District of Alaska - v14.1 [2014-23-02] pg23 - XML ONLY

Maps that may be nearing the end of production. Finalize maps here, while testing.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Cartographers

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Alaska - v2.1 [2013-03-07] pg2

Postby koontz1973 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:18 am

Idea for the small boat names and this will tie in with the theme. For each sailing ship, their was a captain and a first mate. Or find famous Alaska explorers.
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Map Contribution (12)
Tournament Contribution (31) General Contribution (9)

Re: Alaska - v2.1 [2013-03-07] pg2

Postby Peter Gibbons on Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:45 am

Any thoughts on my post above regarding the size and makeup of bonuses? I just think these are way too large, as is, for the map. The +8s are never going to get held, the +6s probably aren't worth the pain, and the map could use more balance--either by re-arranging which territories fall into which bonus zone and/or by carving out a new bonus zone or two. I gave some specific suggestions above. You obviously don't need to follow the advice, but just wondering what you thought.
User avatar
Major Peter Gibbons
 
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:21 am
Location: Washington, DC
Medals: 69
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (3)
Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (3)
Clan Achievement (6) Tournament Contribution (30)

Re: Alaska - v2.1 [2013-03-07] pg2

Postby koontz1973 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:34 pm

Seamus, regarding what Peter Gibbons is on about, and he does make a good point, can I ask you what your make up of bonuses comes from?

Some ideas to combat this are:
Break bonuses up and rename them away from compass points
Trails like Northwest passage map
Collection bonuses, every 3 regions inside a bonus area = +1
Bonuses inside bonuses. You have small bonuses that are part of the bigger one as well.

A few other things, I would suggest a route down the right side of the map (through Canada) to open up the small bonuses at the bottom. Anyone who drops down their will win the game for sure.
Interior colour, it really is bloody awful, can you find a different one please.
With the ships, I have been thinking that it might be a way to have these, open the map but make it far easier to use them. Have it as Dock - small boat - large boat - small boat - dock. Small boat 1 killer neutral and large boat 3 neutral but decays by 2. Large boat gives a deployable bonus of 3 though. Either put it on the boat to keep it safe or deploy it on land. Much more fun this way for foggy games. Also, easier to explain in the legend.
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Map Contribution (12)
Tournament Contribution (31) General Contribution (9)

Re: Alaska - v2.1 [2013-03-07] pg2

Postby Oneyed on Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:11 pm

I see much ideas here, so here are my five cents (this is from our conversation with Seamus via PM):

Seamus76 wrote:
Oneyed wrote:please do not take these notices bad. it is just my view and opinion (maybe too historic acurate).

- I do not think that in 1895 there was any exploring wave. the exploring of Alaska started sooner.
- the most important things in these times were connection Alaska to USA and Glod Rush. during Gold Rush the population of Alaska was doubled. and it was just 3 years.
- there was mainly coastline settled (by europeans ofcourse and because the exploration ships map loks as from their view). ofcourse also the other areas were settled but by native people.
- I do not thonk that regions as you have them were exist in these times.

there were some tips for gold rush, but I think your idea about exploring Alaska is far better. gold rush was only short period and only territorial event.
you have exploration ships here, so why not to do exploring map? I think that large area was so inhospitable with wild animals, natives (and I read that they were also hostile) was never "discover" in these times.
- so what about to add expadition here (maybe with any targets?), build bonuses on holding enitre expeditionary route (or adjacent part), any combination of "main discovered features"...
- add some importanco to coast (main port towns which were doors to Alaska, or bonus for docks)
- what about Alaska Commercial Company?

just some ideas because the map has big potential...

but it also could stay simple and clear as now. it is your map so if you like it as it is I am fine with this :)

Oneyed

These are great ideas, and you should certainly copy and past them in the thread. They will definitely get some good discussion going.
Lieutenant Oneyed
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:29 pm
Medals: 11
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)

Re: Alaska - v2.1 [2013-03-07] pg2

Postby Seamus76 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:12 pm

Thanks everyone. I am processing all of the recent feedback, among other things, so I apologize for the delay in response.

Peter, Oneyed & Koontz, you all have some great thoughts, and I really appreciate your help on this map. I think together we can come up with something to energize the site a little bit.

I will get back with specifics regarding everyone's thoughts tomorrow, but please keep them coming.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Lieutenant Seamus76
Media Volunteer
Media Volunteer
 
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Medals: 103
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (29) Clan Achievement (31) Map Contribution (2) Tournament Contribution (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: Alaska - v2.1 [2013-03-07] pg2

Postby Shape on Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:04 am

Isn't the auto-deploy on the ships in conjunction with the neutrals on the small boats going to make taking out a player rather difficult? I feel like it encourages stalemates. Don't get me wrong, I think your idea here is cool, and, honestly, something I could see myself playing a good lot, as I like the idea of a small twist on a classic-style map.

