koontz1973 wrote:OK seamus, I am going to be brutal here, so please do not take anything personal.
Man if you think that's brutal you should meet my wife.
koontz1973 wrote:Map background is great, not much can be done on that apart from touch ups. Territ lines do seem a little hard in places.
Thanks. The tert lines are all the same color for each kingdom, but because the bonus colors behind them change they look "harder" depending on the background. Apart from making them all black or super dark, which I don't want to do, I think they look good the way they are. If during graphics there is strong push back, which I doubt, I will look at it again.
I'm not sure why I would need to change them so you'll need to explain that for me. I have looked at those cb images and worked with them for weeks now, and as far as I can tell everything is clearly distinguishable from everything else, plus there are mini maps which are clear as well.
koontz1973 wrote:Mountains, do not work on this map. Go and look at similar maps with bright colours. You will see they all have inverted v shapes with a single colour in them. Either that or a top down view of them will work.
Yes I know, they don't work for me either so I'm redoing them, and they are looking pretty good actually.
koontz1973 wrote:Next to Jiaozhi, you have a red symbol that is very faded, what is this?
Just a faded bonsai tree. You no likey?
Game play. Look at this
from natty dread to see what I meant about adding some trade routes and other towns onto the map. Only holding 3 cities where you may deploy next to them is going to be bad for the game play boys. They will get you to change this for a winning condition. I suggest at least one capital for each bonus zone. Have trade routes between them with the winning condition of holding 4 complete trade routes. Bring a bonus onto each one and players will go for them.
The capital bonus wont be a winning condition, I was just throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. I'll leave it open to discussion, but a +3 for 3, or a +4 for 3 would work just fine for me. I would also keep one of them open as a starting position to help keep them in play.
Yes, I'm very familiar with that map, and would have loved for natty to have finished it. I also know what you meant about trade routes, but I'm extremely resistant to bring those aspects into this map, and at this time don't really plan to add them. Just because they could be, doesn't mean they should be. I want this to be simple, gameplay and estheticly. Adding them not only clutters up the map, but also takes away other limited space needed to explain the trade routes, and everything else. I want to keep the explaining, and the need for explaining down to an absolute minimum.
I hope that makes sense, as I'm not trying to be stubborn just looking to add a map that is simple and straightforward.