| Civilization: The Expansion Project https://dev.civproject.net/forum/ |
|
| Charax - 2003-01-03 https://dev.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=76 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | busybody [ 2004-01-04 14:50:21 ] |
| Post subject: | |
One quibble - with the white boundary lines they are now, it is hard to tell if Charax is: (a) Coastal and there is no longer an land boundary between Ur and Chaldea (this is what the original AdvCiv map has) or (b) Still inland, and there is a land boundary between Ur and Chaldea. or (c) Still inland, but no land boundary between Ur and Chaldea (which is just mechanically weird) The pop on Charax from 3 to 2, which I think will encourage it's use as a city site (but otherwise fairly minor effect) As a coastal area, Babylon finds it easier to get pop into it after a disaster. As a non-coastal area, it is more fragile from Babylon's POV. If it is non-coastal, then Babylon really wants Chaldea as well. Game balance-wise... Arabia can still assault by sea into Ur and by land into Charax (whether or not it is coastal.) |
|
| Author: | Velusion [ 2004-01-04 19:21:42 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I tried to make it pretty clear that it was (a) a water border. Is it unclear to anyone else? busybody wrote: One quibble - with the white boundary lines they are now, it is hard to tell if Charax is: (a) Coastal and there is no longer an land boundary between Ur and Chaldea (this is what the original AdvCiv map has) or (b) Still inland, and there is a land boundary between Ur and Chaldea. or (c) Still inland, but no land boundary between Ur and Chaldea (which is just mechanically weird) The pop on Charax from 3 to 2, which I think will encourage it's use as a city site (but otherwise fairly minor effect) As a coastal area, Babylon finds it easier to get pop into it after a disaster. As a non-coastal area, it is more fragile from Babylon's POV. If it is non-coastal, then Babylon really wants Chaldea as well. Game balance-wise... Arabia can still assault by sea into Ur and by land into Charax (whether or not it is coastal.) |
|
| Author: | Pureblade [ 2004-01-06 1:02:37 ] |
| Post subject: | |
So, Charax is supposed to be coastal now? I didn't think it was until you said so, so I guess you could say this was unclear to me as well.  The definition of coastal says that the area has to "contain both land and water", and strictly speaking, there is no water (blue pixels) in Charax as far as I can tell. |
|
| Author: | mcbeth [ 2004-01-06 8:55:40 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, even after you reminded me twice, Velusion, I couldn't see it on your panel. I've got a guess at what you want drawn in my PBEM map. |
|
| Author: | busybody [ 2004-01-06 16:37:52 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Velusion wrote: I tried to make it pretty clear that it was (a) a water border. Is it unclear to anyone else? Maybe if you move the top of the easternmost line of Charax about half of a city site to the right? If there's blue there, it might be more clear to people. Charax as inland probably helps Babylon too much. I noticed Ur dropped from a 3 to 2 in the latest map. Babylon probably is a bit strong, but I'm thinking a majority of it is in the AST. |
|
| Author: | mcbeth [ 2004-01-07 9:26:25 ] |
| Post subject: | |
You are welcome to look at what I did on the PBEM map http://broggs.org/~mcbeth/civ/joined.png |
|
| Author: | Velusion [ 2004-01-07 12:06:06 ] |
| Post subject: | |
mcbeth wrote: Looks good! |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
