Seamus76 wrote:Because we needed to get to a magic number of overall territories we added the 3 canoes as actual territories,
Also do "warriors" refer to territories with a tribal symbol? that's a little unclear in the legend. If that's what that means maybe where it says "tribal symbol" in the legend should say "warrior symbol"
if the eight bonus zones are meant to represent the eight tribes, then why does each chief not live in his home area instead of elsewhere? the chiefs ought to start neutral (2 neutrals each) because of their importance to bonuses.
(For the fort) The +3 is a pretty nice perk but it's tucked away in a corner that's pretty useless.
try making a bow-and-arrow different from a tomahawk, for example the bow-and-arrow bonus might be +2 for each chief held.
Seamus76 wrote:Thanks so much guys.
Marshal, I certainly understand and will wait patiently for your feedback.
The map was based on a layout of the tribes during that time period, which did keep pretty much to the current map. There could be some extension into Georgia or something, but not sure if that adds much to the game play, and would love more feedback and ideas.
Post by iancanton on Mon May 30, 2011 1:05 pm
the conquistador region must reset to the same number of neutrals as the starting number: using the current xml code, starting at 3 and resetting to 2 is not possible.
the three tiny bonus zones at the bottom pose some gameplay difficulties because someone is very likely to pick up one or more of these bonuses from the drop. one way to deal with this situation is for one warrior in each of these tiny bonus zones to start neutral.
the larger zones don't have a big enough bonus to make them attractive relative to the tiny zones, which means the winning strategy will almost always be the same. i suggest +8 or +9 for calusa, +5 for apalachee and +3 or +4 for creek. although throwing in a +15 for the timucua war zone might be irrelevant most of the time, it does seem to be at least as logical as no bonus, as well as making the legend neater.
i still think a bow-and-arrow ought to be different from a tomahawk, even if one is +1 and the other is +2, in which case the +2s can start with one more neutral troop, thereby giving more choices to a player in the war zone. this does not need any more text than u currently have: just replace one of the +1s by a +2.
Postby MarshalNey on Fri May 27, 2011 5:24 am
Taking a look at this with relatively fresh eyes, I think that:
(2) There are definitely some clarity issues
Users browsing this forum: No registered users