District of Columbia [8/3] V1 Pg1

[sannemanrobinson]

Anacostia to Southwest would have my preference to avoid too much dominance of Bolling. Someone else might have a different opinion though.

[ManBungalow]

What can you do to make this map stand out from the many other city maps we already have?

[Peter Gibbons]

Ok, my first attempt at more coherent thoughts. Take them for what they are worth:

GENERAL
1) I'd argue you should approach the map like it's the only one of Washington, D.C. you will do. To start, this is a long process, so if you end up getting frustrated and don't see a second map (on the same territory) through, we would be left with an incomplete map of DC. I think you make a very good point that you could do a second map of the more touristy areas (the "Federal City," if you will), that includes monuments and other things--maybe including the Metro. But I don't think that means you should ignore some of the capital/American aspects on this map. Just a general observation in approach. If you end up with 2 (or 3) DC maps, that's great. But you might grow tired of this process OR you might like it so much that you want to use your talents on another geographic area after you finish this one.

GAMEPLAY
2) In the spirit of point #1 above, I'd strongly consider adding the Anacostia River in and then use Rock Creek Park as an impassible in the northwest. Neither has to be perfectly accurate, but using them will limit some connections, allow you to manipulate bonuses some more and give you greater freedom to balance gameplay.

3) I think you've already conceded/made this point, but once you follow through on #2 (if you do go that route) you can probably merge some territories even if it's not perfectly accurate--just for gameplay purposes. I'm thinking Palisades and Foxhall and then Deanwood and Benning as prime candidates. Maybe Blue Plains with Congress Heights. A lot of these potential mergers will depend on what ends up being the optimal territory count, so don't take any of those as gospel. Just suggesting them now as something to be on the lookout for.

4) The 4-way intersections have to be adjusted, as others have noted.

THEME/GRAPHICS
5) The rainbow color scheme just doesn't work for me. It's just not DC to the vast majority of people who will play this map. DC is America. You've got 8 bonus regions. I think you can do something with shades of red, blue, white and black. It could be very bold coloring (a deepish maroon red, a bright red, a navy blue, a very royal blue, a white, a black, a dark grey and then a very light shade of grey. If they are spaced appropriately around the map, it could be a very dynamic scheme. Obviously your call and you don't have to follow what I say, but I don't think the rainbow scheme is a winner in the long-term.

6) I really do like/appreciate the roads in and out of DC. I hope that stays part of the map.

7) I don't think the Seal fits, though. Just seems out of place and unless there's a more tasteful way of doing it, I'd like to see that eventually scrapped.

8 ) Like the use of the DC flag, though. Not sure it should be the entire background, but there's plenty of time to work with that. I think it definitely should be part of the map, though.

9) I think you need different fonts. I'm no expert on that sort of thing, but I know there are a lot of experts here in the foundry. I'm sure, through trial and error, you'll find a good one.

10) I don't think you should put any monuments on the map or involve them in the gameplay, but I do think the Capitol dome would be a great graphical touch to be part of the background. No idea how you do it or how it fits with the flag, but I hope it's something you consider. The combination of the DC flag and the US Capitol would give a really nice touch and hit on both parts of the city that are noteworthy.

[Seamus76]

Really nice first draft, I hope you stick with it.

I'm not the best at gameplay, and Peter has pretty much done some great posting, so I'll leave this to you guys for the moment, but if you need anything just let me know. I use gimp as well, so I won't be much help with photoshop.

[brhiba]

Anacostia to Southwest would have my preference to avoid too much dominance of Bolling. Someone else might have a different opinion though.

I'll try that.

What can you do to make this map stand out from the many other city maps we already have?

This map is intentionally basic. I'm biased but I think it stands out strictly because it's DC - a map of which doesn't exist. But I'm of the mindset - and this may be an unpopular proposition - that it doesn't need to stand out in gameplay. I hope the location and design will make it special. But I'd rather add it to the canon of straightforward city maps. My favorite thing about CC is the variety of maps that follow the standard theme - I'd be pleased as punch if there were a classic map of all the major cities.

[Seamus76]

What can you do to make this map stand out from the many other city maps we already have?

