Moderator: Cartographers
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.
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?
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.
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.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.
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:Interior colour, it really is bloody awful, can you find a different one please.
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".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.
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.
Seamus76 wrote:... changed the Deck legend text to say "All docks connect, and border Small Boats within their bodies of water".
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.
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.
Seamus76 wrote:Sorry I don't agree.
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.
Right, like Three Kingdoms of China. I like that idea as well.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.
Seamus76 wrote:Sorry I don't agree.
koontz wrote:Give it a go for me please.
seamus wrote:Anything for you my friend.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
Thanks a lot.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.
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: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 do like that idea, but my only issue is spacing. I need like 16 three to four letter names, lol.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.
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.
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?
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
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.
Seamus76 wrote:I do like that idea, but my only issue is spacing. I need like 16 three to four letter names, lol.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users