American Civil War [Quenched]

[Elijah S]

Notable changes in this revision:
-Maryland has been changed from nuetral to being a Union state.
-The swords have been "un"embossed and made to look like swords again.
-The ships and bridges have been redrawn and repositioned; An attack line has been drawn from Maryland to USS4; A third bridge has been added to make it clear that Louisiana and Mississippi can attack each other.
-The bugle has been made a little smaller.

With this revision I've taken all the suggestions that were previously unaddressed and either made changes or decided that the graphics and/or gameplay would not benefit from it.

Maryland becoming a Union state seemed to make both geographic and gameplay sense; So, although the argument could be made that it was in fact nuetral, I agreed that the Union capital should fall within the borders of a Union state.

The attack line from Maryland to one of the union ships also seemed to be something that would provide a means for the Union fleet to possibly be owned by a northern general, enhancing gameplay.

The graphics have been polished to the point that I'm very pleased and think that placing much more time on them would only serve to compromise my own style and preferences. -Personally, I like this map and, while it's been a culmination of a lot of input and perspectives, I think it captures the era well and that the gameplay should be intiguing and lively. -Elijah

[DiM]

i think it's the first time i look at this map so sorry if i;m posting something that's already been said

1. the various images (cannon, trumpet, swords) look like they have a poor quality. very blurry and pixely.
2. the plastic wrap on the water looks awful
3. the bevel on the ships is too abrupt.
4. the edges of the land look really strange. there seems to be a blue-ish thing o the outside. and they look very jagged. as if someone very poorly cut the land from the sea.
5. the land is casting shadow on the sea but it's casting it in all directions.
6. the blackness of the legend and the texture on the bottom look a bit out of place

[Coleman]

i think it's the first time i look at this map so sorry if i;m posting something that's already been said

1. the various images (cannon, trumpet, swords) look like they have a poor quality. very blurry and pixely.
2. the plastic wrap on the water looks awful
3. the bevel on the ships is too abrupt.
4. the edges of the land look really strange. there seems to be a blue-ish thing o the outside. and they look very jagged. as if someone very poorly cut the land from the sea.
5. the land is casting shadow on the sea but it's casting it in all directions.
6. the blackness of the legend and the texture on the bottom look a bit out of place

1) I like the swords. The cannon and trumpet might look better if they swap places, but I can't be sure.
2) No idea what you are talking about here.
3) It's consistent, I'm sorry you don't like bevel. I think they look good.
4) Very expertly cut the land from the sea you mean? Jagged like it really is? I don't see how this needs to be changed.
5) It's floating above, at least that's the effect it gives me, and I like it. Sort of an abstract realism.
6) How so? Elaborate please.

I think most of your complaints are about the abruptness of all the style choices made. Abruptness is kind of a theme here though, and I don't want to see this needlessly smoothed out.

[yamahafazer]

i think it's the first time i look at this map so sorry if i;m posting something that's already been said

1. the various images (cannon, trumpet, swords) look like they have a poor quality. very blurry and pixely.
2. the plastic wrap on the water looks awful
3. the bevel on the ships is too abrupt.
4. the edges of the land look really strange. there seems to be a blue-ish thing o the outside. and they look very jagged. as if someone very poorly cut the land from the sea.
5. the land is casting shadow on the sea but it's casting it in all directions.
6. the blackness of the legend and the texture on the bottom look a bit out of place

The only one here that I think might do with a little work done on is No. 1... they do look a bit pixely...

[mibi]

what are the yellow territories, i cant figure it out.

[Coleman]

They are neutral to the conflict. Bottom Left Corner. Maybe giving them a square like the ones on the right have will make this clearer.

[mibi]

They are neutral to the conflict. Bottom Left Corner. Maybe giving them a square like the ones on the right have will make this clearer.

ah, i didnt see that little thing, and the color was brighter than everything else so i thought they were important or something.

[Elijah S]

Sorry for this delayed reply... I'm in so cal and it's kindof hectic out here lately...

I've already tuned the yellow states down a notch, but I can bring them down a little more.
I'll also play with putting some kind of border around where it states the yellows are nuetrals.

I don't see this pixelation issue with the icons, but I'll see if I can tweek that too.

Thx for the comments. -Elijah

[Rictus]

I'd move the statement about neutral territories to sit in the rest of the legend on the right, just to avoid confusion. But that's a very small nit to pick in what looks to me to be a almost-ready map - good work.

I'll chuck this idea in even though it's ill thought out and probably impossible to implement - In the game 'North and South' for the Amiga 500 (yes, I'm showing my age, shut up), there were two territories - one bordering Mexico and on bordering Canada, where, if you left an army there for too long, it would be attacked by angry Indians or Mexicans who would wipe out you army. It meant that when you won the territory, you had to move people out of it again quickly. I was wondering if the programming would enable you to have a territory that 'drained' one army per round from that territory - perhaps down to a minimum of one. Could create an interesting dynamic. But maybe this isn't the right map for that, as it's clearly pretty well balanced as it stands.

