California [Quenched]

[Victor Sullivan]

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.

-Sulls

[The Bison King]

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.

-Sulls

We're not in graphics yet. One thing at a time.

[porkenbeans]

I must say that I am very confused with your post Mr B. We have had this chicken and egg discussion before. You have stated that the GP always comes first, and I on the other hand have always maintained, that each map project is different, but in most cases, the GP and GFX develop side by side.

This IS the GP Workshop, and according to you, the graphics are not to be discussed yet. Or have you changed your view on this ?

[army of nobunaga]

Another thought bison, I lived in monterey and I can attest that from about carmel by the sea to north SF its one big metropolis with 2 great huge baysa and a lot of mountain impassables.

What about a north cali- socal map... keep the map intact for the most part but have a large blow up of carmel-north SF.. and a large blow up of Santa monica (lived there too) to SD.

two large blow ups and a fun map (which you have atm) of mountains and valleys in between the two.

[The Bison King]

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Update time!

Changes:

I extended the mountains to defend Elderado from Lake Tahoe thus reducing the number of central valley borders by one.

I extended the mountains to defend San Jose from Can Luois thus reducing the number of borders of Bay Area by one.

I raised the wirth of LA to +6 but I'm probably going to re-arrange the territories in a later draft so that number might change again.

_ bumped Sierra Nevada up to +3 as well.

I enlarged the mini map and gave it greater detail

[natty dread]

I think you should draw the territory borders of the insets on the main map as well.

[The Bison King]

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.

[porkenbeans]

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.

What is the reason for this ?

[natty dread]

Legibility

[porkenbeans]

Legibility

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.

[The Bison King]

Legibility

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.

I believe there is a misunderstanding, Natty was saying to add the territories to the main map, on Bay Area and LA. He was not suggesting drawing territories onto the mini map.

[porkenbeans]

Legibility

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.

I believe there is a misunderstanding, Natty was saying to add the territories to the main map, on Bay Area and LA. He was not suggesting drawing territories onto the mini map.

yep, It is clearly MY misunderstanding. And natty is right, The borders SHOULD be on the map, as in the insets.

[The Bison King]

Also the territ designations for LA are not quite right. I will post something on this a little later.

I'd like to hear more about this now. I'd like to make some changes in LA soon.

[The Bison King]

This is the map I was using as reference. Obviously I tweeked and skewwed it a lot because who want's to take over Antalope valley? Not this guy.

I want to fit in cool territories that people want to take, like Hollywood, Burbank, and Beverley Hills. So I think this obtainable just by bending the actual size of these regions just a bit. That being said for game play reasons I either want to reduce the bonuses borders by one or raise the over all worth of the bonus.

[porkenbeans]

Sorry, I don't get the Antelope Valley thing.

Beverly Hills is nowhere near the ocean. You should just call that territ Santa Monica or Malibu.
The territ to the South of that should be called San Pedro or Long Beach.
Orange Is a county south of LA.
Burbank is in the San Fernando Valley.
Hollywood is not in the center of LA.
I will fill the LA territs that you have with more accurate names tomorrow.

Names aside, the biggest beef that I have is the Sierra Nevada Mountain range. If ever there was an "Impasse" this mountain range would certainly qualify. It runs through Tahoe to the south and curls to the west just north of LA. Everything to the east of it should not connect to the Napa valley. Or "Central Valley".