Assuming the best use of space is landscape mode, what is the largest size you can tolerate? 1024 x 768 use to be the largest back when board size was restricted to 1.5 MB, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case anymore.

Typical screens these days have lots more pixels than those from 10 years ago. I was wondering what folks feel is a comfortable size for a larger map.

this is one to ponder over. i can't think of many boards here that are too big.

i tend to use my laptop screen as a litmus test when creating my boards (15" screen). I had two boards in my queue that didn't really fit and had to squeeze them down in size -- which meant redrawing every territory -- to fit that screen, which ended up 1495x920.

FWIW, i'd much rather scroll a bit up and down (eg. my Labyrinth board) than scroll side to side AT ALL.

(I'm not a designer, but) I rarely think a board is too big, except for a few that are trouble when the history is being viewed. I know I've seen a few like that . . . .maybe . . . Gauntlet?

weathertop wrote: FWIW, i'd much rather scroll a bit up and down (eg. my Labyrinth board) than scroll side to side AT ALL.

Not a designer, but I have to agree with this. When you're trying to come up with a strategy while playing, side-to-side is a real pain.

FWIW, i'd much rather scroll a bit up and down (eg. my Labyrinth board) than scroll side to side AT ALL.

This right here. Some up and down is just fine, but definitely too wide is way worse. But for the most part when I did play on my mobile, which I try to do less as I can just take turns way faster on my pc, I rarely felt like any maps were too big.

I think the Game of Hordes and Gunslinger boards are probably as disproportionate as I would want in terms of either axis being relative larger than the other.

But it's more about the number of territories for me than the relative size of the board. I can always resize my display by zooming in or out. But I find games become tedious if they're any bigger than the civil war map in terms of territories.