District of Alaska - v14.1 [2015-25-05] pg16 [QUENCHED]

[Seamus76]

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-06-20:

Just dropping a line to say I really like the look of this map. Keep going!

Thanks Bruce!!

Ok, I've been looking at this for a while now, and even tried changing the Aleutian Islands to lighter(and even darker) shade of green to see if I could replicate how well the Far North worked out, but it just did not look right, and totally threw off the map. So here is what I did do, and then some comments.
- XML question, regarding the 1v1 starting numbers. Is there a way to keep them at 14, and include the Exploration Route terts? Rather than go to 18? I don't like that at all, way too many.

- Tert Names. Koontz and I talked about them early on but I was a little lazy in updating them. Did a ton of research, and using multiple maps from 1867 through 1895 I have updated all of the territory names to be in line with the date of the map. So there were 3-4 terts that have been updated including Anchorage which is gone.
- The other somewhat major thing is the renaming of the map to District of Alaska, which in 1895 was the official Governmental designation for the state.

So, the more I look at the map, the more I think everything works very well, from the old time look and feel, to the more modern and relatable bonus regions and names. I also think the combined Aleutian Island/Inside Passage Super Region bonus makes sense. From an eye perspective, they are the on each side of the map and are the two smaller regions which go nicely together, from a game play perspective they might be the most attractive Super Region bonus on the map. It also fills out the bonus legend very well.

Speaking of the Aleutian Island bonus, as we bounced around, would it make you feel better if it was only a +1 rather than +2? Keep in mind I'm going off the number Koontz ran over a couple of days so I'm really not too sure they should, or need to, actually be changed.

CURRENT MAP VERSION

v8.0 - Large (840x800)

Click image to enlarge.

[cairnswk]

Seamus, hi...some comments if i may.

1. The 60 degree N line is quite distracting for me running through the middle of the map...is there any chance to reduce the opacity of lat and long lines?

2. i understand the one-ways from small to large vessels, but in their own body of water?
So that means if i understand correctly....Trident, Salak, and Ross connect with Klawak, Valdes, Kodiak, and Dutch Harbour?
Does Argonaut, Ladyard and Pond connect with Bethel? and does Circe, Mohun and Pike coonect with Dutch Harbour?

3. For me, the opacity in right legend of Inside Passage and Aleutian Islands region areas need increasing as they are not as strong as the ones above them; even southcentral could do with a little lift.

4. i think base camp graphics could do with a touch more clarity especially in bottom left legend.

5. Some continent to island connection lines are more faded than others....i.e. not as strong as Nome to St Lawrence.

Hope this helps somewhat for now.
Looking good.

[iancanton]

- XML question, regarding the 1v1 starting numbers. Is there a way to keep them at 14, and include the Exploration Route terts? Rather than go to 18? I don't like that at all, way too many.

u can start all exploration route regions with n1 neutrals to make them easy to conquer, except for base camps being n3. if u do this, then each player in 1v1 will start with 14 regions and no-one will have an unfairly large number of exploration route regions.

- Tert Names. Koontz and I talked about them early on but I was a little lazy in updating them. Did a ton of research, and using multiple maps from 1867 through 1895 I have updated all of the territory names to be in line with the date of the map. So there were 3-4 terts that have been updated including Anchorage which is gone.
- The other somewhat major thing is the renaming of the map to District of Alaska, which in 1895 was the official Governmental designation for the state.

excellent. this cuts out some of the anachronisms.

the use of the word region in the legend is confusing. area or district might be better.

I like area better than district, but technically they are referred to as the "five regions of Alaska", plus isn't "region" what most players would associate with the bonuses I'm excluding them from?

every time a player starts a turn, he sees in the game log that he has received some troops for holding a number of regions. unless the use of the word region in another sense is essential to the theme of the map, it's good to use a word in the legend that does not contradict the game log.

So, the more I look at the map, the more I think everything works very well, from the old time look and feel, to the more modern and relatable bonus regions and names.

on examination, a lot of it does work well (not surprising, given the amount of time that u and koontz have spent on it) and, though they aren't 100% accurate, most of the bonus areas have a closely-equivalent 1890 census district. i'm therefore pleased to accept the gameplay layout in its current form, broadly unchanged, except for two minor tweaks, being to extend the central mountains to protect sleetmute from talkeetna and to put kodiak in the kadiak (southcentral) bonus by connecting it with kenai instead of with egegik.

