Moderator: Cartographers
a) he's doing the XMLDarthBlood wrote:why is lanyard's name on the map? isn't he like...banned?
i think not the names of glaciers, becuase it wouldn't make much sense to pass over the glacier itself, these are routes, through the glacier, the explorers might work, but i don't really like that either.Merciless Wong wrote:Happy with killer neutral or neutral, but killer neutral would imply you have to keep clearing the area, again and again.
On names - May I suggest Glaciers of Greenland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:G ... _Greenland)
-Knud Rasmussen Glacier
-Chamberlain Glacier
-Harald Moltke Glacier
Also famous explorers of Greenland (some of whom are Danish, see wikipedia)
-Harald Moltke
-Knud Rasmussen
-Peter Freucher
-Ludwig Mylius-Erichsen
sailorseal wrote:My big boy banana was out the whole time
AndyDufresne wrote:Forever linked at the hip's-banana! (That sounds strange, don't quote me.)AndyDufresne wrote:Many Happy Bananas to everyone, lets party...with Bananas.
--Andy
I agree...dotted lines and army circles looks better. Perhaps a two pointed arrow if you do not want the dots...but I think the dots look better.SultanOfSurreal wrote:I'm not digging the look of the ice routes. They don't look natural, somehow... perhaps keep them as the dotted lines they were before they were territories, just with army circles and a label over them. Or some other pattern that looks similar, like footprints or something that indicates it's just an attack route. This would be especially good if you go with the killer neutral idea.
Also I think the routes should be labeled in ascending order, A in the south, C in the north. It seems more natural this way, as the route in the south would, in real life, likely be the first discovered and the most used.
And finally, the tiniest of tiny nitpicks, the phrase "Ice Routes" in the legend shouldn't be in quotes. It just looks and reads better that way.
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
oaktown wrote:dog sleds on the ice routes! dog sleds on the ice routes!

itilleq is a west coast village that is part of qeqqata municipality, along with sisimiut town and the villages of sarfannguit and kangerlussuaq, the last being inland from the others. since sisimiut and itilleq are supposed to be in the same municipality (qeqqata), we'll need some shifting of borders or renaming of regions.the.killing.44 wrote:saaimenDidn't ian say east coast?
Hmm, yes good point.
kangerlussuaq, as well as being one of the few inland villages (almost directly east from sisimiut), is (comparatively!) well-known as the site of the main international airport in greenland, so is a logical choice for ice route c to start. incidentally, ilulissat is south of upernavik, not north of it. adding regions to qeqqata like this gives us the chance to split this bonus zone into two, giving us a small bonus that is not in the extreme north: sisimiut, kangerlussuaq, itilleq and a new region (the town of maniitsoq, perhaps?) are qeqqata, while the regions north of sisimiut comprise disko bay.the.killing.44 wrote:Qeqqata seems impossible to hold with all the necessary bordering territories. How would you feel about moving Ice Route C to Sisimiut instead of Upernavik, reducing a border and easing up on that bonus, which is hard-pressed for a 4 anyway?
sermersooq is similar to classic europe, but has even more borders, so +6 is justified. although kujalleq has most of the population in real life, we can't really give more than the existing +4 because it's a much easier hold than sermersooq.the.killing.44 wrote:okay, so we now we have:
Sermersooq — 7 terts, 5 borders (northernmost can be easily expanded though), 5 attackers (one is decay, counts for 1/2) — +4?
Kujalleq — 7 terts, 3 borders, 4 attackers (all separate continents) — +5?