Kabanellas wrote:-The ‘Tower Of Control’ starts with 3 neutral because it doesn’t have an auto-deploy bonus attached to it. The others do have (Elven town, Tower Of Doom and the Raider’s Haven), so it makes some sense to raise those neuts a bit.
Well why not give it an autodeploy. My point is that "the tower of control" deserves a high auto deploy, and therefore high naturals
Captainwalrus - I’ll try to sort something out… (those Dwarf Runes in the top do say something )
Ohh, what does it say?
Kabanellas wrote:Danyael, thanks. I’ll keep that in mind – reducing the legend. As for the cut-off border, that’s a personal thing I guess, I do prefer to avoid the obvious which would be keeping all inside that frame….
lt_oddball wrote:Bland map, but so were the originals from Tolkien. So I dig it.
1)Legend +2 troops: village dots plus horse and village dots plus shield/sword:
problem WHICH village ? Addar or Akhenat ? Any of both villages with any of both elements ?
2) legend . + 1 tr. auto-deploy --->save space and be clear---> +1 troop auto-deply
or make at least "trp" for troop.
3) legend, Dwarf's gateway:
"one way assault exterior regions" unclear: one way in 2 directions ?
Assume I have "Grut" can I then choose between one way assault Anshar and Ralaq-marshan ?
If one way all the way (clockwise, anticlockwise) then indicate with arrows on the map.
4) All lagoths ---> Both Lagoths
5) legend: Ports all connect to Hellnor.
But does Hellnor return connect to all ports ?
6) Legend Skull port of Raiders HAven:"can"one way assault..
---> leave out the "can"; one way assault all ports
7) one raider boat on map moves TOWARDS the Raiders Haven skull.
Not consistent with its one way assault direction.; flip the vessel
8.) make the bridges a bit wider/clearer
or mention them/function in the legend.
And in legend : thick bush around logoth are unpassable (example)
must go now.
MichelSableheart wrote:..Is it possible to simplify? Personally, I would drop the island, Raiders Haven, all harbours, the two towers, the receptacles and (possibly) the raiders. This would allow you to focus on the different races, which each could (should?) be unique.
MichelSableheart wrote:...On another note, is it really necessary to change the name of the orcs? True, the word originated from tolkien, but it has become a staple in modern fantasy, comparable to elves and dwarves. Are you sure it's copyrighted? And what about goblin as an alternative?
Finally, even though the runes do translate into a poem, there are very few people familiar enough with tolkien's runes to translate it. I think it would be better if it is actually readable for the majority of people.
Sorry for the large amount of complaining. Your map does look like it has a lot of potential.
What time period are you shooting for? The two towers were only truly relevant during the war of the ring, IIRC. Valar and Numenor OTOH weren't important during the war of the ring. And I don't remember pirates being significant in either the Silmarillion, the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings.I couldn't have a Tolkien's Middle Earth based map without having The Two Towers (definitely), the Lost Island represents Valar (also needed), The Raiders Haven are the Pirates that haunted Middle Earth and do spice things a bit in the board game.
That way, even though there are a lot of symbols on the map, most of them work the same. Furthermore, you lose the odd "hold all logoths for a +1" which was different from everything else on the map.The following combinations give a +1 bonus:
- elven town + elven training ground;
- Human village + warriors training ground;
- Human village + horsemen training ground;
- Gorks camp + Gorks training ground;
- Raiders inn + Raiders training ground;
- Dark elf village + Dark elf training ground.
I'm affraid players won't take that second approach.When they see a lot of symbols on the map, quite a few will go "that's complex, I'll look for something easier". And quite a lot of those willing to put in the effort of reading the legend, will leave after that because the legend isn't easily understandable either.Thanks Sync! The map is nooot that complex... I think that in a second approach people will get the feeling of it. And after all.. Tolkien's world was complex.
I know that this meaning was introduced by Tolkien. But he isn't the only one to use it. Warcraft, Warhammer, D&D and Magic the Gathering, to name a few of the top of my head, all use orcs. They've become just as staple a part of fantasy as elves and dwarves, IMO.The word ORC comes from the latin word Orcus (one of the names of God Pluto – The Lord Of The Underworld). But the meaning that we now give to the word was introduced by Tolkien himself. Therefore to avoid copyright issues we should stick to the word Gorks.
Orcs was a common word used for a number of different creatures, some of them varieties of trolls...
...The use of hobbit-like creatures called halflings is not a copyright violation, since such things exist in mythology and you are not necessarily exploiting LOTR any more than anything else. But if you use the word hobbit, which was created for LOTR, and the creature is similar to Tolkein's hobbits, then you're violating copyright. But orcs, being a mythological creature subject to many interpretations, is free range.
MichelSableheart wrote:What time period are you shooting for? The two towers were only truly relevant during the war of the ring, IIRC. Valar and Numenor OTOH weren't important during the war of the ring. And I don't remember pirates being significant in either the Silmarillion, the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings.
I think you're making a huge misjudgement about how complex the map is, and I strongly belief you need to simplify. If you insist on keeping everything in, perhaps you should make things more uniform.
My main concern is not the complexity from a gameplay perspective. My main concern is the complexity from a "just looking at the map" perspective. My main Point of View is that of a player who looks at this map for the first time, and is trying to determine if he wants to play this map. What I am worried about is that, due to the large number of different things going on, he will not be able to figure out how it works, and will therefore look for a different map.AndrewB wrote:There are simple and there are complex maps available. Some players like simple ones and some love complex.
But both of them have chance for the existence. If the complexity of the map is the issue for you Michel, then maybe you wouldn't play it?
I see that you have played only 5 games on 4 unique maps at all. Not sure, why would you request to simplify it at all? Why don't you give a try to Waterloo map or Poison Rome first, then call this map complex.
I am sorry Michel, not to sound disrespectful, but I don't think you are qualified to talk about the "complexity" of any of maps at all.
MichelSableheart wrote:First of all, the general style of your map looks great. It gives of a good feeling for what you're shooting for. Based on the looks alone, I would play it.
Kabanellas wrote:Well... there was a Mount Doom in Tolkien’s work if I remember right. In here we have the Mountains of Doom. I could think of another name that brings the same feeling…
but coming to think of it, the name/term 'Mountains of Doom' is widely used, even referring to the Everest. Should it be really a problem?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users