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: Cartographers, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

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
Colonel regan the great
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:43 pm
Location: sussex, england
Medals: 49
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (8) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (9)

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
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:40 am
Location: europe
Medals: 49
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (6) General Contribution (12)

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
Captain Seamus76
Media Volunteer
Media Volunteer
 
Posts: 1417
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Medals: 97
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 (3) 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 (28) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (2)

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
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:40 am
Location: europe
Medals: 49
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (6) General Contribution (12)

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.
Image
User avatar
Major codierose
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:50 pm
Location: RANDOMBULLSHIT.ORG
Medals: 94
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (23) General Achievement (7)
Clan Achievement (6) Tournament Contribution (2)

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

Postby iancanton on Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:03 pm

codierose wrote:
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.

possibly all ports border small boats within their own body of water and all ports connect within their own and adjacent bodies of water?

ian. :)
Image
User avatar
Colonel iancanton
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:40 am
Location: europe
Medals: 49
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (6) General Contribution (12)

Re: Alaska - v7.0 [2013-06-04] pg8

Postby Seamus76 on Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:43 pm

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-06-04:
Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm trying to address everything as I go. Here are some of the main requested changes.

- Updated the Port text in the Legend to "Ports connect within their own, and adjacent, body of water. And border Small Boats within their body of water only." Thoughts?
- Due to the above I had to shorten the space between the letters for the Port and Ship text. Things are looking a little cramped over there.
- Added some grunge effects to make the map more antique-ish.
- Added more mountains to cut Baird off from Nigalek.
- Added a 1px white dot to all of the Sea Routes to help bring them out a bit more. Not sure it worked, but if not, I have one other option that will help, which is to go back and stroke them without applying a Gblur, which will make them sharper and maybe easier to see.

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

v7.0 - Large (840x800)
Click image to enlarge.
image
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Captain Seamus76
Media Volunteer
Media Volunteer
 
Posts: 1417
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Medals: 97
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 (3) 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 (28) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (2)

Re: Alaska - v7.0 [2013-06-04] pg8

Postby iAmCaffeine on Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:22 pm

Best mountains I've ever seen. :D
Image
User avatar
Captain iAmCaffeine
 
Posts: 2622
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:38 pm
Medals: 63
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (6)
General Achievement (5) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (2)

Re: Alaska - v7.0 [2013-06-04] pg8

Postby Seamus76 on Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:49 pm

iAmCaffeine wrote:Best mountains I've ever seen. :D

:D thanks, but unfortunately the only thing I can take credit for is finding them on the Internet. But it is hard to get them to look good, so thanks.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Captain Seamus76
Media Volunteer
Media Volunteer
 
Posts: 1417
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Medals: 97
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 (3) 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 (28) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (2)

Re: Alaska - v7.0 [2013-06-04] pg8

Postby iancanton on Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:17 am

Seamus76 wrote:Updated the Port text in the Legend to "Ports connect within their own, and adjacent, body of water. And border Small Boats within their body of water only." Thoughts?

that works!

Seamus76 wrote:How do the starting numbers look?

14 regions per player in 1v1 if all exploration trail regions start neutral, which is good.

Seamus76 wrote: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?

according to both isaiah and koontz, the decay comes first, so there will always already be at least 3 troops on a player's base camp when is is about to deploy his troops.

i again suggest bonuses based on the 1910-1920 judicial districts, since the divisions we have just now are strikingly modern and the combined aleutian and inside passage super-bonus doesn't make sense. first and fourth districts are basically unchanged. second and third district obviously have to be divided, but otherwise work. cut off the western part of inside passage and call it cordova (part of second district) and merge mcgrath (which was part of the old fourth district or the modern interior) into sleetmute? anchorage did not exist in 1910, so u need to decide whether this is a 1910 or 1920 map.

http://laborstats.alaska.gov/census/map ... 101920.pdf

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.

i envisaged larger regions in the interior, north and southwest, with more crowded-looking regions in the south and inside passage. i do not propose to push this in a big way because, at this stage, it looks as if this will be a lot of work, with many regions being redistributed. i tried to find a way to include pack ice in the bering strait gameplay, but this requires too much explanation in the legend.

ian. :)
Image
User avatar
Colonel iancanton
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:40 am
Location: europe
Medals: 49
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (6) General Contribution (12)

Re: Alaska - v7.0 [2013-06-04] pg8

Postby Seamus76 on Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:18 pm

iancanton wrote:
Seamus76 wrote:Updated the Port text in the Legend to "Ports connect within their own, and adjacent, body of water. And border Small Boats within their body of water only." Thoughts?

that works!
Cross that off the list.

iancanton wrote:
Seamus76 wrote:How do the starting numbers look?

