Page 7 of 35
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:08 pm
by edbeard
you don't have to edit your post unit. that's funny though.
good luck with your map
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:17 pm
by Lone.prophet
Unit_2 wrote:edbeard , I don't think you read what i said was be done, i said that we were changing "PEI" to "P.E.I".
lol unit the suggestion was changing P.E.I. into PEI
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:23 pm
by valeria
So much talk about PEI. Yes P.E.I. stands for Prince Edward Island... so who cares? If it looks neater with just PEI, then do it, if it doesn't look neater, don't do it...jeeze.
Also, where's the monkey? There's lots of room for him on the map... maybe he should have his own territory that can't be occupied by anyone except the monkey. And it can be a random territory every game....eh? No? You should add a poll: Who think the monkey should stay....haha, j/k
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:17 pm
by gimil
No moneky
The last think we need is copywrite infringements coming from family guy

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:21 pm
by oaktown
Hmm... a smaller map like this one is likely to see a lot of two, three, and four player games. With a low number of players the likelihood of somebody starting out with a small, 3 territory bonus region is pretty high. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is cause for concern when the bonuses for the little regions are so high.
Looking at the bonuses, I see that a three territory region gets a +3, a four territory region (with more borders) gets a +3, the five territory regions get a +3, and an eight territory region gets a +5. In general, I'd say that if there is one region that presents a clearly advantageous start something needs to be done.
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:35 pm
by Unit_2
oaktown wrote:Hmm... a smaller map like this one is likely to see a lot of two, three, and four player games. With a low number of players the likelihood of somebody starting out with a small, 3 territory bonus region is pretty high. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is cause for concern when the bonuses for the little regions are so high.
Looking at the bonuses, I see that a three territory region gets a +3, a four territory region (with more borders) gets a +3, the five territory regions get a +3, and an eight territory region gets a +5. In general, I'd say that if there is one region that presents a clearly advantageous start something needs to be done.
So make the three territory worth +2, the four the same(+3) 5 +4, 8 +6?
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:26 am
by Lone.prophet
we disusced some territories bonusses but i forgot them
anyway ill change some
but still i think duplesis should be 3 casue it borders so many countries
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 4:01 am
by Lone.prophet
Updates:
Changed churchil falls name
changed some bonusses to what i think is right
didnt chang P.E.I. cause it looked stupid

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:47 am
by Gilles#1
it is possible to add Montreal area. Because population of Montreal area represent 25% of the province. And i think a good idea it' to add a bonus for Montreal the most important region of the map. (See Montreal map Conquer Club).
You do a great job, nice map
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:44 pm
by Lone.prophet
ill try to add montreal but i am against an extra capitol bonus cause it just is against balance whatever
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:04 pm
by Unit_2
Yes, what Lone said, i don't think that would be fair in war which is what CC is.
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:08 pm
by Kaplowitz
It is very hard to see the borders in Labrador
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:46 pm
by Lone.prophet
mointreal + cleare bordes will some in the next update i just have to tweak things some more
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:54 am
by Lone.prophet
Updates
Added motreal
Made borders clearer
changed the bg a bit
Removed noise between sea and land

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:21 pm
by Unit_2
i liked the noise... and in the legand "Quebec" doesn't have the " ' " in it.
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:56 pm
by Lone.prophet
ok i did the spelling and also made a small version

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:30 am
by oaktown
I don't have much to say... perhaps you could tweak a couple of borders slightly for clarity. There's room at the Halifax-Acadian Coastal-Fundy Coastal border to increase the length of the border a touch.
Other than that I don't have any problems with this. I'll flip through the thread later and see what the talk has been about.
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:53 am
by Lone.prophet
great will tweak that part for clarification a bit
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:58 am
by edbeard
I don't think the colour of Newfoundland in the legend matches its colour on the map?
Nova Scotia's colour is a bit sketchy in terms of matching as well.
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:02 am
by Lone.prophet
they do match

bit anyway its clear which one is which right?
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:24 am
by Lone.prophet
ok for now i did the border with halifax hope its clearer now
and for the legend ill wait for some more comments before i change it
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:25 am
by Unit_2
The border looks alot better to me, i don't know about oaktown because he's color blind.....

, J/K Oaktown.
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:04 pm
by edbeard
The Nunavik legend colour matches the newfoundland colour on the map more than Nunavik
The newfoundland legend colour seemingly doesn't appear anywhere on the map except the legend.
I think it's a problem and it's not good to figure out what part of the map is which by the process of elimination.
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:23 pm
by Lone.prophet
i dont really see it as you since the newfoundland color is way to bright in my eyes compared to the nunavik legend color, but ill release the whiteish border maybe it would make a difference
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:31 pm
by gimil
edbeard wrote:The Nunavik legend colour matches the newfoundland colour on the map more than Nunavik
The newfoundland legend colour seemingly doesn't appear anywhere on the map except the legend.
I think it's a problem and it's not good to figure out what part of the map is which by the process of elimination.
I see it too . . .