Moderator: Cartographers
To be honest i like it the way it is now...! I don't see a problem with it being about the capitals...isaiah40 wrote:I'm not opposed to changing them, but let's wait and see if anyone has complaints about them.Gillipig wrote: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.



Yes, I think the Russian Federation could be lowered 1, and the Han bonus increased 1.The Bison King wrote:Though if I had one suggestion at this point it would be to lower the value of the Russian Federation bonus
Scratch the Han thing. I decided against it.isaiah40 wrote:Anybody else think this way? Speak now or forever hold your peace!
isaiah40 wrote: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.Bruceswar wrote:The legend is hard to read. Maybe a slight font change would make it much easier to read? Otherwise nice map.
I'm not opposed to changing them, but let's wait and see if anyone has complaints about them.Gillipig wrote: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.

It might be harder to read than some maps, but it is readable. I see no reason to change it and lose some of the maps flavour.Bruceswar wrote:isaiah40 wrote: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.Bruceswar wrote:The legend is hard to read. Maybe a slight font change would make it much easier to read? Otherwise nice map.
I'm not opposed to changing them, but let's wait and see if anyone has complaints about them.Gillipig wrote: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.
Maybe it is only me about the legend... or maybe others are just not posting?

I've played it a few times and I think it's a lot about the bonuses, I think cities are a little Seconda, but not that they should not be there, if they were removed there would definitely be missing something. 3 neutrals instead of 2. will also make it harder to conquer bonuses, and when it will be the same for everyone there will probably not happen so much about it, other than difficulty level increases a little bitisaiah40 wrote: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.Bruceswar wrote:The legend is hard to read. Maybe a slight font change would make it much easier to read? Otherwise nice map.
I'm not opposed to changing them, but let's wait and see if anyone has complaints about them.Gillipig wrote: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.
same with mekoontz1973 wrote:It might be harder to read than some maps, but it is readable. I see no reason to change it and lose some of the maps flavour.Bruceswar wrote:isaiah40 wrote: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.Bruceswar wrote:The legend is hard to read. Maybe a slight font change would make it much easier to read? Otherwise nice map.
I'm not opposed to changing them, but let's wait and see if anyone has complaints about them.Gillipig wrote: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.
Maybe it is only me about the legend... or maybe others are just not posting?
If this is the case, go with it mate. It seems a reasonable request to me.Victor Sullivan wrote:Yes, I think the Russian Federation could be lowered 1, and the Han bonus increased 1.The Bison King wrote:Though if I had one suggestion at this point it would be to lower the value of the Russian Federation bonus

Sent to the Turtle.Gilligan wrote:Updated XML with Russian Federation knocked down to 4:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/14 ... China8.xml
Small image with Russian Federation changed to +4
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/8857 ... vsmall.png
Large image
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/4882 ... inav3v.png
The neutrals are staying as they are. As for the capitals, I think they will stay as they are as they give an added attraction to take them early on. Compare the capital structure to Fractured America where they don't really come into play a whole lot to here where they do. In the games I've played, the player who goes for the capitals first has ended up the last to get a bonus region, thereby making him the weakest on the board. So really you are forced to make a choice, go for the capital bonus, or go for the larger bonuses? What I am seeing is a very balanced map.JustCallMeStupid wrote:Ive read through some of the prior pages comments on changing the stars to 3 neutrals instead of 2. I disagree. I find obtaining bonuses make maps more fun, and making bonuses more difficult makes a map less fun. I would rather see the neutral stars left to 2 units and the bonus structure changed to +1 for 2 capitals, +2 for 3 capitals or something. I believe that a +3 is an extremely high bonus especially considering u need to take a capital for a region bonus anyways.
Mongolia bonus @ +4 is too high. Considering the dynamics of the bonus, all 4 components are touching making it easy enough to defend by stacking solely on one territory and retaliating anyone who brakes it anywhere. Bonuses structured like this usually should be a +3 unless they are surrounded by multiple +2 bonuses which is not the case here.
EDIT: I dont see a point in having the east china sea? Why not get rid of that location and go straight to yellow sea. (this isnt really an issue though, just a thought)
Ok that's two for Mongolia.AndyDufresne wrote:I think Mongolia could be knocked down to 3. In fact, sometimes I think Manchuria is undervalued, since Beijing, which is an auto-deploy, often has an ability to pick away at Manchuria.
Hm, you could always nudge the one-way assault to Mongolia--which would make it more like Uygurstan having to defend a one-way assault for 4 troops, instead of Manchuria defending a one-way assault for 3.
Random thoughts.
--Andy