“Emigrate or Degenerate.”

sfclimbers wrote:
Agree with pygmy regarding not having 2 player caps be at polar opposites. It is generally more fun/challenging to have multiple attack paths to reach the capital. Consider 2 player World Classic; you can go across the Kamchatka/Alaska path, or the Iceland/Greenland path, or the long way around through Africa to the Venezuela/Central America path. That requires much more complex decision making from a defensive posture, while also keeping open more options from an offensive posture. This is especially important when the initial drop blocks one or more of the paths between your capital and the capital of your opponent (i.e. more paths reduces possibility of not being able to use your own capital as part of an eventual kill attack).
Hoodlum wrote:
there's a lot of rivers, i don't know the geography of netherlands but i'd make sure the main rivers are in the map, and the less known could be there for gameplay while others you can ommit and replace with a territory line instead. you really should have all territories of the same region at least touching/connecting to at least one other of the same region for intuitive sake. therefore, i'd replace those rivers with territory lines. (if it makes sense geographically) or just keep the bridges there.
for gameplay demonstration, i have just stuck a whole bunch of bridges so that there is more manueverability around the map. we don't want this many bridges. this is where i would look to see if a river needs to be there?
the bonuses have changed according to the bonus calculator.

example (click to show)

edit. i'd probably make sure these rivers are definitely there, and look at where you don't need the ones that are running through the same region...and keep the ones that are separating regions for region defensibility
Spoiler (click to show)

edit. i would looked to see if these rivers need to be on the map.
replace with territory lines (click to show)

Hoodlum is online.
The_Bishop wrote:
Basically I agree with Hoodlum: less rivers (keep only the main rivers), less bridges, regions more connected internally and lower bonuses should work better.
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
The_Bishop is online.