14 regions per player in 1v1 if all exploration trail regions start neutral, which is good.
The original thought was to include the Exploration Routes in the starting numbers, but you're saying not to do that? Take a look at the OP for the 888 & Starting Neutral version and confirm that for me if you don't mind.

iancanton wrote:
Seamus76 wrote: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?

according to both isaiah and koontz, the decay comes first, so there will always already be at least 3 troops on a player's base camp when is is about to deploy his troops.
Works for me.

iancanton wrote:i again suggest bonuses based on the 1910-1920 judicial districts, since the divisions we have just now are strikingly modern and the combined aleutian and inside passage super-bonus doesn't make sense. first and fourth districts are basically unchanged. second and third district obviously have to be divided, but otherwise work. cut off the western part of inside passage and call it cordova (part of second district) and merge mcgrath (which was part of the old fourth district or the modern interior) into sleetmute? anchorage did not exist in 1910, so u need to decide whether this is a 1910 or 1920 map.

http://laborstats.alaska.gov/census/map ... 101920.pdf
Here's the dilemma, first I'm not a fan at all of the "judicial district names, or layout. This map is circa 1895, just prior to the Gold Rush. I purposefully did that so I could maximize my "antique" theme, and also so that I wouldn't muck the map up with a lot of "gold" stuff, etc. So technically the name of the map should be District of Alaska, which is what it was officially called from May 17, 1884 to August 24, 1912. With that being said, I can't really find anything that breaks down how the District of Alaska was done, and to me it seems like they may not have even been broken down until later on, maybe even 1910. (If you find a map please let me know). To that point, I can either leave the map open of bonus regions, as my initial inspiration map shows, or I can take a little artistic license and break them down in a more modern way, which is more inline with players expectations of the region. (i.e. having names like Far North, Inside Passage, etc. Not First Judicial District.)

There are plenty of maps showing the breakdown of the regions, the main one I used HERE, obviously shows how the Aleutians are part of the Southwest, but for Gameplay purposes I broke it out. If it makes you feel better we could certainly put the Aleutians back with the Southwest, but break it out much like the North and Northwest. So Aleutians would be a lighter color green to show they are part of the Southwest, but at the same time they are broken out to make better bonus opportunities, etc. (much like we did for the Far North).

Also, with regard to the combined Aleutians and Inside Passage, we can lose that based on if we go with combining the Aleutians and Southwest, and then create the Super Region bonus of South Central plus(+) Inside Passage. Not make them the same colors, since they are separate. But again I'm not a fan of the "judicial" breakdown or names, so let me know if this would work.

iancanton wrote:
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.

i envisaged larger regions in the interior, north and southwest, with more crowded-looking regions in the south and inside passage. i do not propose to push this in a big way because, at this stage, it looks as if this will be a lot of work, with many regions being redistributed. i tried to find a way to include pack ice in the bering strait gameplay, but this requires too much explanation in the legend.
Well I'm glad you won't push that. :lol: Yes it would be pretty much a complete redo at this point, and that's not really something I have in me unfortunately.

As always I really appreciate you taking the time to research and provide feedback. Keep it coming.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Captain Seamus76
Media Volunteer
Media Volunteer
 
Posts: 1417
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Medals: 97
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 (3) 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 (28) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (2)

Re: Alaska - v7.0 [2013-06-04] pg8

Postby Teflon Kris on Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:37 am

iAmCaffeine wrote:Best mountains I've ever seen. :D


They are certainly amongst the best - although - would they look even better if they had a mountain colour rather than the continent background? Maybe worth a check?

On a more general note, a very attractive map with some cool gameplay features - I will enjoy playing this one.