This map is intentionally basic. I'm biased but I think it stands out strictly because it's DC - a map of which doesn't exist. But I'm of the mindset - and this may be an unpopular proposition - that it doesn't need to stand out in gameplay. I hope the location and design will make it special. But I'd rather add it to the canon of straightforward city maps. My favorite thing about CC is the variety of maps that follow the standard theme - I'd be pleased as punch if there were a classic map of all the major cities.

Good luck with this battle. I've been fighting that to a certain degree with my last two maps, and have seen the question posed to just about every new map these days. Unfortunately there is a pervasive feeling that all new maps coming out need to be different in some way, (all I hear is "more complicated") but I agree with you that most players like these standard gameplay maps and are getting bored with the current ones. There is a place for complicated maps, but we also need standard maps with great graphics, and simple gameplay.

[brhiba]

...if you end up getting frustrated and don't see a second map (on the same territory) through, we would be left with an incomplete map of DC. I think you make a very good point that you could do a second map of the more touristy areas (the "Federal City," if you will), that includes monuments and other things--maybe including the Metro. But I don't think that means you should ignore some of the capital/American aspects on this map. Just a general observation in approach. If you end up with 2 (or 3) DC maps, that's great. But you might grow tired of this process OR you might like it so much that you want to use your talents on another geographic area after you finish this one.

I'm pretty determined... but then again I'm a rook so who knows. You make good points. I suppose I just have a personal vendetta in the sense that I want to save all things touristy for a different map. I'm personally familiar with all the neighborhoods here, but maybe no one else is, or cares. *pet project alert* I guess. But yes - the approach is to totally capture DC, in a clean and simple way.

I'd strongly consider adding the Anacostia River in and then use Rock Creek Park as an impassible in the northwest.

I considered that at the outset, and ultimately decided against it. My strong preference is to stick with plain territories... but I might have to reconsider if there's enough pushback.

...you can probably merge some territories even if it's not perfectly accurate--just for gameplay purposes. I'm thinking Palisades and Foxhall and then Deanwood and Benning as prime candidates. Maybe Blue Plains with Congress Heights. A lot of these potential mergers will depend on what ends up being the optimal territory count, so don't take any of those as gospel.

I have 44 territories at the moment, which I thought was a solid number (listed among the goldens, and it works well in the excel worksheeet). I can see the Deanwood/Benning thing - which would really make Ward 7 a prime starting point. I can see the Palisades/Foxhall merge in Ward 3 too, but I might consider Cleveland Park/S. Rock Creek instead.

The rainbow color scheme just doesn't work for me. It's just not DC to the vast majority of people who will play this map. DC is America. You've got 8 bonus regions. I think you can do something with shades of red, blue, white and black. It could be very bold coloring (a deepish maroon red, a bright red, a navy blue, a very royal blue, a white, a black, a dark grey and then a very light shade of grey. If they are spaced appropriately around the map, it could be a very dynamic scheme. Obviously your call and you don't have to follow what I say, but I don't think the rainbow scheme is a winner in the long-term.

Ok, I'll throw some paint around and see what lands on the canvas.

I really do like/appreciate the roads in and out of DC. I hope that stays part of the map.

Thanks, I was proud of that one.

I don't think the Seal fits, though. Just seems out of place and unless there's a more tasteful way of doing it, I'd like to see that eventually scrapped.

Darn, I liked that one. It's ironic but it actually makes it feel less DC, which I like. It's not the standard thing anyone associates with DC, which gives it some cool novelty. But if people don't like it, I can live without.

Like the use of the DC flag, though. Not sure it should be the entire background, but there's plenty of time to work with that. I think it definitely should be part of the map, though.

The flag is a non-negotiable for me... not its placement necessarily, but it's gotta be featured somewhere prominently.

I think you need different fonts.

Big time.

I don't think you should put any monuments on the map or involve them in the gameplay, but I do think the Capitol dome would be a great graphical touch to be part of the background. No idea how you do it or how it fits with the flag, but I hope it's something you consider. The combination of the DC flag and the US Capitol would give a really nice touch and hit on both parts of the city that are noteworthy.

