Korrun wrote:

Geographic pedantry always trumps strategy and gameplay.

"Geographic pedantry "  Nerd alert!!!!

Korrun wrote:

ratsy wrote:

Is it strategically interesting?

Geographic pedantry always trumps strategy and gameplay.

In a current game I just noticed that Blanco and Travis counties (both in Eastern Hill Country) are unable to attack each other, despite having a shared border segment that isn't just one point.

I believe they are touching enough to attack.  (I could have sworn I mentioned this before in this thread, but I couldn't find it.)

Can this be fixed?

camel wrote:

In a current game I just noticed that Blanco and Travis counties (both in Eastern Hill Country) are unable to attack each other, despite having a shared border segment that isn't just one point.

I believe they are touching enough to attack.  (I could have sworn I mentioned this before in this thread, but I couldn't find it.)

Can this be fixed?

Interaction between territories has nothing to do with their drawing on the map. It's just a matter of the designer setting it or not. I have no idea if it was a conscious decision made by the designer or that he simply missed it.

Nygma hasn't visited the site for a couple of weeks now. I guess you'll have to wait a bit more for an answer.

dont enjoy that map very much. pretty easy to just play such that one breaks up bonuses and extended stalemates occur

I love this map.  It's straightforward and direct.  Strategy unfettered by wildcard tricks or capricious rules.  The endgame power-brokering is worth the price of admission alone.   This map takes stamina yet it is not without surprises.  A game can take months and then be over in a day.