[PB73] Map-making thread

[Mjmd]

Oh maybe add in some forests?

Both for anyone who wants to go math and in general I like capitals with a descent number of forests.

[Tarkeel]

Is it purposeful that start 4 can move to a plains hill and get triple grain?

For some reason I thought it would only have two of those grains, so that will have to change.

Is the map going to stay alternate 4? IE the one with a pair and then 1 off alone? If so, the only other comment I have is to have starts labelled with neighbors. Is it too much to label with tiles between? Certainly may influence picks.

That's what I've been working on, yes. I don't think labeling distance and neighbors is within what they wanted, but the two bad starts are not only bad in starting quality but also in map position, while the best start is the solo one.

Oh maybe add in some forests?

Both for anyone who wants to go math and in general I like capitals with a descent number of forests.

I've added a few, but don't want to break early moves too badly either.

[Tarkeel]

Here's a fixed start 4:


Old version:


(I've updated the original post, including attachment

[Krill]

They seem OK. I'd probably make the bad starts worse (ie no two hammer plant options at all), but that doesn't mean the change is necessary.

[Tarkeel]

Honestly I think the two hammer plants are a trap for the bad starts, but I like giving options.

[Krill]

Yeah, I see your point. The orphaned seafood communicates that point quite well.

[Mjmd]

I know Krill had also mentioned it, but are we telling them the 2-2-1 setup?

[Tarkeel]

I wasn't thinking of it, but could be persuaded.

[Krill]

I don't mind much either way but I'd be happy to leave it at what Tarkeel said: the map script and not everyone is on the same landmass. So they already know it is either a 4/1, 3/2, 3/1/1 or 2/2/1, and therefore navy matters. Its enough, without letting them try and metagame with the starts amd possibly screwing up.

[Mjmd]

I think you posted the old start 4?