Good suggestion. I agree.

[brhiba]

Unfortunately there is a pervasive feeling that all new maps coming out need to be different in some way, (all I hear is "more complicated") but I agree with you that most players like these standard gameplay maps and are getting bored with the current ones. There is a place for complicated maps, but we also need standard maps with great graphics, and simple gameplay.

Well said, sir!

[Shape]

Unfortunately there is a pervasive feeling that all new maps coming out need to be different in some way, (all I hear is "more complicated") but I agree with you that most players like these standard gameplay maps and are getting bored with the current ones. There is a place for complicated maps, but we also need standard maps with great graphics, and simple gameplay.

Well said, sir!

I'm not so crazy about the, well, crazy maps, ha, but I think there can be ways to subtly spice things up without trumping a general classic-style scheme. Seamus76's Alaska map is a good example, or even Thyseneal or American Civil War or Eurasia. (Not gonna lie, I had to look those up ). Then again, there can be good reasons to make a plain ol' classic map. I think the plain maps make sense for geographic areas that people are familiar with, so when you conquer, say, the British Isles, it has more meaning than, say, Muskingum County.

-Shape

[Peter Gibbons]

This map is intentionally basic. I'm biased but I think it stands out strictly because it's DC - a map of which doesn't exist. But I'm of the mindset - and this may be an unpopular proposition - that it doesn't need to stand out in gameplay. I hope the location and design will make it special. But I'd rather add it to the canon of straightforward city maps. My favorite thing about CC is the variety of maps that follow the standard theme - I'd be pleased as punch if there were a classic map of all the major cities.

Agreed with this totally, by the way. What makes Charleston or Chicago or Puget Sound more needed on CC than Washington DC? If someone wants to make a map of a city, they do it well, and people want to play it, then it should not be held back "just because it's another city map."

If the foundry only churns out maps with unique gameplay aspects, the site will drift away from classic "Risk" play. I don't want that. I think there's room for both approaches. Some mapmakers will get really creative with gameplay. Some mapmakers will stay classic and be creative with design. Both should be encouraged. Some of the more "unique" maps are the least popular on this site, after all.

[Peter Gibbons]

Thanks for the replies above. It sounds like they only place we really disagree is on the inclusion of the Anacostia and maybe Rock Creek, so we'll see what the foundry says as this develops!

On the DC flag/Capitol thing... (and I hope I describe this well)... what about having a shadowed image of the Capitol dome be the full background and then overlay the DC flag on it, but in shield form? Then the map would be on top of that.

Or maybe the flag as the background with the Capitol sort of embossed/engraved into the flag?

Or, a third option... the flag as the background, but in an actual flag/wavy fashion... but you have the saturation level of the flag taper off as you head toward the right side of the map, where it bleeds into an image of the Capitol dome.

I think I like the third one the best, but not sure how difficult that is to pull off!

[koontz1973]

What can you do to make this map stand out from the many other city maps we already have?

This map is intentionally basic. I'm biased but I think it stands out strictly because it's DC - a map of which doesn't exist. But I'm of the mindset - and this may be an unpopular proposition - that it doesn't need to stand out in gameplay. I hope the location and design will make it special. But I'd rather add it to the canon of straightforward city maps. My favorite thing about CC is the variety of maps that follow the standard theme - I'd be pleased as punch if there were a classic map of all the major cities.

Not going happen. Whilst this is a simple map and it may stay a simple map (as it is your first one), D.C. is nothing special. Never been their myself and have no intention to. A place that has under 700 thousand people living their does not merit a map just because it holds a few places of interest to a minority.

Lets get some landmarks onto the map. How about the river? We also need to be seeing some impassables. A lot can be incorporated into the map and still make it simple. Not every map needs to be complicated, but not every map needs to be made.

[Peter Gibbons]

Not going happen. Whilst this is a simple map and it may stay a simple map (as it is your first one), D.C. is nothing special. Never been their myself and have no intention to. A place that has under 700 thousand people living their does not merit a map just because it holds a few places of interest to a minority.

