Fractured China - [Quenched]

[jaytorade]

I think there really needs to be an arrow or other indication on the playing area of the map that Fujian and Taipai bombard each other. I didnt realize this just from the layout.

Thanks, Jaytorade

[anamainiacks]

The 'i' on Jiangxi and Shanghai are rather hard to see on the small map.

Also, not much of a problem, but Bangladesh could be more centralised on the small map. It looks like it could shift up and left a bit more (:

[isaiah40]

I think there really needs to be an arrow or other indication on the playing area of the map that Fujian and Taipai bombard each other. I didnt realize this just from the layout.

Thanks, Jaytorade

You mean like here?

The 'i' on Jiangxi and Shanghai are rather hard to see on the small map.

Also, not much of a problem, but Bangladesh could be more centralised on the small map. It looks like it could shift up and left a bit more (:

So you can read them right? Can you please explain what you mean by "more centralised"?

[Victor Sullivan]

I think there really needs to be an arrow or other indication on the playing area of the map that Fujian and Taipai bombard each other. I didnt realize this just from the layout.

Thanks, Jaytorade

You mean like here?

No, I think me meant have an actual arrow on the map (like I suggested I while back ) to make the bombardment more obvious.

-Sully

[isaiah40]

No, I think me meant have an actual arrow on the map (like I suggested I while back ) to make the bombardment more obvious.

-Sully

The problem with that is then people would think that they can attack between the two. But let me see what I can do, I would have to squeeze it in the legend without shrinking the text any.

[anamainiacks]

The 'i' on Jiangxi and Shanghai are rather hard to see on the small map.

Also, not much of a problem, but Bangladesh could be more centralised on the small map. It looks like it could shift up and left a bit more (:

So you can read them right? Can you please explain what you mean by "more centralised"?

No I can't read them, if not I wouldn't be raising it up as a point to help this map improve right? I only know they're there because I know what these places are called in real life, and so squint to search for them.

By 'more centralised' I mean that there could be an equal amount of space before and after the territory name, between the name and the territory border. Like, the 'h' is really close to the bottom right border, while there's lots of room between the 'B' and the top border (:

[AndyDufresne]

No, I think me meant have an actual arrow on the map (like I suggested I while back ) to make the bombardment more obvious.

-Sully

The problem with that is then people would think that they can attack between the two. But let me see what I can do, I would have to squeeze it in the legend without shrinking the text any.

I didn't even see this small element of gameplay, I don't think it has come into play in any of my games. Perhaps instead of arrows, a small little icon of some sort? Or even a Chinese character of something that translates into bombard could work.

=================

Overall, the few games I've played on this map so far have been pretty great. I might add this map to my regular rotation of 1vs1.


--Andy

[Victor Sullivan]

No, I think me meant have an actual arrow on the map (like I suggested I while back ) to make the bombardment more obvious.

-Sully

The problem with that is then people would think that they can attack between the two. But let me see what I can do, I would have to squeeze it in the legend without shrinking the text any.

Well, you could change the color of the arrow.

Overall, the few games I've played on this map so far have been pretty great. I might add this map to my regular rotation of 1vs1.


--Andy

It would be better if I wasn't losing

-Sully

[isaiah40]

I'll be making the small change to denote the bombardment on the playable area and the legend here shortly.

[thenobodies80]

not read doesn't seem a good reason to me to change a written thing / add other icons....
I mean if now write things is not enough, what's the next?

[Victor Sullivan]

Well, the idea is to make the map as player-friendly as possible, yes?

-Sully

[thenobodies80]

Well, the idea is to make the map as player-friendly as possible, yes?

-Sully

Look Berlin 1961.
This map is user-friendly as it is now.
We have to write things, not write an encyclopedia just because people is too lazy to read on the map.

if things are written, then is up to people read them.

[isaiah40]

After looking at this, and looking at Poland and Berlin, I think I will leave the map as it is. Both Poland and Berlin have the bombardments written down only.

[Gilligan]

Same with Waterloo and such.

[Halmir]

Fractured Europe... you mean a topsy-turvey world where Europe is broken into several countries, each ruled by some various party ranging from nazi to monarchy to democracy to communist? It's called the History of Europe since the fall of Rome. I think Europe is already quite fractured and I dunno how easy of a sell this is going to be... what about picking on the USA's great rival Russia... oh-wait... The UK would make a good fractured addition though. My advice is to pick something that isn't already broken up.

