Moderator: Cartographers
Dukasaur wrote:Your English is pretty good, but if there's any problems I'll be happy to help with that aspect.
So far only one mistake: "Fleets lose 1 army per turn" not "Fleets lost 1 army per turn" but I'll have a closer look at the end of the week.
Dukasaur wrote:It would be nice to have a map that reflects the real strategic issues in the Pelo War. Good work!
nolefan5311 wrote:Having the losing condition as not holding a capital, and then having some capitals so close is going to cause problems. Some of the capitals are only separated by one territory.
Oneyed wrote:nolefan5311 wrote:Having the losing condition as not holding a capital, and then having some capitals so close is going to cause problems. Some of the capitals are only separated by one territory.
nolefan5311 wrote:If he loses his capital, he's out of the game, right?
nolefan5311 wrote:And the mountains look good.
koontz1973 wrote:Fleets, If I am reading this correctly then if I hold DI, I can attack my ports and neutral ports, I can bombard PI as this ship has a different sail and also attack DM. Is this correct?
koontz1973 wrote:(all ports look the same so need to be able to tell the difference)
yes. in the same sea. I hope that it is clear that red sails are Delian League ships and green sails are Peloponnesian League ships.
port is located in region and it is clear which region belongs to which League. but if this will be still confusing I can do coloured anchors...
nolefan5311 wrote:It won't be too complex to have a winning condition and a losing condition. My concern is the proximity of some of the capitals to each other. In large player games, I could eliminate a player in a turn or two with good dice.
koontz1973 wrote:nole has a point with this about good dice and large games.
koontz1973 wrote:But why this I want to know. What does this have to do with the original map apart from the name Peloponnesian War. It might be an idea, if you want to continue down this road, go and have another look at the qwerts map and ask why does this need a sequel to it?
koontz1973 wrote:What makes it stand out from the rest of the maps? What is good about it (in your opinion) and try to emulate it, what is bad and throw that away.
koontz1973 wrote:I must admit that I never really play it apart from tournies and random map play. It just never struck me as qwerts finest (unlike his WW2 maps).
koontz1973 wrote:Right now, the legend is huge and can be reduced if the game was made simpler. qwerts use of symbols, while used a lot, gives the effect of a much deeper game than this one and saves a lot of space.
koontz1973 wrote:Will have another look tomorrow for you and give some more thoughts on this one Oneyed.
koontz1973 wrote:I think it was natty who said forget the small version for now and do the large one. Do this, it will make your life easier later on and also it will make issues with the map easier for everyone else to see earlier.
koontz1973 wrote:Lose the colour. Give everything a nice sandy look to it (like the original map). You can then use ways to make each territ stand apart (glows, icons). This will give the map a less cluttered feel to it.
koontz1973 wrote:Your capitals have not got even spacing, so payers will start with an advantage or a disadvantage. This needs to be dealt with. One way would be to have the capitals start neutral and give them a different bonus system.
koontz1973 wrote:1 capital +1, 2 capitals +2 but put an auto deploy onto each as well. This will solve the majority of GP issues right away.
koontz1973 wrote:Winning condition, right now, you need to hold 4 enemy capitals and 2 of your own (league). Make it simple for people to understand and just hold all capitals or any six like you have it now.
koontz1973 wrote:Your cut out (top left), this can be removed if you draw that section larger on the map itself. You have the room for it and will make it easier for players.
koontz1973 wrote:Rework your legend, it is very spaced out. You should be able to get everything at the bottom. This way, everything that is above the winning condition text can become territs.
koontz1973 wrote:On the second map, you have the cut out for the sea. Lose this completely but you can keep the lines and text for bombard/attack. Just out these onto the map, or even better would be to hold a sea region to get a bonus. Sea regions can only be attacked by the ports in that region. Again, easier for players to understand.
koontz1973 wrote:Lose the neutral areas. No area was neutral, back then. Just not conquered. More room for the legend.
Oneyed wrote:koontz1973 wrote:Lose the colour. Give everything a nice sandy look to it (like the original map). You can then use ways to make each territ stand apart (glows, icons). This will give the map a less cluttered feel to it.
forgot "original" map. I changed map name. this is totaly diferent map and gameplay, thereofre the colours are needed. is here another way how to differentiate continents bonuses? cluttered feel? this sounds as each coloured map is cluttered...
Oneyed wrote:koontz1973 wrote:Your capitals have not got even spacing, so payers will start with an advantage or a disadvantage. This needs to be dealt with. One way would be to have the capitals start neutral and give them a different bonus system.
I will lok what is possible to do here. but except totaly symmetric maps the most of maps have problems with advantage/disadvantage from the start. and players will not start only with capital, there are 8 capitals and 36 regions to distribute between players. maybe I will kick off losing conditions...