-Shape
User avatar
Private 1st Class Shape
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:46 am
Location: World 1-1

Re: Alaska - v1.0 Large [2013-02-18] pg1

Postby Seamus76 on Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:09 pm

I'm going to bunch a few of these together and hope everything comes across clear.

Peter Gibbons wrote:I like the start of the map. My only initial thought is that a 49 territory map with two +8s and two +6s seems like it will dissuade bonus collection. I understand the interest for accuracy, but maybe the Far North could be divided into two regions--once centered around Nome, the other around Barrow/Prudhoe. You might move Arctic Village and Fort Yukon into the new Barrow/Prudhoe bonus, too.

I also think you might move Egigik and/or Kodiak in with the Aleutians because, again, a 10-territory +6 on a 49 territory map isn't going to be collected too often.

I think changes along those lines would give more balance to the map and make for more dynamic gameplay.

Also, aesthetically, while I like the clean feel of the map, I must say that the color scheme and tone immediately reminds me of the Germany map. I know they aren't exactly the same and others might not feel they are that close, but I just wanted to point that out. I think some changes in color/tone would make this more unique--but that might be down the road.


Peter Gibbons wrote:Any thoughts on my post above regarding the size and makeup of bonuses? I just think these are way too large, as is, for the map. The +8s are never going to get held, the +6s probably aren't worth the pain, and the map could use more balance--either by re-arranging which territories fall into which bonus zone and/or by carving out a new bonus zone or two. I gave some specific suggestions above. You obviously don't need to follow the advice, but just wondering what you thought.


koontz1973 wrote:Seamus, regarding what Peter Gibbons is on about, and he does make a good point, can I ask you what your make up of bonuses comes from?

Thanks again Peter, sorry for the delay. Looking more at the bonus structure and make up of terts within them, I think you are right that it will be hard for people to go for them, since they are made up of so many terts and they can be attacked by quite a few as well. Koontz, I came up with the bonuses by looking at the number of terts that would need to be held to get the bonus. So Far North for ex, you need to hold 7 border terts, two of which are docks, and connect to all the other docks, so I came up with +8.

As for the bonus regions I really don't want to move terts to different bonus regions, or redraw the regions, but I do like how Three Kingdoms of China works to break the larger zones down into 2-3 smaller zones, with a larger overriding bonus. My only concern with that would be the lack of space to include explanation of the bonuses, but I could try a couple of things. One would be to work small mini-maps into the legend area, kind of in the style they are now, but larger maps and smaller text. The other would be to use smaller text and include more smaller maps, but I'll try the first option before that.

koontz1973 wrote:Some ideas to combat this are:
Break bonuses up and rename them away from compass points
Trails like Northwest passage map
Collection bonuses, every 3 regions inside a bonus area = +1
Bonuses inside bonuses. You have small bonuses that are part of the bigger one as well.

- What do you mean by the compass point idea?
- I like trails, do you mean on land or water? I really like how Oneyed has the battle ground circles within the terts, and I had thrown that out in a couple PM's, but it will mean a redraw of the terts to allow more space for the "Out Posts" within them, but I like this, and have been thinking about the redraw to accommodate the change. My idea is that these terts, which there will only be a few connected per bonus region, would be killer neutrals and start 1n or 2n, and revert to 1n or 2n, but the "Out Post" within that tert is an auto-deploy of 2 (starts 1n or 2n). So the thought is that as you head into and explore the inner regions you need to get to a base camp within a tert or have your exploration party killed off by cold. Once at the "Out Post or Base Camp", you get supplies, food, etc.(the auto-deploy) to keep moving.

koontz1973 wrote:A few other things, I would suggest a route down the right side of the map (through Canada) to open up the small bonuses at the bottom. Anyone who drops down their will win the game for sure.
I don't think this is an option based on the location of the legend and the need to explain quite a few things. I know I will need to explain some other stuff down the road, so if need be the bottom left corner where the scale is will become a legend box instead. But even that space is limited.

Also, and more importantly, the docks can be attacked by the other docks, so Inside Passage for example only has 3 borders to protect 2 of them are docks, which can each be attacked by 5 other docks, so I'm not sure I see how it would be easy for someone to basically win the game on the drop. Depending on the initial rolls, and obviously the settings, anything is possible, but that can be said to a certain degree for all maps in my opinion.

koontz1973 wrote:Interior colour, it really is bloody awful, can you find a different one please.
Sorry I don't agree. Maybe it's the most recent 2 versions which had an ice texture added to the Interior, which I can easily remove. Take a look a the first version in the Old Maps spoiler and let me know if you feel the same way. Personally I like it, and think the cool blue goes very well with the map and the theme of Alaska itself. If it comes up down the line and there is a big push I will certainly change it, but for the next version I'll just take the ice texture off and go from there.

