Conquer Club

District of Alaska - v14.1 [2015-25-05] pg16 [QUENCHED]

Care to peruse completed maps? Take a stroll through the Atlas.

Moderator: Cartographers

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Alaska - v6.1 [2013-05-17] pg7

Postby Seamus76 on Thu May 16, 2013 11:00 pm

RedBaron0 wrote:Graphically, and its early I would go crazy with this, the map is pretty polished.
Thanks so much for the feedback, and vote of confidence. I think I might be getting the hang of this whole map thing, but not sure I'll be working more up any time soon.

RedBaron0 wrote:Only things that really pop out at me at this point is that its very weird for me to see Chukchi Sea upside-down along the 60N line, but its cosmetic.
I'll just leave it for now and we can see how it goes.

RedBaron0 wrote:AN to me some texts are a little too sharp for an "old-timie" map, mostly the title and the ships.
Yeah, that and the below are two things that have been on my list for a little while now. My plan is to lower the opacity a bit on them to make everything look the same.

RedBaron0 wrote:The text in the Inner Passage may actually be a tad bit too light. That light glow around Yakutat might need to be on all those territory names going across the red of the territory.
Yup, that's the plan as well. Really, my thought was to add that glow to all of the text, to help bring them out where needed.

Thanks again. I'll just keep rolling along, and when we officially meet back up after gameplay I'm hoping there won't be much to do. Knock on wood.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Seamus76
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Alaska - v6.1 [2013-05-17] pg7

Postby Seamus76 on Mon May 20, 2013 10:23 pm

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-05-21:
- Toned down the ship set text and arrows.
- Added the light outer glow to all tert names to help bring them out. (I did not add them to the boat set text).
- Added a light drop shadow to all of the anchors.

CURRENT MAP VERSION

v6.2 - Large (840x800)
Click image to enlarge.
image
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Seamus76
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Alaska - v6.2 [2013-05-21] pg7

Postby koontz1973 on Tue May 21, 2013 12:09 am

Seamus76 wrote:
RedBaron0 wrote:Only things that really pop out at me at this point is that its very weird for me to see Chukchi Sea upside-down along the 60N line, but its cosmetic.
I'll just leave it for now and we can see how it goes.

Might be cosmetic but I sort of agree with RB0 here.

Neutrals map and starting troops please Seamus.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant koontz1973
 
Posts: 6960
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am

Re: Alaska - v6.2 [2013-05-21] pg7

Postby iAmCaffeine on Tue May 21, 2013 5:25 am

Chukchi Sea being upside down has been bugging me since it was first done to be honest.
Image
User avatar
Cook iAmCaffeine
 
Posts: 11700
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:38 pm

Re: Alaska - v6.2 [2013-05-21] pg7

Postby Seamus76 on Tue May 21, 2013 6:48 am

iAmCaffeine wrote:Chukchi Sea being upside down has been bugging me since it was first done to be honest.

:lol: ok guys, that's an easy fix. I'll have that done shortly, and the starting positions and neutrals as soon as I can.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Seamus76
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

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

Postby ManBungalow on Tue May 21, 2013 6:51 am

I'd like to bump this idea:

ManBungalow wrote:Quick graphics suggestion:
The contours you have around the land in the sea (the bits which look like waves breaking on the beach): you could try having them in order of decreasing opacity, the make them blend into the sea like a gradient.
ie. the one nearest the coast have at 80% opacity, the next at 60% etc.
See how it looks.
Image
Colonel ManBungalow
 
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:02 am
Location: On a giant rock orbiting a star somewhere

Re: Alaska - v6.2 [2013-05-21] pg7

Postby Seamus76 on Tue May 21, 2013 11:12 am

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-05-21:
- Flipped the Chukchi Sea text right side up. (60 degree line)
- Redid the rings, decreasing opacity as they leave the shore, as per ManB's suggestion. Thanks, and let me know if you think any need adjustment.
- Fixed a couple other small things.

Things to do:
- Finalize starting numbers and post with neutrals version.
- Finalize bonuses for North and Northwest regions.