Oneyed wrote:koontz1973 wrote:1 capital +1, 2 capitals +2 but put an auto deploy onto each as well. This will solve the majority of GP issues right away.
this will not works toether with victory conditions...
Oneyed wrote:koontz1973 wrote:On the second map, you have the cut out for the sea. Lose this completely but you can keep the lines and text for bombard/attack. Just out these onto the map, or even better would be to hold a sea region to get a bonus. Sea regions can only be attacked by the ports in that region. Again, easier for players to understand.
you mean to add attack and bombard lines to the map? impossible with so much attack/bombard routes. or you mean to add them only in one part of map as example?
no sea regions. this will totaly ignore fleet...
Oneyed wrote:koontz1973 wrote:Lose the neutral areas. No area was neutral, back then. Just not conquered. More room for the legend.
these areas were neutral. these were not membes of any League and many of them were neutral during all war.
DJ Teflon wrote:The clutter can be a combination of coloured regions and other features.
DJ Teflon wrote:An alternative could be coloured region names? Different types of army circle?
DJ Teflon wrote:You could perhaps somehow not have some of the capitals too close together - is there anywhere on the turkish coast that could be used? Any of the western islands? Or are the capitals all essential to the historical context?
DJ Teflon wrote:If the capitals aren'ttoo close together and you have plenty of carefully placed regions that start neutral in between then the losing condition could still work- it is a great feature. The details could be worked-out later for neutral cvalues and which regions start together etc.
DJ Teflon wrote:Interesting point - you are meaning that if a player gains these capital bonuses then it makes the victory condition more and more likely and reduces the strategic options to win the game?
DJ Teflon wrote:One way of explaining could be to have a text explanation along the following lines: "Ships two way assault ports in the same sea and ships of the same fleet in an adjacent sea. Ships also bombard ships of the enemy fleet within the same sea." (this text could be improved though)
Or, the graphic to explain could be smaller without using a section of the map, just one / two of each region type (one port, two green and two red ships)?
DJ Teflon wrote:Referring to the point above, its maybe the neutral colour that gives a little colour-clutter - anyway, if you go for using one background colour and coloured region names or similar then I dont see anything wrong with 'neutral' regions - although it would be best to call them something different if you need some of the regions of the leagues to also start neutral as discussed above. So maybe, call them "non affiliated", "non aligned", or something?
GoranZ wrote:Making the map SuperSize can give you more space between capitals.
GoranZ wrote:And additionally you can set all territories around a capital to be neutral with 5 units for example.
Just an idea that I don't know if it will work... You might wait for others opinion on this.
PS: I still support Foundry protest (as shown my avatar), but I can work on my maps...
koontz1973 wrote:this is your right.
koontz1973 wrote:OK, with the starting positions, have you gone through all of the options as it stands now?
Trapped territs - Have each of the capitals as a starting position with 10 troops on it. Capitals cannot attack or fort out so these ten troops are stuck there. Surrounding territs can attack the capitals so the losing condition can be applied. For this one though, you would need to get rid of the one territ starts and have random drops.
koontz1973 wrote:Move capitals - move the capitals to the legend like conquer rome. This gives more room for extra territs and another layer of gameplay.
koontz1973 wrote:Oneyed, as for the map, your legend is still too large. It is taking up to much room and can be shrunk (unless you move the capitals to it). This does need to be addressed.
koontz1973 wrote:The cutout, you do not need it. You have more than enough room on the map to draw it in. It will confuse some players, put others of playing the map, but for what ever reason, it is not needed. Please try to remove it. If you post a version with that area redrawn and it looks ugly, then fine, it can go back in.
koontz1973 wrote:Large map, did you just do a scale up of the small? If so, you will need to redraw the map from scratch as scaling up does not give good enough results. This is the reason we all start with the large.
nolefan5311 wrote:I don't like the idea of having capitals start with ten troops that cannot be used in any way other than to protect from the losing condition.
nolefan5311 wrote:The simple fix with the capitals is to make sure that each capital is the same distance from the closest capital.
nolefan5311 wrote:This might not be possible, so the other option is to make sure that the same number of neutrals is between the capitals (i.e., if two capitals have only one region between them like Myrcinos, then that region should have 4 neutrals, whereas if two capitals have two regions between them, make those two regions two neutrals each). It's a simple fix.
koontz1973 wrote:Get the discussion flowing and try to see if we can get this map better.
Oneyed wrote:nolefan5311 wrote:This might not be possible, so the other option is to make sure that the same number of neutrals is between the capitals (i.e., if two capitals have only one region between them like Myrcinos, then that region should have 4 neutrals, whereas if two capitals have two regions between them, make those two regions two neutrals each). It's a simple fix.
attacking 2 region with 2 neutrals is different as attacking one region with 4 neutrals, I think.
Oneyed
Return to Melting Pot: Map Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users