zarvinny wrote:I honestly believe continent bonuses should be as small as possible for the bigger continents. That way, they will be easier to hold, since folks are usually not as angry about somebody having a bonus of 2 or something. In addition, this lax approach toward somebody holding big continents with small bonuses will make the bigger continents more attractive, thus balancing the game. As is the current precedent, there are generally 1 or 2 holdable continents for each map, and if anyone dare attempt take Europe they risk having the rest of the board turn on them.
just my opinion.
in conclusion Europe's bonus should be 3 or 4
...so you're saying we should start an uprising to revamp all of RISK just so you can take North America w/o getting your butt kicked? heres my advice. GOOD BORDERS! THAT WAS THE SINGLE DUMBEST SUGGESTION ON THIS THREAD!
Yeah, I agree with wrightfan on this one. No other map (that I know of) has used this logic, so why should this one?
edbeard wrote:are you going to move the army circles at all for the smaller islands?
currently new zealand and iceland are both totally covered by their circles. new zealand is easier to figure out which continent it belongs to, but iceland is very ambiguous
ya, i agree. you should move the army cirlce on iceland down a little bit so you can see what color it is.
I suggest doing the same for Iceland and New Zealand; not because people won't be able to tell what continent they're a part of, but because it is not appealing to have the number of armies you have completely cover the region.
Why is the normal world a different shade of blue than the sea? If it's underwater, I think it would be cooler to just have it BE the sea and not have it different like that. It would be a cool effect.
thegeneralpublic wrote:Why is the normal world a different shade of blue than the sea? If it's underwater, I think it would be cooler to just have it BE the sea and not have it different like that. It would be a cool effect.
I don't really understand what you mean by "be the sea."
That blue background you have...can you make that extend into the parts of the continents that are now underwater rather than coloring them differently? it would enhance the flooding effect.
thegeneralpublic wrote:That blue background you have...can you make that extend into the parts of the continents that are now underwater rather than coloring them differently? it would enhance the flooding effect.
Sure, I can probably do that. I'll see how it looks.
thegeneralpublic wrote:That blue background you have...can you make that extend into the parts of the continents that are now underwater rather than coloring them differently? it would enhance the flooding effect.
Sure, I can probably do that. I'll see how it looks.
thegeneralpublic wrote:That blue background you have...can you make that extend into the parts of the continents that are now underwater rather than coloring them differently? it would enhance the flooding effect.
Sure, I can probably do that. I'll see how it looks.
yea, that's a pretty good idea.
How about you sort of fade it, if you get my meaning: have it lighter closer to the bits that are above the sea and fade it into the darker sea colour - it would be more realistic too.
nmhunate wrote:Speak English... It is the language that God wrote the bible in.
I think you should keep the flooded oceans like they are and look online for already existent underwater plateaus (I know that they surround england for example) and add those.
unriggable wrote:I think you should keep the flooded oceans like they are and look online for already existent underwater plateaus (I know that they surround england for example) and add those.
Yeah, that would probably be more accurate, because today's landmasses are really only parts of these plateaus that happen to be above sea level. I could probably use this map (the same elevation map I used to create my original map):