CURRENT MAP VERSION

v6.3 - Large (840x800)
Click image to enlarge.
image
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Seamus76
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Alaska - v6.3 [2013-05-21] pg8

Postby koontz1973 on Wed May 22, 2013 11:22 am

Seamus76 wrote:I'm trying to set up the starting positions. Obviously the Base Camps themselves will start neutral, since they are auto deploy, but what about the tert they are within? Should those also start neutral or be distributed randomly? If they start neutral, someone will have to kill let's say 5 troops to get a +2 auto. If they are distributed then they will have had their one tert decayed by 1 at the start of their turn, and basically start with 2 troops. Also, should the base camps themselves start as 2n or 3n?


Base camps neutral, regions base camps are in can start normal. But give them out in SP.

Have the regions start normal via starting positions. Base camps can start with 5 neutrals. This can be lowered later in beta but 5 troops v 5 neutrals sounds like they will be taken but make players think twice about it.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant koontz1973
 
Posts: 6960
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am

Re: Alaska - v6.3 [2013-05-21] pg8

Postby Seamus76 on Wed May 22, 2013 11:52 am

koontz1973 wrote:
Seamus76 wrote:I'm trying to set up the starting positions. Obviously the Base Camps themselves will start neutral, since they are auto deploy, but what about the tert they are within? Should those also start neutral or be distributed randomly? If they start neutral, someone will have to kill let's say 5 troops to get a +2 auto. If they are distributed then they will have had their one tert decayed by 1 at the start of their turn, and basically start with 2 troops. Also, should the base camps themselves start as 2n or 3n?


Base camps neutral, regions base camps are in can start normal. But give them out in SP.

Have the regions start normal via starting positions. Base camps can start with 5 neutrals. This can be lowered later in beta but 5 troops v 5 neutrals sounds like they will be taken but make players think twice about it.
ok, thanks.

Next question, is it understood by what I currently have that Base Camps are not part of the Expedition Route bonus?
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Seamus76
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Alaska - v6.3 [2013-05-21] pg8

Postby koontz1973 on Wed May 22, 2013 12:06 pm

Seamus76 wrote:Next question, is it understood by what I currently have that Base Camps are not part of the Expedition Route bonus?

No, that is not clear. The routes would naturally include the base camps. It might be an idea to include the base camps into the bonus anyway. Easier to understand.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant koontz1973
 
Posts: 6960
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am

Re: Alaska - v6.3 [2013-05-21] pg8

Postby Seamus76 on Wed May 22, 2013 12:10 pm

koontz1973 wrote:
Seamus76 wrote:Next question, is it understood by what I currently have that Base Camps are not part of the Expedition Route bonus?

No, that is not clear. The routes would naturally include the base camps. It might be an idea to include the base camps into the bonus anyway. Easier to understand.
works for me. Is the +2 enough then? I guess technically it would be +2 then +2 auto, but is that still enough?
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Seamus76
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Alaska - v6.3 [2013-05-21] pg8

Postby koontz1973 on Wed May 22, 2013 12:23 pm

Running all the numbers later tonight for all of the bonuses.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant koontz1973
 
Posts: 6960
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am

Re: Alaska - v6.3 [2013-05-21] pg8

Postby Seamus76 on Mon May 27, 2013 11:01 pm

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-05-28:
- Added the 888 and Starting Neutrals version and numbers to the OP.
- With adding the 888's I had to move a couple of things around and make a few small changes.

Things to do:
- Finalize bonuses for North and Northwest regions.

Other than that I'm not sure what else I can do on this one. Personally I really like the game play, especially how the Ship sets work. One question I do have is regarding the Base Camps. Currently they are +2 auto-deploy, but at the same time are on the Expedition Route, and will therefore lose 1 troop. Does that happen before or after the auto-deploy, and with that in mind does the +2 still work? Thanks.

CURRENT MAP VERSION

v6.4 - Large (840x800)
Click image to enlarge.
image
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Seamus76
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Alaska - v6.3 [2013-05-21] pg8

Postby isaiah40 on Tue May 28, 2013 10:08 pm

koontz1973 wrote:Running all the numbers later tonight for all of the bonuses.