koontz1973 wrote:With the ships, I have been thinking that it might be a way to have these, open the map but make it far easier to use them. Have it as Dock - small boat - large boat - small boat - dock. Small boat 1 killer neutral and large boat 3 neutral but decays by 2. Large boat gives a deployable bonus of 3 though. Either put it on the boat to keep it safe or deploy it on land. Much more fun this way for foggy games. Also, easier to explain in the legend.
I think this might unnecessarily over complicate the gameplay a bit. Right now the ships and small boats were put together mainly with fog games in mind. In that, I wanted a "stop-gap" between the docks and the ships so that if you have a dock you don't know what might be on the other side of that small boat. Maybe it's a stack, maybe the player moved all his troops out through the other small boat, if so how many. This is the scenario I was looking to create. I don't really like the ships being deployable rather than auto-deploy. For me the ships are about bringing resources to and from the ships, which was difficult. I think most players would hate having to continually put troops on a decay to keep it safe, while each turn they just disappear, not even being able to use them in the "field".

Shape wrote:Isn't the auto-deploy on the ships in conjunction with the neutrals on the small boats going to make taking out a player rather difficult? I feel like it encourages stalemates. Don't get me wrong, I think your idea here is cool, and, honestly, something I could see myself playing a good lot, as I like the idea of a small twist on a classic-style map.

Hey Shape, thanks for the question and feedback, I really hope you help us work this one out. We could always use more people in the foundry.

I want to make sure I understand your concern regarding the boats. It may be that the attack arrows aren't clear, which is an easy fix. Basically the two small boats are one way attacks only, just opposite ways, so one small boat only attacks the big ship, and the other small boat only attacks the docks. But to your point the only way to kill your opponents off is to kill their ship, if that is their last tert, which can be done through the dock then small boat. If you don't mind let me know your thoughts on why this would lead to stalemates, I guess more than any other map.

Thanks again for the feedback everyone. I hope I covered everything, including what Oneyed included. I look forward to your responses.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Lieutenant Seamus76
Media Volunteer
Media Volunteer
 
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Medals: 103
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (29) Clan Achievement (31) Map Contribution (2) Tournament Contribution (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: Alaska - v2.0 Large [2013-03-04] pg2

Postby brhiba on Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:54 pm

Seamus76 wrote:... changed the Deck legend text to say "All docks connect, and border Small Boats within their bodies of water".

Hi Seamus76, I like the map so far, well done. The above is confusing though - do docks connect only in their body of water, or to ALL other docks? Sounded like the feedback was that all docks should only connect locally? If so, the legend syntax is confusing - maybe the fix is delete "all" and add another comma after "Boats".

Also, I gotta say I don't love the territory font - looks like Times? - probably just my preference but it seems out of place. The size and weight is good - the face just doesn't seem to fit the overall aesthetic.

Nice looking map, keep it up.
User avatar
Sergeant brhiba
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Washington, DC
Medals: 4
Standard Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Alaska - v1.0 Large [2013-02-18] pg1

Postby brhiba on Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:01 pm

Peter Gibbons wrote:Also, aesthetically, while I like the clean feel of the map, I must say that the color scheme and tone immediately reminds me of the Germany map. I know they aren't exactly the same and others might not feel they are that close, but I just wanted to point that out. I think some changes in color/tone would make this more unique--but that might be down the road.

koontz1973 wrote:Interior colour, it really is bloody awful, can you find a different one please.

I like the colors and the overall feel, a lot!

(Peter - I think Germany is one of the top 5 maps around... I don't think the two look similar enough that it's an issue.)
User avatar
Sergeant brhiba
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Washington, DC
Medals: 4
Standard Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Alaska - v2.1 [2013-03-07] pg2

Postby koontz1973 on Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:23 pm

Seamus76 wrote:What do you mean by the compass point idea?
- I like trails, do you mean on land or water? I really like how Oneyed has the battle ground circles within the terts, and I had thrown that out in a couple PM's, but it will mean a redraw of the terts to allow more space for the "Out Posts" within them, but I like this, and have been thinking about the redraw to accommodate the change. My idea is that these terts, which there will only be a few connected per bonus region, would be killer neutrals and start 1n or 2n, and revert to 1n or 2n, but the "Out Post" within that tert is an auto-deploy of 2 (starts 1n or 2n). So the thought is that as you head into and explore the inner regions you need to get to a base camp within a tert or have your exploration party killed off by cold. Once at the "Out Post or Base Camp", you get supplies, food, etc.(the auto-deploy) to keep moving.

Compass idea, split the map up into compass points. You can go large and small by missing out some.
Trails on land. Natty used them on this map. Something similar would work well here.
With the mini bonuses, what I meant was to have a small bonus region of say 4 terts, within the larger bonus regions. So for you current large Far North region, you can have another one called North and use Baird, Colville, Koyukak only. These 3 would yeald a 1 bonus, while still having to hold them for the larger far north bonus as well.
Seamus76 wrote:Sorry I don't agree.

