[Abandoned] - Second Indochina War

[Victor Sullivan]

This map looks complicated as hell. When going for a more involved map a mapmaker has to be careful to make it clear what the instructions are and that the map can be easily read. You can still have a 'complicated' map and still be clear. This balancing act is what ties up most mapmakers when pursing something like this.

That said... I see all these symbols and the extensive legend and am put off. When I take my turn I know that I'm going to have to constantly be referencing the symbols with the legend, ect. I think this map has a level of murkiness that needs some work.

Love the graphics though.

I understand all the things in the legend, too, but like Helix said, you're still gonna have to keep referencing the legend to see what attacks what, what this route does/means, what symbols you need for the objective, etc. And I realize some of this can't be avoided, but I think you should take steps to make things easier on the players.

-Sully

No. Some people like myself enjoy maps that are a little more complicated then doodle earth. And if you play them a few times you get the hang of them and wouldn't have to look at the key so much. There are maps that are already out that are WAY more confusing then this map. And what is so bad at having to look at the key every once in a while anyways? that is what it is there for...

oh, and i might get yelled at for saying this but for those that really suck at looking at the key they have add ons for that you know... also what they are there for...

I'm not bashing your map at all, I actually think this would be a great map to play because of it's complexity. I just think there are some things that make it unnecessarily more complicated.

[grifftron]

like....?

[Victor Sullivan]

Sigh... Do I have to say it again? The back path, the North-to-South attack along the HCMT route, things I've already mentioned...

[grifftron]

Sigh... Do I have to say it again? The back path, the North-to-South attack along the HCMT route, things I've already mentioned...

sully.. we told you those WERE needed unless you had a different way around the back bath.

But i will also say it again...

the back path was needed instead of a normal 2 way attack route because it would create a 4 way crossing which would be confusing. And i know Farang just answered your question on his last post on the HCMT...

now if you have suggestions that would help it become easier to understand visually please let us know.

-griff

[Victor Sullivan]

Sigh... Do I have to say it again? The back path, the North-to-South attack along the HCMT route, things I've already mentioned...

sully.. we told you those WERE needed unless you had a different way around the back bath.

But i will also say it again...

the back path was needed instead of a normal 2 way attack route because it would create a 4 way crossing which would be confusing. And i know Farang just answered your question on his last post on the HCMT...

now if you have suggestions that would help it become easier to understand visually please let us know.

-griff

I'm just saying, sacrifices must me made for solid gameplay or to get things to work. I say ditch the back path, the HCMT N>S assaults, and the Ta Veng>China bombardment.

[grifftron]

No. All of those help even out the map, without those you have an easy played map of no balance.

[kengyin]

what year is this set in? any way to incorporate the carpet bombing over hanoi? operation linebacker 2 as it was called

[Victor Sullivan]

No. All of those help even out the map, without those you have an easy played map of no balance.

What exactly would be off-balance? Would one objective then be much easier to get over the other? Would one particular bonus be easier to obtain? I'm having trouble seeing the negative repercussions of ditching those aspects.

On a similar note, I'd like to say I don't mean to hate on your map (I may have said this already, but it's good to reiterate). Remember, I like this concept, if I didn't or had nothing to contribute, then I wouldn't

-Sully

[FarangDemon]

When I take my turn I know that I'm going to have to constantly be referencing the symbols with the legend, ect.

Actually I think it would require less time spent looking at the legend than when playing 3rd Crusade and many other maps. Usually, time spent looking at legend is to determine the value of bonuses - this is completely eliminated once one understands the simple rules used for obtaining bonuses (which is kind of similar to Holy Roman Empire except there are 4 instances of each symbol type instead of just 3):

3 of same symbol = +2
4 of same symbol = +4

(perhaps it would be easier to readily understand if the words in the legend that explain this were reduced to this more concise version?)

There is no need for further study of symbols to determine bonuses, only bombarding and the victory conditions (which I believe are intuitive).

The HCMT bonus rule is also very straightforward:
any 3 in a row along HCMT main artery = +2 (cumulative)

It is necessary to look at legend to determine bombardments, but we've tried to make it as clear as possible by using coloring and patterns in the bombardment zones. And there are only two different bombarding "behaviors", those of the RTAFB and US Airbases.

I share your opinion that the complexity of the map should be workable and that the legend is key. I appreciate your input and please advise on any particular suggestions for clearing anything up.

I'm just saying, sacrifices must me made for solid gameplay or to get things to work. I say ditch the back path, the HCMT N>S assaults, and the Ta Veng>China bombardment.

Would it be acceptable to keep the backpath looking how it is (dashed path) and just put a dashed path in the legend under "Two way attacks"? Or was the concensus to get rid of the mentioning of two way attacks altogether? I think it would ok to not mention the backpath and not mention two way attacks and just keep the dashed line how it is. Any words we can shave from the legend will have a great impact on legend readability.

I appreciate your concern regarding complexity of giving N->S HCMT assaults range 2. It may be the trickiest feature on the map (after bombardments which are not too tricky). However range 2 attacks are an established staple in the CC map collection and I believe that it will be easier to visualize where our range 2 attacks can go on our map than on others containing range 2 attacks because you have a clearly marked path to follow that is colored differently - the HCMT. In Austerlitz or Waterloo it can be a bit confusing or time consuming to try to go two spaces in every direction from every horse in your head. In our map, you only have to follow the HCMT north to south to see your options to attack with range 2. If the place you are thinking about attacking is not 2 away along the HCMT from N-S, you cannot hit it.

Re: Ta Veng -> China one way assault. To put it into perspective, our legend contains a single one-way attack - 3rd Crusade contains 5. And you can see that there is a Cambodian flag symbol on the territory being attacked so it is not totally surprising to see that a Cambodian starting position can one way attack it (again just like in 3rd Crusade one way attacks from starting positions).

I appreciate your support and concerns. They are all valid concerns regarding complexity. I hope you feel like we've addressed them and please contribute further to help us make a solid map.

[army of nobunaga]

When I take my turn I know that I'm going to have to constantly be referencing the symbols with the legend, ect.

Actually I think it would require less time spent looking at the legend than when playing 3rd Crusade and many other maps.

you forgot the Age of Heirogliphics map... My personal favorite when talking about legend cluster F's

[FarangDemon]

what year is this set in? any way to incorporate the carpet bombing over hanoi? operation linebacker 2 as it was called

Approximately 1970. I didn't want any starting position to be bombardable and since Operation Linebacker 2 was in 1972, it is a bit late.

Also I think for most of the war the US was not bombing Hanoi or Haiphong directly, so I didn't want to feature this.

[grifftron]

So whats the deal with this one?

[Industrial Helix]

Sorry about being aloof from this map, lots of time at work and recent hospital drama have been plaguing my time.

Clarity is the major issue at hand here and I believe this map is lacking it. It's not the complexity of the map that is hurting it though, I don't think its any more complex than some other maps, but it is my strong opinion that symbols are far more confounding than territories or regions. Speaking of which, where will the numbers go and what will you do to prevent one group of numbers from being confused with other symbols and names, ect.?

You're working on a complex game and I think that, as it is, the presentation of such complex relationships needs to be clearer.

[grifftron]

OK that sounds fair, I will let farang brainstorm some new ideas to make everything more clear, i myself am leaving for a week or so...

-griff

[jigger1986]

This map looks awesome, cant wait to play it.