USA

The problem is if people don't want to be bottlenecked more than they already are then it would give them more incentive to attack the player that controls that region. Nobody would want to be attacked from all sides just to control a region that is only worth a 3 bonus when their are other regions that are much easier to control. If someone were to take that region and start stacking troops there then they will most surely be attacked by any other players that pass through there. There would actually be less incentive to control this region than any other on the map because of the way it can be hit from all sides. I honestly only believe it should be 3 because it sticks with the unwritten rules of how bonus's should be layed out. If you have one Territory that only has to defend 3 of it's states from only 4 other states that can attack it and give it a 2 Bonus, then it's not fair to keep another territory on this map that has to defend all 4 of it's states from attacks that can come in from 7 different states the same 2 bonus. If you don't agree that's fine I am just giving my opinion.

Sorry Holt I don't agree... LOL He has been waiting an answer for 3 years!! I think Glanru was right to set that bonus as +2, I mean +3 could work but having played the map several times I think it's good as it is.


The gameplay is nice but capitals are not so easy to set in this map.
I want to find something better for 4 and 5 players, then I will post it here when I'll have a good solution.

Bishop>You just responded to a comment made 3+ years ago... LOL. I wonder if that is a record!

Yes, probably it's a record! But I'm trying to keep all map threads live...

My purpose here is to comment about capitals. The placement for 5 players in this map suffers a similar lacking as in Victron for 6 players, 2 caps in one side (plus in the same region, they often kill each other) and the other 3 caps in the opposite side. Then here my proposal:


As for 4 players also the current placement doesn't look so good. Really it's hard to find one really good but I may suggest something like this:

I like your proposals.

In 4p Louisiana would need to move to Arkansas to be 3 steps equally.

Still I would prefer Louisiana for several reasons. But I am open to other proposals if someone has any.

Considering how old this map is and my general lack of caps game experience, I find it highly likely the cap placement for some of the player counts is not ideal.

That said, I do remember wanting to avoid Louisiana for a cap placement as it blocks off half of the map from one of 2 choke points. Though, that isn't really a big concern for that game mode with that number of players, if no cap is on that side.

Distances between cap's are not better with Arkansas instead of Louisiana. It's a quadrilateral scheme with 4 edges and 2 diagonals.
 Arkansas makes the edges equals but the diagonals unequal. The result is: Wisconsin and Arizona are a tiny bit more apart than Montana and Arkansas.
 Louisiana makes the diagonals equals but one edge unequal. The result is: Wisconsin and Louisiana are a tiny bit more apart than Montana and Arizona.

That is the point and why I think in this case there is no problem with Louisiana.
The lacking point is that the cap's are a bit on one side of the map but that is not such great problem and I couldn't find anything better for 4 players.

About 5 players, nobody commented specifically but I think it is okay.

I did have one possible suggestion for 5p... Montana to Dakota.
It keeps the same 4 steps from N. California & Texas and reduces Lower Michigan from 5 to 4, but it puts the Cap on a border with only 2 territories to defend the region, so I prefer not to waste time suggesting things that just cause more correspondence when I know what the response will be.

I think your 4p & 5p are good positions and have looked at all your reasons for them as well as calculated what you are trying to achieve here.

I think you should wait for a little while in case of any objection and you would need at least a second opinion from Psymon, V98 or naathim and then if okay, ask Vexer or Fendi to unlock the map so that you can change them... make a list of what must be checked and unchecked though.

Well okay, thanks Commodore I will wait for more feedback by the cartographic team.

If someone is going to take the time, there is also another proposal in place for Victron map.