OK, my objection to it is this though, all other colours are earthy, muted colours, this one and it is the only one, is a shiny blue colour. Keep it, but I believe you can find a blue that is not so bright. Give it a go for me please.
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Map Contribution (12)
Tournament Contribution (31) General Contribution (9)

Re: Alaska - v2.0 Large [2013-03-04] pg2

Postby Seamus76 on Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:35 pm

brhiba wrote:
Seamus76 wrote:... changed the Deck legend text to say "All docks connect, and border Small Boats within their bodies of water".

Hi Seamus76, I like the map so far, well done. The above is confusing though - do docks connect only in their body of water, or to ALL other docks? Sounded like the feedback was that all docks should only connect locally? If so, the legend syntax is confusing - maybe the fix is delete "all" and add another comma after "Boats".

Also, I gotta say I don't love the territory font - looks like Times? - probably just my preference but it seems out of place. The size and weight is good - the face just doesn't seem to fit the overall aesthetic.

Nice looking map, keep it up.

Thank you so much, I appreciate your thoughts and look forward to your help. I see your point, and maybe missed it as part of the discussion, but I was thinking it only pertained to the small boats and the docks, with the docks still being able to attack each other. Personally I think having the docks all connect and attack each other makes for a more interesting gameplay avenue. But I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. As well as what designates how a dock is in a body of water. For ex. St Lawrence is pointing left so my thought would be it would border both waters, or it could be turned up to only border the Chukchi Sea. Thoughts?

As for the font, it is Times, which was king of close to the antique maps I've seen, but I am not great with fonts, so if you have any specific suggestions I'd love to see them.

koontz1973 wrote:Compass idea, split the map up into compass points. You can go large and small by missing out some.
Trails on land. Natty used them on this map. Something similar would work well here.
With the mini bonuses, what I meant was to have a small bonus region of say 4 terts, within the larger bonus regions. So for you current large Far North region, you can have another one called North and use Baird, Colville, Koyukak only. These 3 would yeald a 1 bonus, while still having to hold them for the larger far north bonus as well.
Right, like Three Kingdoms of China. I like that idea as well.

Seamus76 wrote:Sorry I don't agree.

OK, my objection to it is this though, all other colours are earthy, muted colours, this one and it is the only one, is a shiny blue colour. Keep it, but I believe you can find a blue that is not so bright. Give it a go for me please.[/quote] Anything for you my friend. ;)
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Lieutenant Seamus76
Media Volunteer
Media Volunteer
 
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Medals: 103
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (29) Clan Achievement (31) Map Contribution (2) Tournament Contribution (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: Alaska - v2.1 [2013-03-07] pg2

Postby koontz1973 on Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:38 pm

koontz wrote:Give it a go for me please.

seamus wrote:Anything for you my friend.

And people where just waiting for a smack down. :mrgreen:
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Map Contribution (12)
Tournament Contribution (31) General Contribution (9)

Re: Alaska - v1.0 Large [2013-02-18] pg1

Postby Peter Gibbons on Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:58 pm

Seamus76 wrote:Thanks again Peter, sorry for the delay. Looking more at the bonus structure and make up of terts within them, I think you are right that it will be hard for people to go for them, since they are made up of so many terts and they can be attacked by quite a few as well. Koontz, I came up with the bonuses by looking at the number of terts that would need to be held to get the bonus. So Far North for ex, you need to hold 7 border terts, two of which are docks, and connect to all the other docks, so I came up with +8.

As for the bonus regions I really don't want to move terts to different bonus regions, or redraw the regions, but I do like how Three Kingdoms of China works to break the larger zones down into 2-3 smaller zones, with a larger overriding bonus. My only concern with that would be the lack of space to include explanation of the bonuses, but I could try a couple of things. One would be to work small mini-maps into the legend area, kind of in the style they are now, but larger maps and smaller text. The other would be to use smaller text and include more smaller maps, but I'll try the first option before that.

Can I ask what your aversion is to splitting up some of the larger regions--particularly the far north? It's your map and I don't mean to push, but just wondering if it's a question of geographic fidelity or if you think the large bonus with +8 makes for better gameplay.

(I think this applies to the interior and the +6 southwest as well, but just focused on the far north for now, as that seems like the most obvious candidate for a split and re-arrangement to me).
User avatar
Major Peter Gibbons
 
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:21 am
Location: Washington, DC
Medals: 69
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (3)
Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (3)
Clan Achievement (6) Tournament Contribution (30)

Re: Alaska - v2.0 Large [2013-03-04] pg2

Postby brhiba on Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:00 pm

Seamus76 wrote:Personally I think having the docks all connect and attack each other makes for a more interesting gameplay avenue. But I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. As well as what designates how a dock is in a body of water. For ex. St Lawrence is pointing left so my thought would be it would border both waters, or it could be turned up to only border the Chukchi Sea.

