Conquer Club

porkenbeans wrote:I like the direction the logo is taking. But the rest is looking out of place with the theme. It should be done in watercolor just like the state. It should flow together as if painted on canvas. It looks to "clip and paste" like a modern magazine add. The whole thing should look like a watercolor painting. Everything except the labels, that is. Although the text in the title could stand to be painted "watercolor".

I'm sorry I thought I made it clear that I would be re-doing everything I added. I merely was giving you the "idea" of what would be there, those are in no way the final graphics. Just an example.

Victor Sullivan wrote:I still don't fully understand the cities. Are you gonna label them? Are they gonna be separate territories from the one it's in?

No they are the territories. You can look at the original Italy map, Fractured America, or any of the USA map pack regions for precedent. It's really quite a common feature in a lot of maps.

Ah... I finally understood the cities.

The big thing that I find is missing from this map is the awesomeness of the California Flag. 1) There is a giant bear 2) Red Star, and communism reference ignored, stars are pretty. 3) It says "California Republic" and, sure, the USA has absorbed many other states but Cali is the only one that says it explicitly on the flag and for that reason, California's flag is badass.

I'd say ditch a lot of those abbreviations. The less the better.

Industrial Helix wrote:Ah... I finally understood the cities.

The big thing that I find is missing from this map is the awesomeness of the California Flag. 1) There is a giant bear 2) Red Star, and communism reference ignored, stars are pretty. 3) It says "California Republic" and, sure, the USA has absorbed many other states but Cali is the only one that says it explicitly on the flag and for that reason, California's flag is badass.

I'd say ditch a lot of those abbreviations. The less the better.

I meet you with agreement on all counts.

First bear flag-

Right now, my biggest concern is the insets fitting everything on the small map. But for now, this meets Melting Pot standards and will head on to gameplay.

Awesome! I actually just started playing the first analog game of this today. We didn't finish though... So far everything seems to be working out, though I definitely found a few things I already want to change. Mostly how territories are arranged in L.A, and Sierra Nevada, maybe a little bonus value tweaking here and there.

I'll update soon, I just haven't had as much time to work on this lately.

The big change on this one is that I rearranged Sierra Nevada's borders so that it only has 3 borders instead of 4. I also added all the names in. I should note that the territory "No Name" is in reference to a ghost town we found there literally called "No Name". That region of the state is pretty much defined by ghost towns so I thought it would be appropriate. It's either that or Lone Pine.

I still need to run the numbers through a bonus calculator but does anyone think that the central coast is worth too much?

A few things:
1. The territory "No Name" is bad*ss. I hope you don't change the name
2. Central Coast should definitely stay +3, as it's equally as easy/hard to hold as Mojave.
3. The labels on the mini map are unnecessarily hard to read. Do you think you could increase the font size?
4. You think you could also have a different icon for cities? The black circles you have are rather bland and awkwardly stick out.

-Sully

i like this a lot.
Monterey for the win!

YOu may not want to, and I dont think you need it. But seems ppl think its too narrow or such- so you could do something like 13 colonies , some surfers out in the water, some islands ... i dunno.

but i rike it raggy

1. The territory "No Name" is bad*ss. I hope you don't change the name

2. Central Coast should definitely stay +3, as it's equally as easy/hard to hold as Mojave.

That raises the question, should Sierra nevada be +3 as well? it too is 5 terri 3 borders.

3. The labels on the mini map are unnecessarily hard to read. Do you think you could increase the font size?

I think I'm going to ditch the written legend in favor of a larger mini map that contains both the region names and bonus amounts.

4. You think you could also have a different icon for cities? The black circles you have are rather bland and awkwardly stick out.

I agree the black dots were just a place holder to show people where they would be. I'll find something better to do with them later in graphics.

i like this a lot.
Monterey for the win!

YOu may not want to, and I dont think you need it. But seems ppl think its too narrow or such- so you could do something like 13 colonies , some surfers out in the water, some islands ... i dunno.

Always good to hear from you AoN.

Yeah I've considered something like that, my version on that would be that adjacent port cities could attack each other. I would ad territories to Bay area and LA that would receive those attacks as well.

For example Eureka could attack San Francisco, San Francisco could attack Eureka and Montery, Monterey could attack San Francisco and Lompoc, Lompoc could attack Monterey and Beverely hills, Beverely hills could attack Montery and San diego, and San Diego could attack Beverely hills.

But like you said it may not be needed. I'm playing a game on this map wih friends right now and so far it hasn't seemed to be to big of an issue.

well, because you have 3 "highways" that run north to south, I dont think it will amount to an unfair choke. just my 2 cents. I like it. I like most maps that are simple and well done though.



