Forum

by **Tisha** on Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:27 pm

First Nations of North America

72 territories
14 bonus regions

version 11

by **sailorseal** on Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:31 pm

I like this map. the graphics look great! The focus of a game would be down south and I don't see why anyone would try for the Arctic bonus. Hard to tell what assaults what. Maybe combine small bonuses into bigger ones. Love the idea and great map. Will be back later for more comments

by **Bones2484** on Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:46 pm

I absolutely love the map, but I'm not too sure what the point of all the northern territories are? Everything else seems to be segregated by a group of Native tribes. Up North you started using names of the territories?

It just seems like you started putting in territories for the sake of territories and lost the "theme" of the map. Personally, I'd just take out each of the arctic territories and it still works great.

But like I said, it's beautiful.

by **sailorseal** on Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:49 pm

Bones2484 wrote:I absolutely love the map, but I'm not too sure what the point of all the northern territories are? Everything else seems to be segregated by a group of Native tribes. Up North you started using names of the territories?

It just seems like you started putting in territories for the sake of territories and lost the "theme" of the map. Personally, I'd just take out each of the arctic territories and it still works great.

But like I said, it's beautiful.

Agreed all the way

by **The Neon Peon** on Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:50 pm

That is just amazing...

The graphics are spectacular, little work needs to be done there.

I see what you mean with the Mississippi, though. Two solutions for the west: (which looks a bit odd right now)
1. Make the river define territory boundaries as you did up north in Alaska.
2. Scrap the rivers entirely since there are only 3 on the map and they are not impassable.

(Overall, I'd go with the first option.)

Combine the following territories in the east:
Caddo - Natchez
Chichasaw - Cherokee
Choctaw - Creek

That should should clear up the problem.

...

Make the "hopi" territory larger, extend it down south.
Combine NezPerre and Flatfoot into one territory and make it part of the Great Basin Bonus.
Add a # to the Plains and South East Bonus.

...

The Mountains look FANTASTIC! and the background is just... my jaw actually dropped when I saw this map.

I vote for keeping the northern Territories, the map would look much worse as being just half of North America.

by **Juan_Bottom** on Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:20 am

This map looks gorgeous.. the mountains look like they were done individually. It'll get quenched, probably with no graphic adjustments.

I'll just throw around some gameplay suggs I guess...

Bones2484 wrote:I absolutely love the map, but I'm not too sure what the point of all the northern territories are? Everything else seems to be segregated by a group of Native tribes. Up North you started using names of the territories?

It just seems like you started putting in territories for the sake of territories and lost the "theme" of the map. Personally, I'd just take out each of the arctic territories and it still works great.

Agreed.

The Neon Peon wrote:I see what you mean with the Mississippi, though. Two solutions for the west: (which looks a bit odd right now)
1. Make the river define territory boundaries as you did up north in Alaska.
2. Scrap the rivers entirely since there are only 3 on the map and they are not impassable.

(Overall, I'd go with the first option.)

Agreed. The map could probably use more impassables anyways... maybe the Ohio, Missouri, and Mississippi rivers. Of course, that is silly based on the theme... I dunno, but these rivers were very important, so somehow making them more prominent can't hurt.

The Meso America and Plateau bonus seem pretty easy to get compared to the others, don't they? And you have more bonuses than regions, which I'm sure that you noticed.
Beothruk(Northeast Woodlands) is connected to Labrador?
Are you including Cuba/Caribbean?

How accurate from a historical standpoint are the territories? Some seem a slight suspect, but I don't know enough about the other tribes in the 1500s to say for certian. :lol:

(just wondering)

by **shakeycat** on Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:33 am

I assume East and West Greenland connect?

Do you use the territory names instead of group names because the group is the same over all northern territories?

by **miniwally** on Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:12 am

apache was more north and tarascans were more in the west than the aztecs in mexico

by **Hatchman** on Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:56 am

It's beautiful Tisha 8-)

by **yeti_c** on Fri Mar 06, 2009 6:21 am

Welcome back Tisha...

Awesome start - Graphically the map is amazing...

I agree and disagree with some of the artic comments - there were native indian tribes living in these parts of the world - the Inuit tribes... I suggest perhaps finding tweaking a couple of those names for these to hit the theme deadon.

C.

by **Bones2484** on Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:29 am

yeti_c wrote:I agree and disagree with some of the artic comments - there were native indian tribes living in these parts of the world - the Inuit tribes... I suggest perhaps finding tweaking a couple of those names for these to hit the theme deadon.

C.

If this can be done, then it would be a much better solution than taking them out completely.

by **MrBenn** on Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:43 am

The graphics are stunning. There are a couple of niggles, but nothing worthy of note at this early stage ;-)

Once I'd picked my jaw off the desk, I had a quick glance over the gameplay... My first question relates to the rivers... are they intended to be impassable? I'm inclined to think they aren't, in which case they could be made more subtle. The rivers in the centre of the map (Illinois area) seem to clutter that area a bit too much for my liking - that's the difficult thing about rivers that don't follow territory borders!

Some of your colours are very similar (the red/orange and blue/purple), and I think there needs to be a bit more clarity between the regions - which don't all have tentative bonus values yet :lol:

The Arctic region is a little confusig, as there are some bits of islands that have colour, but no name. While I appreciate that some territories span the water, this area is a little confusing. There are no paths/connections over the water, which makes the Arctic look a bit disjointed. That isn't a problem, but would probably warrant a higher bonus?

My final comment is that the map doesn't feel that balanced... there are a couple of small easy areas to get and hold early on, while the rest of the areas feel vast and hard to get in comparison - If you are able to get a +1 or +2 early on, I'd imagine that you'd be half-way to winning already - the SouthWest feels like a much more attractive place to start than anywhere else.

I cannot understate how good-looking the map currently is... Keep up the good work ;-)

by **RjBeals** on Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:15 pm

Holy Shizza!

Tisha leaves for a year or 2, then returns with this?! You've been practicing I see. First of all, you've got to tell my how you did those mountains. Did you really draw/shade them by hand?? The colors are great. Very faded, but still able to tell regions apart (except for the north/western us). I would suggest making the Mississippi into a border also, and not drawing a border on top of it. But at first glance, you've got a fantastic first draft - well done!

by **ben79** on Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:24 pm

i like the idea of that, looking foward to play it, but the names of the northen regions are not right : Mckenzie was named later, alaska, cooper etc ... those were not named back in 1500, at least not with theses names, but like i said the map is great !!!!