Was gonna mention this as well - the docks are a little small, or maybe the color doesn't stand out enough - they might be ok aesthetically, but it distracts from clear gameplay. If the way they're facing determines their play, they might need to be more prominent.

Seamus76 wrote:As for the font, it is Times, which was king of close to the antique maps I've seen, but I am not great with fonts, so if you have any specific suggestions I'd love to see them.

Sure, I love fonts. I personally avoid Times in any design because it immediately feels like every generic Windows doc since '92.

Check out Modern No. 20. It has stronger serifs and a great retro feel. If you don't like that, try Bodoni MT, Baskerville Old Face, or Century Schoolbook. Poor Richard could even work. If you need any of these fonts, I can get them to you.
User avatar
Sergeant brhiba
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Washington, DC
Medals: 4
Standard Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Alaska - v1.0 Large [2013-02-18] pg1

Postby Shape on Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:56 pm

Seamus76 wrote:
Shape wrote:Isn't the auto-deploy on the ships in conjunction with the neutrals on the small boats going to make taking out a player rather difficult? I feel like it encourages stalemates. Don't get me wrong, I think your idea here is cool, and, honestly, something I could see myself playing a good lot, as I like the idea of a small twist on a classic-style map.

Hey Shape, thanks for the question and feedback, I really hope you help us work this one out. We could always use more people in the foundry.

I want to make sure I understand your concern regarding the boats. It may be that the attack arrows aren't clear, which is an easy fix. Basically the two small boats are one way attacks only, just opposite ways, so one small boat only attacks the big ship, and the other small boat only attacks the docks. But to your point the only way to kill your opponents off is to kill their ship, if that is their last tert, which can be done through the dock then small boat. If you don't mind let me know your thoughts on why this would lead to stalemates, I guess more than any other map.

Thanks again for the feedback everyone. I hope I covered everything, including what Oneyed included. I look forward to your responses.

Ahh, I guess I didn't look closely enough at the arrows. Perhaps the direction of those could be made more clear? I guess as far as the stalemate concern, if you think of a flat rate or no spoils game, I feel like one could easily stack up troops on their ship indefinitely. They have to keep them there to protect their hefty 3 troop bonus and keeping them there ensures that they stay in the game. Not only that, but opponents have to go through a neutral territory to get to your ship, so that gives less incentive to bust someone's ship (plus it deters one from using their ship troops, since they would have to go through a neutral as well). It would be much more profitable for everyone to focus on Alaska than the surrounding ships. Does that make sense?

-Shape
User avatar
Private 1st Class Shape
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:46 am
Location: World 1-1

Re: Alaska - v1.0 Large [2013-02-18] pg1

Postby Seamus76 on Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:22 pm

Peter Gibbons wrote:
Seamus76 wrote:Thanks again Peter, sorry for the delay. Looking more at the bonus structure and make up of terts within them, I think you are right that it will be hard for people to go for them, since they are made up of so many terts and they can be attacked by quite a few as well. Koontz, I came up with the bonuses by looking at the number of terts that would need to be held to get the bonus. So Far North for ex, you need to hold 7 border terts, two of which are docks, and connect to all the other docks, so I came up with +8.

As for the bonus regions I really don't want to move terts to different bonus regions, or redraw the regions, but I do like how Three Kingdoms of China works to break the larger zones down into 2-3 smaller zones, with a larger overriding bonus. My only concern with that would be the lack of space to include explanation of the bonuses, but I could try a couple of things. One would be to work small mini-maps into the legend area, kind of in the style they are now, but larger maps and smaller text. The other would be to use smaller text and include more smaller maps, but I'll try the first option before that.

Can I ask what your aversion is to splitting up some of the larger regions--particularly the far north? It's your map and I don't mean to push, but just wondering if it's a question of geographic fidelity or if you think the large bonus with +8 makes for better gameplay.

(I think this applies to the interior and the +6 southwest as well, but just focused on the far north for now, as that seems like the most obvious candidate for a split and re-arrangement to me).

Thanks for the feedback, but nah, I'm not averse to splitting the larger bonus regions in a way like this one https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=583&t=183181. That's what I was trying to describe when I said " I do like how Three Kingdoms of China works to break the larger zones down into 2-3 smaller zones, with a larger overriding bonus." I think this would work well on this map, and take care of the concern regarding the zones being too big and thus out of play.

brhiba wrote:
Seamus76 wrote:Personally I think having the docks all connect and attack each other makes for a more interesting gameplay avenue. But I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. As well as what designates how a dock is in a body of water. For ex. St Lawrence is pointing left so my thought would be it would border both waters, or it could be turned up to only border the Chukchi Sea.

