,
Moderator: Cartographers


 RjBeals
				RjBeals
			






 
			
 Inhuman14
				Inhuman14
			







 
			RjBeals wrote:According to the map in the book, at the very least Clayton was located in the dustbowl area. But you are right, only the far right side of the state was effected. If you think I should take out cities in NM, I can - but I was trying to keep the map balanced.
RjBeals wrote:I'm also not sure what you mean about the northern region bonus

 BaldAdonis
				BaldAdonis
			


















 
		virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.

 Anarkistsdream
				Anarkistsdream
			













 
		Anarkistsdream wrote:Is that top little section: "Lured by the promise of...." a quote? If so, you have to either cite the source or ask permission, depending on the copyright.
"Drought" is spelled wrong.

 RjBeals
				RjBeals
			






 
			RjBeals wrote:I GOT SERVED wrote:Firstly, I like the progress this map is making. But I have one question.
You have one section to the left of Lubbock (Texas) that isn't named. Is this an extension of one territory? Or is it a different territory all together?
Thanks - and that is just a dead territory. Just there to keep the map flowing, however it will not be in play.


 I GOT SERVED
				I GOT SERVED
			

















 
		 
I GOT SERVER wrote:That dead territory is going to confuse a lot of people, myself included. Maybe you should merge it with Lubbock.

 RjBeals
				RjBeals
			






 
			RjBeals wrote:I GOT SERVER wrote:That dead territory is going to confuse a lot of people, myself included. Maybe you should merge it with Lubbock.
Naa... I think it will be more clear when the armies are on the board. If more people think it's confusing, I'll rework.
1) I'm trying to figure a way to make impassable borders, and this is what I've come up with. I'm going to add land cracks (tying to look like dried desert cracks). My problem is I think I'll have too many cracks all over the board and it will look bad.
2) Since I've added color to the states, the inner "drought" area didn't look good as a shade of red. That gave too much color. Instead I've given red outlined army circles. I think pretty obvious - what about the rest of you?
3) Added some more +/- Bonuses. (I plan to give Texas a +5 Bonus)


 I GOT SERVED
				I GOT SERVED
			

















 
		 sfhbballnut
				sfhbballnut
			



 
		sfhbballnut wrote:...but it has a sleep, kinda depressed look of the dustbowl right now, and thtat doesn't come across to well,like the idea though, keep at it


 RjBeals
				RjBeals
			






 
			
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.

 Anarkistsdream
				Anarkistsdream
			













 
		
 Optimus Prime
				Optimus Prime
			










 
		Optimus Prime wrote:I agree. The red circles work, but the previous way of designating the drought area worked better for me.

 reverend_kyle
				reverend_kyle
			






 
			RjBeals wrote:2) Since I've added color to the states, the inner "drought" area didn't look good as a shade of red. That gave too much color. Instead I've given red outlined army circles. I think pretty obvious - what about the rest of you?


 militant
				militant
			












 
		 



 RjBeals
				RjBeals
			






 
			

 wcaclimbing
				wcaclimbing
			














 
			Somebody pointed out they look like tree roots - and I thought it was too bold to be in the map. My whole focus was on those cracks. Plus I would need more of them to balance the map and it would have looked bad.tenio wrote:i liked the dirt cracks better

 RjBeals
				RjBeals
			






 
			Users browsing this forum: No registered users