Evocative names with personality are easier to visualize and remember (Arctic Village) and thus lead to a better player experience than dry algebraic names (like First, Second, Third, or like East, West, North).

taking into account Dukasaur's comments about not using boring names based on numbers or directions, i recommend that u use the descriptive 1890 census district names (which are consistent with the time period): arctic for far north, yukon for interior, kuskokwim for southwest, kadiak for southcentral and unalaska for aleutian islands; i don't like southeastern as much as the existing inside passage or the older sitka.

I also think the combined Aleutian Island/Inside Passage Super Region bonus makes sense. From an eye perspective, they are the on each side of the map and are the two smaller regions which go nicely together, from a game play perspective they might be the most attractive Super Region bonus on the map.

although i disagree that it makes good sense, it's not necessarily bad for gameplay, so let's try it like this.

Speaking of the Aleutian Island bonus, as we bounced around, would it make you feel better if it was only a +1 rather than +2? Keep in mind I'm going off the number Koontz ran over a couple of days so I'm really not too sure they should, or need to, actually be changed.

despite the fact that i don't like it a lot, +2 isn't unfair and it can be attacked by most of the other bonuses. to avoid dutch harbour always being taken in preference to bethel and therefore probably being the first land bonus taken in nearly every game, i suggest that dutch harbor starts with one more neutral troop than bethel does, creating some variety.

after the changes just mentioned (and the more restricted port attacks), i recommend that north becomes +2, northwest becomes +5, yukon (interior) becomes +4 and kuskokwim (southwest) becomes +4. i subtracted 2 from the last two because of the presence of base camps.

ian.

[dolomite13]

Gorgeous map. Only thing that tripped me up was finding the edges of the sea zones. Once I realized it was listed along the longitude and latitude lines it was easy to see how it all fit together.

Look forward to this one

=D13=

[Seamus76]

Gorgeous map. Only thing that tripped me up was finding the edges of the sea zones. Once I realized it was listed along the longitude and latitude lines it was easy to see how it all fit together.

Look forward to this one

=D13=

Thanks so much, and to everyone recently for the feedback. Cairns, great to have you back. I've been on vacation but should have an update later tonight, which will address this issue, and the others recently mentioned.

[Seamus76]

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-06-30:

Thanks for the recent feedback everyone, this version should fix or address most if not all of the comments.
Before I get to the changes, I need to ask about the starting numbers.

- XML question, regarding the 1v1 starting numbers. Is there a way to keep them at 14, and include the Exploration Route terts? Rather than go to 18? I don't like that at all, way too many.

u can start all exploration route regions with n1 neutrals to make them easy to conquer, except for base camps being n3. if u do this, then each player in 1v1 will start with 14 regions and no-one will have an unfairly large number of exploration route regions.

Ian, at first glance this looked great, but when I started adjusting the map with the new neutrals it seems the numbers will now be off. Taking the Exploration Routes out of the starting numbers removes 12 terts, which is a lot. It makes 8 player games start with 3 per player (1 ship and 2 regular terts). Which I'm thinking won't work. Do you have any suggestions?

Changes:
- Updated all of the Bonus Regions names to fit the time period. (Far North to Arctic, etc.)
- Increased the opacity of the Kadiak, Inside Passage, and Unalaska mini-maps.
- Renamed Kodiak Island to Kadiak Island inline with the time period.
- Moved Kadiak Island from the Kuskokwim region to the Kadiak region.
- Moved Kadiak Island sea route from Egegik to Kenai.
- Added a dark highlight under the Latitude and Longitude lines separating the "Body's of Water", to help players distinguish them more easily.
- Decreased the opacity of all other Latitude and Longitude lines, so they are less distracting.
- In the small bottom left legend changed Base Camp info from "Part of no region" to "Part of no District".

Things to work on:
- Make the Sea Routes stand out more.

CURRENT MAP VERSION

v9.0 - Large (840x800)

Click image to enlarge.