This is a bloody long night koontz! :lol:
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm

Re: Alaska - v6.4 [2013-05-28] pg8

Postby koontz1973 on Wed May 29, 2013 2:06 am

isaiah40 wrote:
koontz1973 wrote:Running all the numbers later tonight for all of the bonuses.

This is a bloody long night koontz! :lol:

Almost as long as nobodies dinners. ;)

Sorry Seamus, been extremely busy of late.

show


Considering the values given are somewhat different from yours, here is what I suggest. These numbers take into account the size of map as well and are in keeping with that as well.

North 3 (has an auto deploy as well so worth 5)
NorthWest 4
    Combined bonus of 10

Interior 7 (has an auto deploy as well so worth 9)

SouthWest 7 (has an auto deploy as well so worth 9)
South Central 5
    Combined bonus of 15

Inside Passage 3
Aleutian Islands 2
    Combined bonus of 7

On top of the numbers, make sure it says on the map that base camps are not part of bonus regions. Apart form that, you are good to go. Are you happy with these values? If yes, bung them on and will get you moved up, if not, why not?
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant koontz1973
 
Posts: 6960
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am

Re: Alaska - v6.4 [2013-05-28] pg8

Postby Seamus76 on Wed May 29, 2013 10:37 pm

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-05-30:
- Updated all of the Region and Super Region bonuses according to Koontz's calculations, which I could find no fault with.
- Added in "Part of no region", for the Base Camps (bottom left legend). I hope that works.

How do the starting numbers look?

I'll leave this in from last time...Other than that I'm not sure what else I can do on this one. Personally I really like the game play, especially how the Ship sets work. One question I do have is regarding the Base Camps. Currently they are +2 auto-deploy, but at the same time are on the Expedition Route, and will therefore lose 1 troop. Does that happen before or after the auto-deploy, and with that in mind does the +2 still work? Thanks.

CURRENT MAP VERSION

v6.5 - Large (840x800)
Click image to enlarge.
image
Last edited by Seamus76 on Fri May 31, 2013 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Seamus76
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Alaska - v6.5 [2013-05-30] pg8

Postby koontz1973 on Wed May 29, 2013 10:55 pm

OK seamus, will sticky this for now and see if anyone else has any thoughts on this one GP wise.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant koontz1973
 
Posts: 6960
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am

Re: Alaska - v6.5 [2013-05-30] pg8

Postby Seamus76 on Fri May 31, 2013 12:42 pm

I made one small graphics change and updated the OP and last image, but didn't post a formal update.

- Spaced out the "+" sign for the Super Region bonus numbers in the large legend.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Seamus76
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Alaska - v6.5 [2013-05-30] pg8

Postby willedtowin1 on Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:22 pm

This Sucks......... and
This is Great!
Keep up the good Work Grand Poopba :)
User avatar
Colonel willedtowin1
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 4:32 pm
Location: Halfway between the Boondocks & Timbucktoo

Re: Alaska - v6.5 [2013-05-30] pg8

Postby Seamus76 on Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:25 pm

willedtowin1 wrote:This Sucks......... and
This is Great!
Keep up the good Work Grand Poopba :)


LOL, thanks for the literal interpretation of my words.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Seamus76
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Alaska - v6.5 [2013-05-30] pg8

Postby regan the great on Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:58 pm

Hi,looks great, maybe one thing i would say is the dots that represent the routes could be clearer, or maybe i need glasses :cry:
Image
User avatar
Major regan the great
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:43 pm
Location: sussex, england

Re: Alaska - v6.5 [2013-05-30] pg8

Postby iancanton on Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:03 pm

this is a very promising map.

however, my biggest bone of contention is that the aleutian islands, which is the bonus zone that has fewest regions and is therefore the easiest to occupy, is in a corner of the map and therefore relatively inaccessible to an opponent who is trying to break it. my recommendation is to merge the aleutian islands bonus with the southwest bonus, with two or three southwestern regions being merged away if u regard this bonus zone as being too big.

