1. The territory "No Name" is bad*ss. I hope you don't change the name
2. Central Coast should definitely stay +3, as it's equally as easy/hard to hold as Mojave.
3. The labels on the mini map are unnecessarily hard to read. Do you think you could increase the font size?
4. You think you could also have a different icon for cities? The black circles you have are rather bland and awkwardly stick out.
i like this a lot.
Monterey for the win!
YOu may not want to, and I dont think you need it. But seems ppl think its too narrow or such- so you could do something like 13 colonies , some surfers out in the water, some islands ... i dunno.
The Bison King wrote:2. Central Coast should definitely stay +3, as it's equally as easy/hard to hold as Mojave.
That raises the question, should Sierra nevada be +3 as well? it too is 5 terri 3 borders.
The Bison King wrote:For example Eureka could attack San Francisco, San Francisco could attack Eureka and Montery, Monterey could attack San Francisco and Lompoc, Lompoc could attack Monterey and Beverely hills, Beverely hills could attack Montery and San diego, and San Diego could attack Beverely hills.
The only bonuses that are possible to take are Blue and maybe Purple... once a player grabs those its game over cause nobody will be able to grab a bonus to stop him.
You know, I'm not liking the whole lack of impassables or strategic territories.
though I am considering extending them in a few places
MrBenn wrote:I hate to say it, but I really don;t think the visual style fits the theme of the map at all... while it worked for Thyseneal, I don't know how well it works here.
Victor Sullivan wrote:MrBenn wrote:I hate to say it, but I really don;t think the visual style fits the theme of the map at all... while it worked for Thyseneal, I don't know how well it works here.
I agree, but does it matter at this stage? I feel like we still need to figure out some of the gameplay concepts, bonus areas, etc.
natty_dread wrote:I think you should draw the territory borders of the insets on the main map as well.
What is the reason for this ?The Bison King wrote:natty_dread wrote:I think you should draw the territory borders of the insets on the main map as well.
I could do that easy enough. I'll do it once I'm 100% on the arrangment.
But this would make the mini-map LESS legible, by adding extra, and IMO, unnecessary info. The mini-map is only there to give bonus information, so unless there is a "good" reason to add anything else, I do not see the point.natty_dread wrote:Legibility
Users browsing this forum: No registered users