Page 3 of 3
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:03 am
by pk867
We would need a better map and whether we can change that part.
Our map is a compromise the same as the one in wikipedia.
Also that part of the map is squeezed down severely. So at the moment that maybe desirable as you propose, I do not want to commit to change it.
We can not change the size of the map. (i.e. add more hexes)
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:13 am
by PionUrpo
Stauffenberg wrote:My proposal is to keep things as is and live with the minor inaccuracy. If you look at lake Ladoga and lake Onega you see that the shape is not very accurate, but the map is very compressed north/south wise there to fit in more of Scandinavia than should have been shown. The distortion is east / west since north on the real map is not north in Finland, Sweden and Norway. Norway points north-east on the map and Finland north-west. The reason is that the GS map has some kind of Mercator projection and then the distortion becomes biggest at the north edge.
I can live with that, no problem. It doesn't have much gameplay value anyway.
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:42 am
by JimR
Middle East: Jerusalem should be in (120,65). It is a hill town. Clear hexes that should be recategorized as rough are (120,64) and (121,61). This will better reflect the fact that it was a very narrow coastal plain going north from Palestine to Beirut.