Was gonna mention this as well - the docks are a little small, or maybe the color doesn't stand out enough - they might be ok aesthetically, but it distracts from clear gameplay. If the way they're facing determines their play, they might need to be more prominent.

Fair enough, I can certainly make the docks larger, but what are the thoughts on dock direction determining which body or water it is in?

brhiba wrote:
Seamus76 wrote:As for the font, it is Times, which was kind of close to the antique maps I've seen, but I am not great with fonts, so if you have any specific suggestions I'd love to see them.

Sure, I love fonts. I personally avoid Times in any design because it immediately feels like every generic Windows doc since '92.

Check out Modern No. 20. It has stronger serifs and a great retro feel. If you don't like that, try Bodoni MT, Baskerville Old Face, or Century Schoolbook. Poor Richard could even work. If you need any of these fonts, I can get them to you.

Thanks for putting that list together. I liked Bodoni MT Italic, I think bc it looks a lot like what I have now but with a little more antique feel.

Shape wrote:
Seamus76 wrote:
Shape wrote:Isn't the auto-deploy on the ships in conjunction with the neutrals on the small boats going to make taking out a player rather difficult? I feel like it encourages stalemates. Don't get me wrong, I think your idea here is cool, and, honestly, something I could see myself playing a good lot, as I like the idea of a small twist on a classic-style map.

Hey Shape, thanks for the question and feedback, I really hope you help us work this one out. We could always use more people in the foundry.

I want to make sure I understand your concern regarding the boats. It may be that the attack arrows aren't clear, which is an easy fix. Basically the two small boats are one way attacks only, just opposite ways, so one small boat only attacks the big ship, and the other small boat only attacks the docks. But to your point the only way to kill your opponents off is to kill their ship, if that is their last tert, which can be done through the dock then small boat. If you don't mind let me know your thoughts on why this would lead to stalemates, I guess more than any other map.

Thanks again for the feedback everyone. I hope I covered everything, including what Oneyed included. I look forward to your responses.

Ahh, I guess I didn't look closely enough at the arrows. Perhaps the direction of those could be made more clear? I guess as far as the stalemate concern, if you think of a flat rate or no spoils game, I feel like one could easily stack up troops on their ship indefinitely. They have to keep them there to protect their hefty 3 troop bonus and keeping them there ensures that they stay in the game. Not only that, but opponents have to go through a neutral territory to get to your ship, so that gives less incentive to bust someone's ship (plus it deters one from using their ship troops, since they would have to go through a neutral as well). It would be much more profitable for everyone to focus on Alaska than the surrounding ships. Does that make sense? -Shape

Yeah, the current arrows need to go, they don't work well enough to distinguish the one-way attack direction. They were antique clock hands, but I can do better.

First keep in mind I'm planing for the small boats to start neutral 1, and revert to neutral 1, so attacking it and taking it out is less the concern, it's what's on the other side, and the fact that you can't pile on the small boats. As for a stalemate scenario, I think that can happen on any map, but in my opinion is based more on the players in the game rather than the map. The map may be a contributing factor to helping the stalemate continue, but is determined more from the style of play of everyone involved. There are so many maps that have a standalone auto-deploy tert, Jamaica, New World, Das, etc. I've played lots of games on those maps with no spoils, and haven't run into any games that lasted longer than say 50 rounds. Certainly some people will go with a strategy of piling, and it may work, and it may not. I just like the strategic wrinkle of not knowing what's on the other side of the small boats, while at the same time having to be concerned about the killer neutral.

One thing that might work, and add another wrinkle would be having the small boat that attacks the ship be neutral 3, while the small boat that is attacked by the ship is neutral 1. This would make it harder to use the ship attacking small boat as a card spot or something. Which may not be bad.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Lieutenant Seamus76
Media Volunteer
Media Volunteer
 
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Medals: 103
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (29) Clan Achievement (31) Map Contribution (2) Tournament Contribution (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: Alaska - v2.1 [2013-03-07] pg2

Postby Seamus76 on Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:04 am

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-03-12:
Thanks again everyone. I'm still trying to process a lot of the feedback recently, but wanted to get this updated gameplay version out for comment.

- The largest update includes the addition of Expedition Routes and Base Camps. What do you all think? The idea is that these expedition routes provide an additional bonus opportunity, and at the same time "break up" the larger bonus regions, by providing bonuses within them, which was a concern for a few people.
--- The other idea behind the Expedition Routes is that as your party moves along them each tert they cross through loses 1 explorer per turn. They can certainly be moved around, but I'd like to keep them between 3-4 terts per route, and I kind of like how a couple of them cross into a different bonus zone.
--- The Base Camps could use some work, and I'm sure they will change, so I'm more interested in the gameplay behind them. Basically the idea for them is that they provide a resting point for the expedition, which has faced harsh terrain and the loss of 1 explorer per turn.
---- My thought is that the base camp sits within it's tert, and can only be attacked by the tert it's within. Would it be best to leave it the way it is, or have the route go the tert army circle then the base camp army circle, to show the connection?