IF there is a choke problem man.. I believe all you would have to do is move innyo forest off the edge, and make yosemite and kings canyon touch.. that will allow a little pressure to be taken off of a potential choke. I dont think i explained this well, bt i tried.

The Bison King wrote:

2. Central Coast should definitely stay +3, as it's equally as easy/hard to hold as Mojave.

That raises the question, should Sierra nevada be +3 as well? it too is 5 terri 3 borders.

Yes. Now, if you implemented this (which I think would be cool)...

The Bison King wrote:For example Eureka could attack San Francisco, San Francisco could attack Eureka and Montery, Monterey could attack San Francisco and Lompoc, Lompoc could attack Monterey and Beverely hills, Beverely hills could attack Montery and San diego, and San Diego could attack Beverely hills.

...you could make Central Coast +4, which would help create some diversity from all the 3's.

-Sully

You know, I'm not liking the whole lack of impassables or strategic territories. The only bonuses that are possible to take are Blue and maybe Purple... once a player grabs those its game over cause nobody will be able to grab a bonus to stop him. Maybe the cities would be an adequate counter weight, but I dunno. I'd like to see more strategic territories which serve as good areas to take and hold.

The only bonuses that are possible to take are Blue and maybe Purple... once a player grabs those its game over cause nobody will be able to grab a bonus to stop him.

That's not really true. The desert is easily acquired, so is Sierra Nevada. The Central valley makes up for the fact that it's hard to hold by having a high content of adjacent cities. I'm playing a game right now that hasn't ended yet, thus proving that it isn't over once someone takes either the blue or purple bonus. In fact it looks like it might go on for quite a while. Also in this game Northern California was the first bonus that was acquired, which is neither blue or purple (assuming you meant the coasts when you said that).

You know, I'm not liking the whole lack of impassables or strategic territories.

I'm not sure if you are missing the mountains but their are impassables, though I am considering extending them in a few places. And I would argue that their are strategic territories such as: Mojave Desert (touches every territory in it's bonus and borders 3 bonuses) Sacramento (Is a city, borders 4 bonuses and can be used as a choke point with Santa Rosa and Lake Tahoe) Redding (Is a city touches every territory in it's bonus) Fresno (easy expansion point for the Sierra Nevada bonus is a city and borders another city.) Modesto (is a choke point and a city that borders 2 other cities.)

though I am considering extending them in a few places

Specifically I'm considering extending the mountains from Monterey to block San Louis from attacking San jose, potentialy Oakland as well.

I am having a little pick on the mountain ranges. Lake Tahoe, which is located in the corner, is where those mountains should start. They run from there to the south.
Also the territ designations for LA are not quite right. I will post something on this a little later.

Well, no I see the mountains, its just that I think there ought to be more to lock things up and make some choke points. What about that lake as an impassable around Solano?

Furthermore, its awesome that you can test this stuff out.

I hate to say it, but I really don;t think the visual style fits the theme of the map at all... while it worked for Thyseneal, I don't know how well it works here.

MrBenn wrote:I hate to say it, but I really don;t think the visual style fits the theme of the map at all... while it worked for Thyseneal, I don't know how well it works here.

I agree, but does it matter at this stage? I feel like we still need to figure out some of the gameplay concepts, bonus areas, etc.

-Sulls

Victor Sullivan wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I hate to say it, but I really don;t think the visual style fits the theme of the map at all... while it worked for Thyseneal, I don't know how well it works here.

I agree, but does it matter at this stage? I feel like we still need to figure out some of the gameplay concepts, bonus areas, etc.

-Sulls

We're not in graphics yet. One thing at a time.

I must say that I am very confused with your post Mr B. We have had this chicken and egg discussion before. You have stated that the GP always comes first, and I on the other hand have always maintained, that each map project is different, but in most cases, the GP and GFX develop side by side.

This IS the GP Workshop, and according to you, the graphics are not to be discussed yet. Or have you changed your view on this ?

Another thought bison, I lived in monterey and I can attest that from about carmel by the sea to north SF its one big metropolis with 2 great huge baysa and a lot of mountain impassables.

What about a north cali- socal map... keep the map intact for the most part but have a large blow up of carmel-north SF.. and a large blow up of Santa monica (lived there too) to SD.

two large blow ups and a fun map (which you have atm) of mountains and valleys in between the two.

Update time!

Changes:

I extended the mountains to defend Elderado from Lake Tahoe thus reducing the number of central valley borders by one.

I extended the mountains to defend San Jose from Can Luois thus reducing the number of borders of Bay Area by one.

I raised the wirth of LA to +6 but I'm probably going to re-arrange the territories in a later draft so that number might change again.

_ bumped Sierra Nevada up to +3 as well.

I enlarged the mini map and gave it greater detail