[Elijah S]

Notable changes in this revision:
-The Neutral States color has been changed to light green, providing a better blend with the overall color scheme and placing less emphasis on them.
-A color block has been placed beside the phrase stating that Neutral States earn no collective bonus.
-The overall image has been lightened a bit.
-The army numbers have been turned off to get ready for Final Forge and the writing of the xml.

Once more, thanks to everyone who has provided input on this project. I think the result is an intiguing map that will be fun and challenging to play!

It seems to me that the vast majority of opinion here in the foundry comes from other mapmakers, and while we're graphic artists, we're also CC players who enjoy lively gameplay... so hats off to all of you who enjoy the satisfaction of sweeping the board in an escalating cards game!

I was originally planning to write the script myself, but with time restraints (my boss wants me to get back to work! Go figure... lol) I'd gladly let someone else do it.
There's plenty of room at the top right corner for another name! Any takers?

[yamahafazer]

EEEeeeem... sorry don't have time myself

[Unit_2]

you really need to make the other states worth a bonus

[Coleman]

you really need to make the other states worth a bonus

disagree, he really doesn't.

[cairnswk]

Last update Elijah...very nice work.

[Unit_2]

you really need to make the other states worth a bonus

disagree, he really doesn't.

why? if you start out with all your armys over there it is goign to be unfair to you and you will proble lose, also how is it fair to treat the free states? you NEED to make it a bonus. its really no question..

[Frigidus]

Considering you get +5 with only 1 border at New York, I'd have to go for there. Of course the South-West is tempting too.

[Elijah S]

you really need to make the other states worth a bonus

disagree, he really doesn't.

why? if you start out with all your armys over there it is goign to be unfair to you and you will proble lose, also how is it fair to treat the free states? you NEED to make it a bonus. its really no question..

I think it's the luck of the drop, just as in every other game... How about when you start a classic game and already own all of Oceania or S.A. while someone else has troops spread out across the board?
They were neutral during the war, and it was determined quite a ways back in this thread that neutrals shouldn't gain a bonus...

[Evil Pope]

First of all, I think this map is pretty nice. Some souther borders, like between Texas and Indian Territry, are a bit pixelated. But otherwise, I like it.
And I see Lincoln is in there, up in the northern states. What about adding Jefferson Davis in the south? Just an idea, to me it seems like it should be there....But thats just me.

[Elijah S]

First of all, I think this map is pretty nice. Some souther borders, like between Texas and Indian Territry, are a bit pixelated. But otherwise, I like it.
And I see Lincoln is in there, up in the northern states. What about adding Jefferson Davis in the south? Just an idea, to me it seems like it should be there....But thats just me.

When I first put the Lincoln image in this I thought about putting in a Jefferson Davis image too...
Not wanting to overkill the map with graphics, I chose not to, but...
I played with one of the few available pics of Davis and decided maybe this would be worthy of a poll...
The image is below and I'll start a poll within the next couple days. -Elijah

[Jesse710]

Canada was in that war too you know! What about the Fenians?

LOL

[yamahafazer]

you really need to make the other states worth a bonus

disagree, he really doesn't.

why? if you start out with all your armys over there it is goign to be unfair to you and you will proble lose, also how is it fair to treat the free states? you NEED to make it a bonus. its really no question..

I think it's the luck of the drop, just as in every other game... How about when you start a classic game and already own all of Oceania or S.A. while someone else has troops spread out across the board?
They were neutral during the war, and it was determined quite a ways back in this thread that neutrals shouldn't gain a bonus...

I would have to go wiht Elijah here. If this is ment to be a representation of the real battle then you cant have the neutral states giving bonuses... and anyway it adds spice to the game.

[yamahafazer]

First of all, I think this map is pretty nice. Some souther borders, like between Texas and Indian Territry, are a bit pixelated. But otherwise, I like it.
And I see Lincoln is in there, up in the northern states. What about adding Jefferson Davis in the south? Just an idea, to me it seems like it should be there....But thats just me.

When I first put the Lincoln image in this I thought about putting in a Jefferson Davis image too...
Not wanting to overkill the map with graphics, I chose not to, but...
I played with one of the few available pics of Davis and decided maybe this would be worthy of a poll...
The image is below and I'll start a poll within the next couple days. -Elijah

It doesn't seem to over do it to me...

[Coleman]

You're a General in the American Civil War! Would you try to command the forces of the Union or Confederacy?

• A) I'd try to gain a solid foothold in the North and head South! - 59% - [ 13 ]
• B) I'd take charge of a Southern army and go North! - 40% - [ 9 ]

Total Votes : 22

[soundout9]

LOVE THIS MAP CANT WAIT TILL PLAY!!!! keep up the good work

[Dancingmustard1]

Keep going with this!!! I hope i can play this one day