I thought the concern expressed above by Seamus was overblown, but I guess I was wrong. And I must say this is a really arrogant and foolish approach. First of all, Washington is the capital of the most powerful nation in the world. For that alone, it probably merits a map if this site has city maps.

Second of all, your condescending language makes no sense. "Just because it holds a few places of interest to a minority." Excuse me? Name me a place that holds places of interest to the majority? I bet I can find 51% of a sample that could give a crap about NYC, London, Copenhagen, Philadelphia and many of the other cities on this map. What a joke of a comment.

Third, we're talking about a site that has San Marino, Luxembourg, Puget Sound, Quad Cities, Greenland and Charleston as maps (all with under 700,000 people, I might add), all with very simple gameplay and no real special features (aside from Greenland). Quad-effing-Cities!!! I mean, Quad Cities is a map with NO special features. And you're going to tell me there's no place for Washington, DC?!?!

[I should note, by the way, that Quad Cities is a GREAT map. As is Charleston. Two of the best on the site, in my opinion. And they are nothing but simple gameplay maps of cities that are 1/5th the size of DC and 1/1,000,000th as important geo-politically]

Lets get some landmarks onto the map. How about the river? We also need to be seeing some impassables. A lot can be incorporated into the map and still make it simple. Not every map needs to be complicated, but not every map needs to be made.

The thing is, I actually agree with you that the Anacostia River and Rock Creek Park could help improve the gameplay. But his post alone makes me want to encourage the mapmaker to forge ahead without incorporating them. EDIT: and definitely no landmarks--icons on the map look stupid in my opinion and I imagine some others share the opinion. I think it's a shame they got added to North America, for example. I don't know why this is a point that gets harped on. NYC plays fine without landmarks on the map. So does London. Why does Washington have to have them?

The last sentence above is more condescening bullcrap. Why are the foundry moderators looking to discourage or make things more difficult for a mapmaker? The foundry has bled mapmakers, bled ideas, lacked creativity and become a far less busy place over the past year or so. Along comes a mapmaker with a great draft, a clear idea of what he wants to do and the first basic response is "do it differently or we won't allow you to make the map because Washington DC isn't important enough to have a map in our eyes." Unbelievable. For the first time on this site, I'm genuinely shocked by the response. I really hope this post was just your misguided personal opinion and not site policy.

[koontz1973]

Peter, you make think my advice was condescending, but I was only following up on a comment by ManBungalow that was not addressed:

What can you do to make this map stand out from the many other city maps we already have?

And he is right, what makes this worthy of a map. Just because we want it, does not mean we will get it. I am here to help get the best possible map made. You mentioned a few maps from yesteryear that got made, but these where all made when we had far fewer maps. You also mentioned Quad cities, this is a great map and it is unique in theme and location, whilst still being easy on gameplay, it does have a couple of extra features added to it like auto deploys, trapped territs and what not.

[Shape]

Hm, well, I didn't read any condescension in koontz's post. At any rate, I think both you, koontz, and you, Peter Gibbons, have valid points. Now, I think there is room for a classic-style D.C. map. However, after looking at the maps Peter Gibbons listed, NYC has some flavor in the graffiti'd sign and Statue of Liberty icon for Liberty Island, and it has extra gameplay elements, London has a great aesthetic with a picture of London and Big Ben set in the background, Copenhagen also has additional gameplay elements and the objectives themselves add flavor, and Philadelphia, I think, is the best example, oozing with flavor that represents the Philadelphian culture in aesthetics and gameplay. So, what I mean to say, is although these maps may not attract people solely on the basis of the location depicted on the map, but each adds key features both graphically and gameplay-wise to increase the appeal of the map to a wider audience. I think this should be the goal of this D.C. map. As for the other maps you listed, Quad Cities does a fantastic job of setting the scene with that blurb of history and it's a very pretty map, Luxembourg's appeal, I think, stems from it's smallness (much like Doodle Earth), and Luxembourg, Greenland and San Marino are each countries, which I think is a different case, as these are more familiar to a wider audience than a city would be. I will concede that Puget Sound is a very unappealing map, and Charleston to some extent as well, but I don't think these are the examples to go by.

-Shape