the north might do with more impassables to mimic the difficult terrain, such as the mountains being extended to separate baird from nigalek; the will make the bonuses easier to defend.

the use of the word region in the legend is confusing. area or district might be better.

all port cities connect is unrealistic for the period of the map and ruins its shape. it's reasonably appropriate if u turn it into all airports connect, but that turns the map into one of modern alaska.

thematically troubling is the bland uniformity of the land areas. nowhere is more crowded than elsewhere and there are no wastelands represented by larger-than-average regions. there is no acknowledgement of the severe polar climate in the far north or the lack of roads or settlements (causing movement and supply difficulties) in most of the west.

anchorage is a logical point to bring in supplies, so u might consider making it one of the base camps instead of one of the decaying explorer trail regions.

the ships are an original, refreshing feature of the gameplay that add to the period flavour of the map.

ian. :)
Image
User avatar
Colonel iancanton
Foundry Foreman
Foundry Foreman
 
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:40 am
Location: europe

Re: Alaska - v6.5 [2013-05-30] pg8

Postby Seamus76 on Sat Jun 01, 2013 11:49 pm

iancanton wrote:this is a very promising map.
Thanks, as you know I've been working on it for a while now. :D I'm just getting a look at your comments, which I really appreciate, so these are just my first impressions.

iancanton wrote:however, my biggest bone of contention is that the aleutian islands, which is the bonus zone that has fewest regions and is therefore the easiest to occupy, is in a corner of the map and therefore relatively inaccessible to an opponent who is trying to break it. my recommendation is to merge the aleutian islands bonus with the southwest bonus, with two or three southwestern regions being merged away if u regard this bonus zone as being too big.
Ok, I understand what you're saying, but I really don't want to combine these, or any other regions, and I think we can come up with something to alleviate your concerns. Combining those would be a huge deviation from the actual Alaska, and splitting up the Far North was already a concession I made. So looking at options and the region, keep in mind Dutch Harbor can be attack by 3 ship sets within the Bering Sea, and 6 other ports (if the ports stay the way they are). Then you have Port Heiden which can be attacked by the port of Kodiak (which can be attacked by 3 ship sets in the Gulf of Alaska, as well as the 6 other ports. Finally you have Port Heiden again which can be attacked by Egegik. So personally I think it will be harder to hold than you expect, but if it's really a concern why can't we just lower the bonus to +1 then? Although Koontz just ran the numbers for the bonuses I would rather lower it than combine areas, etc.

iancanton wrote:the north might do with more impassables to mimic the difficult terrain, such as the mountains being extended to separate baird from nigalek; the will make the bonuses easier to defend.
That's an easy one.

iancanton wrote:the use of the word region in the legend is confusing. area or district might be better.
I like area better than district, but technically they are referred to as the "five regions of Alaska", plus isn't "region" what most players would associate with the bonuses I'm excluding them from?

iancanton wrote:all port cities connect is unrealistic for the period of the map and ruins its shape. it's reasonably appropriate if u turn it into all airports connect, but that turns the map into one of modern alaska.
Right, and this is obviously not going to be a modern map, so what would you suggest? I know it's not realistic for the time period, which is tough to balance, because on one hand we're splitting actual, established, land borders (the Far North) in the name of gameplay, but on the other hand another gameplay element is unrealistic. I'm totally open to changing how the ports work, just let me know your thoughts.

iancanton wrote:thematically troubling is the bland uniformity of the land areas. nowhere is more crowded than elsewhere and there are no wastelands represented by larger-than-average regions. there is no acknowledgement of the severe polar climate in the far north or the lack of roads or settlements (causing movement and supply difficulties) in most of the west.
:?: What does "nowhere is more crowded than elsewhere" mean, sorry. As for the sizes, the terts within the Interior and some adjacent terts are actually pretty large, comparatively speaking. I also think the tert count is pretty nice for all game types, so eliminating or combining terts is not something I'd really like to do. As for the climate, I was representing the difficulty of moving throughout the entire area by the different Expedition Routes, which do lie mostly around the interior area. Looking at the map, they are pretty much placed where they fit best, etc.

iancanton wrote:anchorage is a logical point to bring in supplies, so u might consider making it one of the base camps instead of one of the decaying explorer trail regions.
My idea for the Base Camps was that they are "ending" points on the Expedition Routes, rather than "starting" points, so moving the Base Camp to Anchorage would be a little awkward compared to all of the others. But, moving the Port from Valdez to Anchorage might be a better solution. Thoughts?

iancanton wrote:the ships are an original, refreshing feature of the gameplay that add to the period flavour of the map.
Thanks so much. This also makes it more important to have the Ports be a key to navigating the map, which is why I like them all connecting.