I know there have been some comments on this, but I'm looking for some more feedback - As for the docks, and which ship sets they attack, is it clear? Right now it looks like St Lawrence is attacked by both the Bearing Sea ships, and the Chukchi Sea, depending on if the orientation of the dock determines which waters attacks it. (I don't mind it being attacked by both, just wondering.) Or should St Lawrence dock be turned up so that it goes into Chukchi rather than looking like both. This would give those two ship sets two docks, and the 3 in Bearing Sea only 2. Thoughts?

Things to do (among other things):
- Determine how many neutrals start on the small boats, 1n, 2n, 3n? One thing that might work, and add another wrinkle would be having the small boat that attacks the ship be neutral 3, while the small boat that is attacked by the ship is neutral 1. This would make it harder to use the ship attacking small boat as a card spot or something. Which may not be bad.
- Determine naming convention and add name labels to the Small Boats.
- Work to make all of the "mini-map" images more clear, especially the smaller ones towards the bottom of the region bonus list.
- Put a lighter glow behind the tert names to make them stand out more, especially on the smaller islands, etc.
- Add the rest of the general aesthetic stuff.

CURRENT MAP VERSION

v3.0 - Large (840x800)
Click image to enlarge.
image
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Lieutenant Seamus76
Media Volunteer
Media Volunteer
 
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Medals: 103
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (29) Clan Achievement (31) Map Contribution (2) Tournament Contribution (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: Alaska - v3.0 [2013-03-12] pg3

Postby koontz1973 on Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:01 am

Seamus, really liking the base camp and routes. The excellent way you have used decay, autos and bonuses to have these regions is a great way forward. Are you planning to add a few more camps around the map without routes to signify the failed expeditions? This would also be a way to balance the map better, you have already explained the camps so no new work their. Thinking about the numbers, it might be wise to have base camps as a 1 auto and the bonus for the route at 3. Same numbers but the base camps are too powerful now. Have you thought of neutrals?

Names for the small ships, not sure if I posted this as I cannot find it, but I was thinking maybe have the names of captains and explorers for the small boats.

A few aesthetics.
Title looks blurry.
Mountains, sure you will get the same from isaiah in China map here. Might be an idea to look at the mountains.
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Map Contribution (12)
Tournament Contribution (31) General Contribution (9)

Re: Alaska - v3.0 [2013-03-12] pg3

Postby Seamus76 on Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:14 am

koontz1973 wrote:Seamus, really liking the base camp and routes. The excellent way you have used decay, autos and bonuses to have these regions is a great way forward. Are you planning to add a few more camps around the map without routes to signify the failed expeditions? This would also be a way to balance the map better, you have already explained the camps so no new work their.
Thanks a lot.
I hadn't planned on any more camps around, but that's an interesting idea. What was your thought, to just have the camp in a tert, or would it look different, like a destroyed camp or something? If that's the case it would need further explanation, and might be better as a killer neutral or something rather than a bonus. The explanation again though might be an issue regarding space.

Now one thing I was just thinking was instead of camps around, could there be a couple of terts that just have the route, and no camp, which would look more like an abandoned expedition, or something. This would mean those terts would decay, with no camp bonus. The issue with that is the +2(or +3) for holding the whole route. This could be alleviated by still having 3-4 terts along the route, but there might only be 1 maybe 2 areas with that type of opportunity. The only one I can really see would be the 3 terts Point Hope, Franklin Point, and Point Barrow. So the route would be 3 terts long, but provide +3 if held. Don't think that will work. Thoughts?

koontz1973 wrote:Thinking about the numbers, it might be wise to have base camps as a 1 auto and the bonus for the route at 3. Same numbers but the base camps are too powerful now. Have you thought of neutrals?
I have not thought of neutrals, and always could use some input and ideas on that. I am totally cool with the base camps being +1 auto, and the route bonus being +3.

koontz1973 wrote:Names for the small ships, not sure if I posted this as I cannot find it, but I was thinking maybe have the names of captains and explorers for the small boats.
I do like that idea, but my only issue is spacing. I need like 16 three to four letter names, lol.

koontz1973 wrote:A few aesthetics.
Title looks blurry.
Mountains, sure you will get the same from isaiah in China map here. Might be an idea to look at the mountains.

-Title has a 1px G-blur, so it's supposed to have a little fuzzy look, but I'll do it over in the same technique as the tert name text. Speaking of which, I just posted a quick guide to what I did on the text if anyone needs it...http://goo.gl/58raR.