[iancanton]

Taking the Exploration Routes out of the starting numbers removes 12 terts, which is a lot. It makes 8 player games start with 3 per player (1 ship and 2 regular terts). Which I'm thinking won't work. Do you have any suggestions?

unless i've miscounted, there are 29 random starts, so 8-player games actually start with 1 ship and 3 land regions, which will work. if u want more, then adding the 3 expedition route regions that surround the base camps increases the random starts to 32, so that each player starts with 1 ship and 4 land regions. receiving one of these regions might be good or bad for a player because he has a 60%+ chance to take an auto-deploy bonus immediately, but only by killing 3 neutrals.

having looked at the base camps, it has struck me that they receive only a +1 net auto-deploy, not +2, if the holder puts extra troops on them for defence because the extra troops decay. to compensate, u might want to increase the kuskokwim, north and yukon bonuses to +5, +5 and +3 respectively. though players can often avoid the decay by forting out, this is sometimes not an option, for example in adjacent forts games.

- Added a dark highlight under the Latitude and Longitude lines separating the "Body's of Water", to help players distinguish them more easily.
- Decreased the opacity of all other Latitude and Longitude lines, so they are less distracting.

this is very good indeed. it's obvious that there are three bodies of water now.

ian.

[Seamus76]

Taking the Exploration Routes out of the starting numbers removes 12 terts, which is a lot. It makes 8 player games start with 3 per player (1 ship and 2 regular terts). Which I'm thinking won't work. Do you have any suggestions?

unless i've miscounted, there are 29 random starts, so 8-player games actually start with 1 ship and 3 land regions, which will work. if u want more, then adding the 3 expedition route regions that surround the base camps increases the random starts to 32, so that each player starts with 1 ship and 4 land regions. receiving one of these regions might be good or bad for a player because he has a 60%+ chance to take an auto-deploy bonus immediately, but only by killing 3 neutrals.

having looked at the base camps, it has struck me that they receive only a +1 net auto-deploy, not +2, if the holder puts extra troops on them for defense because the extra troops decay. to compensate, u might want to increase the kuskokwim, north and yukon bonuses to +5, +5 and +3 respectively. though players can often avoid the decay by forting out, this is sometimes not an option, for example in adjacent forts games.

ian.

Thanks Ian. Every time I count I get a different number , but yes, it should be 29 available starting terts (plus 8 large ships), so that would be 3 random terts and 1 ship for each player in 8 player games. If you think that works we can give it a shot, just seemed low, but as I've said Gameplay is not my forte.

For now I'll keep the Exploration Route terts as starting 1n, as this might make the Exploration Route bonus more attractive. But if anyone has any thoughts one way or the other I'd like to hear it.

As for increasing the bonuses to compensate for the decay, take a look at all of the numbers Koontz ran, and let me know if you still want to change them.

Running all the numbers later tonight for all of the bonuses.

This is a bloody long night koontz!

Almost as long as nobodies dinners.

Sorry Seamus, been extremely busy of late.

show

Considering the values given are somewhat different from yours, here is what I suggest. These numbers take into account the size of map as well and are in keeping with that as well.

North 3 (has an auto deploy as well so worth 5)
NorthWest 4

Combined bonus of 10

Interior 7 (has an auto deploy as well so worth 9)

SouthWest 7 (has an auto deploy as well so worth 9)
South Central 5

Combined bonus of 15

Inside Passage 3
Aleutian Islands 2

Combined bonus of 7

On top of the numbers, make sure it says on the map that base camps are not part of bonus regions. Apart form that, you are good to go. Are you happy with these values? If yes, bung them on and will get you moved up, if not, why not?

[koontz1973]

ian would of seen those numbers, without treading on anyone toes here, if ian says to change the numbers, I would. You will get no one better.

[Seamus76]

ian would of seen those numbers, without treading on anyone toes here, if ian says to change the numbers, I would. You will get no one better.

Fair enough, consider it done. Thanks.

[Seamus76]

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-07-03:
Changes:
- Updated the bonus value of North from +2 to +3
- Updated the bonus value of Yukon from +4 to +5
- Updated the bonus value of Kuskokwim from +4 to +5
- Updated the Super Region Bonuses of All South, and "Hold Both"
- Updated the 888 and Starting Number version, and included below.

