Moderator: Cartographers

True on both counts. The Mormons at one time petitioned the US government to be admitted as State of Deseret, which covered all of Utah parts of California, Arizona and yes the majority of Nevada. I put it in Ecovania to give the bonuses a little balance. This is 40 years in the future, and who knows, Nevada may become an Oasis! And there are mountains between Utah and Nevada, as I have driven between Salt Lake City and Elko many times, not big, but when you're driving a semi loaded down with a total of 80,000 lbs, it's a good climb.Bruceswar wrote:My main Gripe is with Oasis. Which is where Nevada is now. Nevada is a desert and should be placed in the desert bonus if you ask me. Then you move those mountains over to the right spot where they should be. The Sierra Nevada mountain range.
But yes anybody who has ever been to Nevada knows it is not an Oasis, but rather a big desert.
isaiah40 wrote:So what bonus structure/value does your chicken suggest?jefjef wrote:
My chicken avi just don't like the bonus structure/value on them.
Lots & lots of options.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
ditto.soundman wrote:I personally like the capitals bonus as it is right now. Looking great!

Thank you WMWidowMakers wrote:ditto.soundman wrote:I personally like the capitals bonus as it is right now. Looking great!
No autodeploy
No bombard
No neutral
Looking good Isaiah.
WM
Yes I did think of that Mr. Chicken, and the chances of that happening are slim to none.jefjef wrote:
Chicken says.........
I just think they are overvalued when compared to bonus regions/tert counts.
BUT
Having High value on them sure makes it desirable to hold them. Guess it boils down to what kind of game play/strategies your looking for. You could do a lot of interesting things with them.
One more thing to consider. If caps do not start as neutral a player could get a bunch of them on the drop and have a GREAT advantage.

u can't expand alberta because the rocky mountains are in the way!soundman wrote:It may be because I live there, but Washington looks really strange with that piece of land sticking out to connect with Alberta. I would try maybe pushing the Alberta border more to the left.
Better be Philadelphia. (Or Philly/Phila.)iancanton wrote:to keep the number of regions the same, we can split pennsylvania in two and call the western half pittsburgh (eastern half phl?): the democrats region just doesn't look suitably industrialised and densely-populated just now. call this zone democratic america or something, since most of the other zones have a name that is the name of a country, not a party.


drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".

Washington might not be, on the other hand since this is a futuristic map "why not?"Astoria wrote:Great Concept & Great Design!
Love the Greene Piece name, but also think that there is no way Washington could be part of the Canada, could be only vice versa.
Is this your idea or is it from some sci-fi book?
Maybe the border is a little exaggerated, I'll reduce it next revision.iancanton wrote:the map is now shaping up nicely.
u can't expand alberta because the rocky mountains are in the way!soundman wrote:It may be because I live there, but Washington looks really strange with that piece of land sticking out to connect with Alberta. I would try maybe pushing the Alberta border more to the left.
Hmmm ... Maybe instead of splitting PA (due to lack of space come the small map) how about if I split Montana into let's say Missoula and Billings?iancanton wrote:another change to canada that can improve its playability: there's nothing much at all in northern manitoba, so assume that, after winnipeg declared independence, saskatchewan took over the rest of manitoba without needing to fight (call the merged region saskatchewan). this leaves canada with 6 border regions, which is just about viable.
to keep the number of regions the same, we can split pennsylvania in two and call the western half pittsburgh (eastern half phl?): the democrats region just doesn't look suitably industrialised and densely-populated just now. call this zone democratic america or something, since most of the other zones have a name that is the name of a country, not a party.
Patiently waitingiancanton wrote:i'm thinking about how we ought to do the capitals just now.
ian.
A sizable chunk of land with a major city that seems to be missing.jefjef wrote:If your looking for another tert for Democrats you could always put LONG ISLAND on the map............. Call it Liberty Island Or Old York City.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
I know, but for cleanliness for the small map I have to omit some areas. Without Long Island (no offense to those that live there), the map will be cleaner and less clutter in the north east part of the map.jefjef wrote:A sizable chunk of land with a major city that seems to be missing.jefjef wrote:If your looking for another tert for Democrats you could always put LONG ISLAND on the map............. Call it Liberty Island Or Old York City.

drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
Um, Mr. Chicken is reading backwards. It is +4 for 7 Capitals!jefjef wrote:Canada font looks futuristic. Nice back drop on the Capitol bonus legend.
+7 for 4 caps................... Overvalued..............