I appreciate your time and feedback.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Seamus76
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Alaska - v6.5 [2013-05-30] pg8

Postby iancanton on Mon Jun 03, 2013 1:24 am

Seamus76 wrote:Combining those would be a huge deviation from the actual Alaska

what's the actual alaska? i can see a map that's similar to this one and the most official source i can find for it is a modern travel website (as implied by the presence of national parks). the nearest thing to large official divisions for the period of the map is probably the judicial districts for 1920 (anchorage was founded in 1915). the far north sub-bonus is actually a real place called north slope borough and the northwest sub-bonus is called northwest arctic borough; combined, they are the original far north bonus.

http://usamaps.eu/wp-content/uploads/20 ... ka-map.jpg
http://laborstats.alaska.gov/census/map ... 101920.pdf
https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/ ... gh,_Alaska
http://www.nwabor.org/

more later!

ian. :)
Image
User avatar
Colonel iancanton
Foundry Foreman
Foundry Foreman
 
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:40 am
Location: europe

Re: Alaska - v6.5 [2013-05-30] pg8

Postby codierose on Mon Jun 03, 2013 6:46 am

Seamus76 wrote:
iancanton wrote:this is a very promising map.
Thanks, as you know I've been working on it for a while now. :D I'm just getting a look at your comments, which I really appreciate, so these are just my first impressions.

agree like the look and the game play =D>

Seamus76 wrote:
iancanton wrote:however, my biggest bone of contention is that the aleutian islands, which is the bonus zone that has fewest regions and is therefore the easiest to occupy, is in a corner of the map and therefore relatively inaccessible to an opponent who is trying to break it. my recommendation is to merge the aleutian islands bonus with the southwest bonus, with two or three southwestern regions being merged away if u regard this bonus zone as being too big.
but if it's really a concern why can't we just lower the bonus to +1 then? Although Koontz just ran the numbers for the bonuses I would rather lower it than combine areas, etc.

this was my only bone to pick being +2 is to much just making it +1 makes a lot more sense.

Seamus76 wrote:
iancanton wrote:the north might do with more impassables to mimic the difficult terrain, such as the mountains being extended to separate baird from nigalek; the will make the bonuses easier to defend.
That's an easy one.

again agree :D

Seamus76 wrote:
iancanton wrote:the use of the word region in the legend is confusing. area or district might be better.
I like area better than district, but technically they are referred to as the "five regions of Alaska", plus isn't "region" what most players would associate with the bonuses I'm excluding them from?

personally i always use region so not confusing for me.
the use of Terts is confusing though.
Regions along the Expedition Routes sounds better to me.

Seamus76 wrote:
iancanton wrote:all port cities connect is unrealistic for the period of the map and ruins its shape. it's reasonably appropriate if u turn it into all airports connect, but that turns the map into one of modern alaska.
Right, and this is obviously not going to be a modern map, so what would you suggest? I know it's not realistic for the time period, which is tough to balance, because on one hand we're splitting actual, established, land borders (the Far North) in the name of gameplay, but on the other hand another gameplay element is unrealistic. I'm totally open to changing how the ports work, just let me know your thoughts.

i agree could the ports only connect in their body of water like the small boats. On the new world map ports on the same ocean can only attack each other.

small boats can that be changed to supply ships, barges ?? not sure what. just small boats sounds naff :D
great map m8 cant wait to try it out.
Major codierose
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:50 pm
Location: RANDOMBULLSHIT.ORG

PreviousNext

Return to The Atlas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users