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
User avatar
Captain Teflon Kris
 
Posts: 3684
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:39 pm
Location: Lancashire, United Kingdom
Medals: 170
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (4)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (30)
General Achievement (14) Clan Achievement (19) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (32) General Contribution (8)

Re: Alaska - v7.0 [2013-06-04] pg8

Postby Dukasaur on Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:47 am

Seamus76 wrote:
iancanton wrote:i again suggest bonuses based on the 1910-1920 judicial districts, since the divisions we have just now are strikingly modern and the combined aleutian and inside passage super-bonus doesn't make sense. first and fourth districts are basically unchanged. second and third district obviously have to be divided, but otherwise work. cut off the western part of inside passage and call it cordova (part of second district) and merge mcgrath (which was part of the old fourth district or the modern interior) into sleetmute? anchorage did not exist in 1910, so u need to decide whether this is a 1910 or 1920 map.

http://laborstats.alaska.gov/census/map ... 101920.pdf
Here's the dilemma, first I'm not a fan at all of the "judicial district names, or layout. This map is circa 1895, just prior to the Gold Rush. I purposefully did that so I could maximize my "antique" theme, and also so that I wouldn't muck the map up with a lot of "gold" stuff, etc. So technically the name of the map should be District of Alaska, which is what it was officially called from May 17, 1884 to August 24, 1912. With that being said, I can't really find anything that breaks down how the District of Alaska was done, and to me it seems like they may not have even been broken down until later on, maybe even 1910. (If you find a map please let me know). To that point, I can either leave the map open of bonus regions, as my initial inspiration map shows, or I can take a little artistic license and break them down in a more modern way, which is more inline with players expectations of the region. (i.e. having names like Far North, Inside Passage, etc. Not First Judicial District.)

I think you did the right thing. There is a frequent debate in this forum between geographical/historical accuracy and playability, and it always comes down on the side of playability. Evocative names with personality are easier to visualize and remember (Arctic Village) and thus lead to a better player experience than dry algebraic names (like First, Second, Third, or like East, West, North).

Seamus76 wrote:
iancanton wrote:
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.

i envisaged larger regions in the interior, north and southwest, with more crowded-looking regions in the south and inside passage. i do not propose to push this in a big way because, at this stage, it looks as if this will be a lot of work, with many regions being redistributed. i tried to find a way to include pack ice in the bering strait gameplay, but this requires too much explanation in the legend.
Well I'm glad you won't push that. :lol: Yes it would be pretty much a complete redo at this point, and that's not really something I have in me unfortunately.

I can't comment on how much work it is, having never done it. I just wonder (and let me reiterate that I don't know, I just wonder) if two years from now you won't be kicking yourself for that decision. There are many times in my life when I've settled for something that was adequate, although I knew I could do better, and always it has led to many regrets. Sometimes I grow tired of something, and I just want it to be over with, but later regret that decision. Anyway, I don't claim the wisdom to make your decision, only to give you something to consider.

This is the kind of thing I quite honestly would have expected to see, with districts defined primarily by their available rivers and sea harbours, with many little districts around Juneau and Anchorage, and with the north slope and the upper Yukon being virtually vacant:
http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/cong_dist/cd108_gen/st_pdf/cd108_AK.pdf
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Head Socialite
Head Socialite
 
Posts: 9461
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
Medals: 125
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (18)
General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Training Achievement (2) Challenge Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (31)

Re: Alaska - v7.0 [2013-06-04] pg8

Postby iancanton on Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:23 pm

alaska had two super-districts in the 1890 census: northern and southern. many places mentioned on our map appear for the first time in 1900. in 1890, the biggest city was juneau, population 1,253. in 1900, it was the new city of nome, at 12,488 (though many left after the gold rush). a map of the seven 1890 census districts, with their names, appears between intro pages x and xi.

http://laborstats.alaska.gov/census/map ... 901900.pdf
http://labor.alaska.gov/research/census ... 0inhab.pdf
http://labor.alaska.gov/research/census ... census.pdf

Seamus76 wrote:
iancanton wrote:
Seamus76 wrote:How do the starting numbers look?

14 regions per player in 1v1 if all exploration trail regions start neutral, which is good.
The original thought was to include the Exploration Routes in the starting numbers, but you're saying not to do that? Take a look at the OP for the 888 & Starting Neutral version and confirm that for me if you don't mind.

i calculate 18 regions per player in 1v1 if exploration trail regions start normally.

ian. :)
Image
User avatar
Colonel iancanton
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:40 am
Location: europe
Medals: 49
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (6) General Contribution (12)

Re: Alaska - v7.0 [2013-06-04] pg8

Postby Bruceswar on Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:00 pm

Just dropping a line to say I really like the look of this map. Keep going!
Highest Rank: 26 Highest Score: 3480
Image
User avatar
Major Bruceswar
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:36 am
Location: Cow Pastures
Medals: 140
Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (4)
Terminator Achievement (3) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (14) General Achievement (14) Clan Achievement (18) Training Achievement (6) Map Contribution (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Beta Maps

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Login