On the whole I'd side with IH here...

England has always struggled with Europe - we're in it, but see ourselves as very separate from it. Personally, I would think that very few Brits have a great affinity with Europe and the EU, and as for the rest of Europe, I think it depends on politics much more than any great desire for Continental Unity. Indeed, some of the fiercest rivalrys are held amongst neighbouring states/nations.

The easy way of doing this (with a nod to history) is to look at Britain post Roman but pre Arthur - a whole bunch of warring Baronial states. It doens't take much imagination to see everyone reverting to that after some calamity! Plus you could add in raiding Vikings, Saxons etc.

PS loving the series, keep up the good work!!

[Victor Sullivan]

Fractured Europe... you mean a topsy-turvey world where Europe is broken into several countries, each ruled by some various party ranging from nazi to monarchy to democracy to communist? It's called the History of Europe since the fall of Rome. I think Europe is already quite fractured and I dunno how easy of a sell this is going to be... what about picking on the USA's great rival Russia... oh-wait... The UK would make a good fractured addition though. My advice is to pick something that isn't already broken up.

On the whole I'd side with IH here...

England has always struggled with Europe - we're in it, but see ourselves as very separate from it. Personally, I would think that very few Brits have a great affinity with Europe and the EU, and as for the rest of Europe, I think it depends on politics much more than any great desire for Continental Unity. Indeed, some of the fiercest rivalrys are held amongst neighbouring states/nations.

The easy way of doing this (with a nod to history) is to look at Britain post Roman but pre Arthur - a whole bunch of warring Baronial states. It doens't take much imagination to see everyone reverting to that after some calamity! Plus you could add in raiding Vikings, Saxons etc.

PS loving the series, keep up the good work!!

First, whoa. That discussion was from, like, ages ago.

Second, I saw your editing reason, lil missy!

-Sully

[chuck_thunder]

I love the look of this map. After playing a bit, i think the capital bonus are a bit unbalanced. Perhaps 1, 3, 6, 9 troops would be better.

[AndyDufresne]

I love the look of this map. After playing a bit, i think the capital bonus are a bit unbalanced. Perhaps 1, 3, 6, 9 troops would be better.

I'm not sure they are imbalanced, but in the games I've played, they've been a target by everyone at some point, since they add some nice extra troops.


--Andy

[isaiah40]

I love the look of this map. After playing a bit, i think the capital bonus are a bit unbalanced. Perhaps 1, 3, 6, 9 troops would be better.

I had something like that originally, and in my Fractured America map. It was brought up that those bonuses made the capitals not attractive enough and thereby they weren't used. Now with the bonuses as they are they are being used, but I don't find them unbalanced, or make the game unbalanced. You are spread out so you have to place those men wisely to stay in the game.

[Bruceswar]

The legend is hard to read. Maybe a slight font change would make it much easier to read? Otherwise nice map.

[Gillipig]

I'd suggest you make the capitals 3 neutrals instead of 2. As it is now it's all about capitals and very little about the other bonuses.

[CJ Lues]

Hey guys!

Its a nice map! me and my team are playing it at the moment, i love the graphics!

Just one thing... i placed a nice big stack on Hunan, but i can't attack anywhere with it...!

Will someone plz look into it...

Regards,
CJ

[isaiah40]

Hey guys!

Its a nice map! me and my team are playing it at the moment, i love the graphics!

Just one thing... i placed a nice big stack on Hunan, but i can't attack anywhere with it...!

Will someone plz look into it...

Regards,
CJ

Game number?

[CJ Lues]

Hey guys!

Its a nice map! me and my team are playing it at the moment, i love the graphics!

Just one thing... i placed a nice big stack on Hunan, but i can't attack anywhere with it...!

Will someone plz look into it...

Regards,
CJ

Game number?

sorry its my mistake...! its al sorted out...!

[isaiah40]

The legend is hard to read. Maybe a slight font change would make it much easier to read? Otherwise nice map.

Well everyone was happy with the font. I did try a whole bunch of other oriental fonts, but this one is much clearer and easier to read. I'll have to wait and see if anyone else has the same problem with it.

I'd suggest you make the capitals 3 neutrals instead of 2. As it is now it's all about capitals and very little about the other bonuses.

I'm not opposed to changing them, but let's wait and see if anyone has complaints about them.