Question:
Starting numbers: The 29 starting terts don't take into consideration the Exploration Ships, so 1v1 games start with 14 terts, as you said, but does that include the 2 Exploration Ships? It doesn't look like it does. This then takes the starting terts for 1v1 games to 16 each, which is way too many in my opinion. Am I looking at the numbers correctly? Also, Ian can you let me know your thoughts on all the starting numbers, and what they should be for each game type? Thanks.

Things to work on:
- Make the Sea Routes stand out more.

CURRENT MAP VERSION

v9.1 - Large (840x800)

Click image to enlarge.

[Bruceswar]

GFX suggestion.... Raise up the Sea names a bit. They can barely be seen.

Also if you going for that surveying looking, then a grid System would be best?

Click image to enlarge.

[Seamus76]

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-07-06:
Changes:
- Brought out the Sea names a little more.
- Redid the Sea Routes to make them stand out more.

Question:
Starting numbers: Ian, can you please take a look and let me know if these are correct. For the 2 and 3 player games I divided by 3, as per our discussion regarding the game engine assigning out a third to neutral. They look right, but I could be wrong. Thanks.

Other than the starting numbers, which shouldn't effect much, I think the gameplay is pretty much done. Let's get this stamped.

CURRENT MAP VERSION

v9.2 - Large (840x800)

Click image to enlarge.

[iAmCaffeine]

Do not make it a grid system. Currently this is a great looking map, put a grid on it and you'll have a barrel of shit. That may be a bit blunt but I've had too much caffeine so heyho.

[Seamus76]

Do not make it a grid system. Currently this is a great looking map, put a grid on it and you'll have a barrel of shit. That may be a bit blunt but I've had too much caffeine so heyho.

Thanks! And don't worry I agree with you. For other maps it works great, but for this one it would be too distracting.

[iancanton]

the starting regions (avoid using the word position in this respect, since that means something else) in the first post are correct, as i understand it, as long as u remember to set a maximum of 2 start positions per player in the xml. in the first post, make a note of the exploration routes starting as n1, so u don't forget!

in case i haven't mentioned it, i particularly like the fact that there are only 7 ports, so that players have to fight for them in an 8-player singles game.

ian.

[Seamus76]

Excellent. That should wrap the gameplay up, it's been a long sticky.

[Bruceswar]

Then if you do not plan to use the grid like an original map would have take out the survey part in the title?

[dolomite13]

Then if you do not plan to use the grid like an original map would have take out the survey part in the title?

I wouldn't remove that ... The map may not be 100% accurate to an actual survey map ... but who cares ... It adds flavor.

=D13=

[Aleena]

I agree with you - who cares - this is a game map - not a tourism map, nor will it ever be used for surveying....
I think it looks great and having the US Survey in the title - even if it is not an actual survey map gives the map some character.. I love it as it is - it should move directly to BETA right now with out passing go, with out collecting $200.00

[Seamus76]

Then if you do not plan to use the grid like an original map would have take out the survey part in the title?

Nah, there are different types of "survey" maps, with and without grid lines. The map I stole that text from, as you can see, doesn't have grid lines. It's a big map, but if you look at the bottom right text you can see.

[iancanton]

it's been a long sticky.

it has indeed. onward and upward!



ian.

[koontz1973]

Seamus, mountains, a bit of fill in colour would not go amiss. Also, can you look at distressing the edges a bit. The map looks like a replica of an old map as it is now.

[Seamus76]

Seamus, mountains, a bit of fill in colour would not go amiss. Also, can you look at distressing the edges a bit. The map looks like a replica of an old map as it is now.

Thanks koontz. I did try some fill, which I initially didn't like, but I think it's just a matter of getting the opacity right. I'm working on it now.

When you say distress the edges, are you speaking of the black border, and the outer edges of the map in general? What would your suggestions be/technique? I know it looks a little too "pretty", but there is not much space between the edges and some part of the map. Thoughts?

[dolomite13]

There are some interesting techniques on this site for making thinks look old or slightly worn. You might be able to apply one of these techniques to the edges of the map to make it look a bit worn. Provided you use photoshop.

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/10 ... tutorials/

=D13=