-As for the mountains, I actually think they look pretty good as is. The colors and color borders are not done, but I think they really fit well with the style of the map. I'm not sure if the push is for more hand drawn styles, but you can't get blood from a stone, and that is well beyond my skill set. I've been working on the Three Kingdoms mountains, following RJ's tutorial, but they look extremely cartoonish, so we'll see what happens to those as well. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on them and see if there is anything better I can come up with.

Looking forward to everyone's thoughts on these, and the latest update.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Lieutenant Seamus76
Media Volunteer
Media Volunteer
 
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Medals: 103
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (29) Clan Achievement (31) Map Contribution (2) Tournament Contribution (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: Alaska - v3.0 [2013-03-12] pg3

Postby The Bison King on Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:32 am

I need to look at this more closely but my gut tells me there should be less ships. Seems like a cool idea but there should probably be about half the amount of boats. Unless the boats are the maps focus (which it I don't think they are or should be) 7 is a bit excessive.
User avatar
Sergeant The Bison King
 
Posts: 2004
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: the Mid-Westeros
Medals: 23
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (4)
General Contribution (3)

Re: Alaska - v3.0 [2013-03-12] pg3

Postby koontz1973 on Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:37 am

Seamus76 wrote:I hadn't planned on any more camps around, but that's an interesting idea. What was your thought, to just have the camp in a tert, or would it look different, like a destroyed camp or something?

Have it look the same. This way it does not need any more explaining in the legend.
Seamus76 wrote:Now one thing I was just thinking was instead of camps around, could there be a couple of terts that just have the route, and no camp

Again I like this. This sort of thinking outside of the box really gets my juices as a player going. I love maps that have these funny things. Just look at RD and the amount of crap in that. :mrgreen: You might need to explain them better though if you did this. But going back to what you said about the camps, a destroyed camp with the decay might be a way to work it. Good camp +1 auto, Bad camp -1 decay.
Seamus76 wrote:I have not thought of neutrals, and always could use some input and ideas on that. I am totally cool with the base camps being +1 auto, and the route bonus being +3.

Good, those routes are going to be killers to hold.
Seamus76 wrote:I do like that idea, but my only issue is spacing. I need like 16 three to four letter names, lol.

Plenty here to choose from.

With the title, I see what you wanted to do, The problem is the blue is the same shade and it makes it look blurred. Best way, do the text again sharp. The on the larger below feather the text selection and the use a slightly lighter colour. This will give you the crisp title that has the bleed effect you want. Just a matter of how much you feather it.
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Map Contribution (12)
Tournament Contribution (31) General Contribution (9)

Re: Alaska - v3.0 [2013-03-12] pg3

Postby Seamus76 on Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:38 am

The Bison King wrote:I need to look at this more closely but my gut tells me there should be less ships. Seems like a cool idea but there should probably be about half the amount of boats. Unless the boats are the maps focus (which it I don't think they are or should be) 7 is a bit excessive.

Yeah, take a look and let me know your thoughts, definitely interested.

Also, there are 8 ships, not 7, so actually one more than you were counting. The thought was that for 8 player games each person gets 1, and so on, and so on depending on the game. But, in 1v1 and 2v2 games my thought was to limit it to only 2 each or something. I know that would mean 6 other neutral sets of ships, but if they start 3n or something it might make for interesting gameplay. Or they could be like Conquer Rome and just be high neutrals do keep them out of play until the end game, etc. Either way I'd love your thoughts.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Lieutenant Seamus76
Media Volunteer
Media Volunteer
 
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Medals: 103
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (29) Clan Achievement (31) Map Contribution (2) Tournament Contribution (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: Alaska - v3.0 [2013-03-12] pg3

Postby Shape on Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:42 pm

My bias is showing, but I'm not such a fan of the camps. I still like the more standard-style gameplay, and I think there's room for some extra spice, as with the ships, but I think the camps just make it so too much is going on. Having more accessible smaller bonuses, I think, is going to damage the gameplay, and I think it undermines the continents you already have. And I've never been a fan of attacking a neutral territory, so I'm all for going with 1 neutral on those mini ships.

-Shape
User avatar
Private 1st Class Shape
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:46 am
Location: World 1-1

Re: Alaska - v3.0 [2013-03-12] pg3

Postby Shape on Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:43 pm

Oh, and I haven't really read up on anything past the update post, so apologies if I'm re-iterating or irrelevant.

-Shape
User avatar
Private 1st Class Shape
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:46 am
Location: World 1-1

Re: Alaska - v3.0 [2013-03-12] pg3

Postby koontz1973 on Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:08 pm

Shape, double posts are a no no. Please put everything into one post. As for being a fan of neutrals, I am with you their but they are needed. How can you not be a fan when you only have 1 game finished. :?

Seamus, great job so far, leave the camps in, they work. :D
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Map Contribution (12)
Tournament Contribution (31) General Contribution (9)

PreviousNext

Return to Beta Maps

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login