Page 5 of 18

Re: Tribal War - Florida v3.10 [13 Jul 2011] pg7

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:39 pm
by Seamus76
CURRENT UPDATE INFO-2011-07-21:
I'm pretty excited for how this new update has turned out. I redid the legend Tribe names, and I think they look pretty good. Also thanks to the great feedback from koontz1973 I added the tribe/motherland border color to the impassables, as well as the swamp/alligator legend. The title is still a major work in progress, so this is not final. I just wanted to get this new version up to make sure I was moving in the right direction.

Current Version: v4.0
Image

Re: Tribal War - Florida v4.0 [21 Jul 2011] pg7

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:29 am
by koontz1973
Legend text is clearer.
Impassables are easier to see.

But the title needs a lot more. You can make it a lot larger. With the I in Tribal and Florida, use the arrow like you did with the tommahawk for the T.


ImageFeather patterns were used in war bonnets. Something like this could be used in the title.
ImageUsed as a symbol for territory. Might be good as a border.

Hope that helps.

Re: Tribal War - Florida v4.0 [21 Jul 2011] pg7

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:53 pm
by Seamus76
Thanks for more great feedback koontz, i'm working hard on the title and that helps.

Aside from the title does anyone have any other gameplay or graphics issues?

Re: Tribal War - Florida v4.0 [21 Jul 2011] pg7

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:16 pm
by Seamus76
Looking for any other feedback while working on the title.

Re: Tribal War - Florida v4.0 [21 Jul 2011] pg7

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:57 pm
by MarshalNey
All changes look good to me... I would take the comment about the Conquistador icon under serious consideration, however. It looks nice, but now that it has no gameplay function it only serves to confuse as all of the other icons have a meaning listed in the legend (unless one needs to hold both the Conquistador and the region behind it in order to get the bonus, in which case the Conquistador symbol needs to go in the legend too).

A similar thing could be said about the Shell Mound Ruins... hmmmm although for some reason that doesn't bother me as much, it really is superfulous. Actually, the instruction along the side that says "attacked by all Timucua War Zone..." can be omitted outright for the Shell Mound Ruins, since its position would indicate that already.

Out of pure curiosity, what were the Shell Mound Ruins and why were they significant in the conflict? Did they have some cultural or religious importance?

-- Marshal Ney

Re: Tribal War - Florida v4.0 [21 Jul 2011] pg7

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:21 am
by koontz1973
Seamus, can you put some numbers into the map so I can see the placings within the war zone. With it being a free for all, it might get confusing on what you are attacking.

Re: Tribal War - Florida v4.0 [21 Jul 2011] pg7

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:09 pm
by Seamus76
Thanks for the feedback. I'll be working to add in the army numbers for the next version. As well as the title.

I would take the comment about the Conquistador icon under serious consideration

I understand the concern regarding the lone Conquistador icon, but personally don't see the lack of a tied bonus or further explanation as being a cause for mass confusion. I am open to suggestions though. One good option might be to add it back in to the legend as a separate +1, or +2 bonus for holding it, and +5 for the fort. This would be like I had it in version v.3.3 (check first post for old map versions). In addition to, or rather than, would it help to add a line to the right side explanation that says "Conquistadors protect the fort, and are attached by all Timucua War Zone"? Again, I don't want to oversimplify this too much, even though I know that's somewhat the name of the game, that might be a little too much.

Out of pure curiosity, what were the Shell Mound Ruins and why were they significant in the conflict? Did they have some cultural or religious importance?

Below is a little specific info on Shell Mound itself, but for the map, it serves a vital purpose as a stop-gap to the War Zone, (as does the conquistador to the fort), making it more of a challenge and tactical/strategic play to get from one end to the other.

"Shell Mound is located in the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge and is adjacent to the Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge. This unique feature was created by Archaic period Eastern Woodland Indian cultures by discarding oyster and clam shells they used as a food source. The area was inhabited by this culture for at least 1,000 years from about 450 to 1,800 years ago. Once used as a source of materials for road construction (prior to Refuge ownership) the mound is now protected from all but foot traffic, attracting about 60,000 visitors per year." It's basically like an ancient giant land-fill. :)

Re: Tribal War - Florida v4.0 [21 Jul 2011] pg7

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 2:06 pm
by Seamus76
CURRENT UPDATE INFO-2011-07-28:
Just to preface this, I am still working on the title. But for this update I added in the army numbers for an 8 player game, and added in all of the neutrals so everyone can see how it would initially look. The player army number locations were selected at random from the available starting positions. I re-worded the Shell Mound text to remove the "Attacked by..." info. I also added in a line to the right side Conquistador text to say they protect the fort. Again, I know it is a lone icon, but I think that also makes it less confusing, rather than if there two or three random Conquistador icons. I think at that point there would need to be further explanation, but as of right now I personally don't see it being a point of contention or confusion. In addition to the title, cosmetically I am working on some smaller issues, such as making sure the impassible color fills the entire area, etc. Please let me know if there are any other gameplay or graphics issues that you can see now so I can add them to the next version. Thanks.

Current Version: v4.1
Image

Re: Tribal War - Florida v4.1 [28 Jul 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:14 pm
by DiM
1. make your background layer transparent not white. it is visible on the margins and it would look better without it. see red marked area for an example
2. the borders seem to be discoloured near the edges of the continents. see the blue marked areas for examples.
3. the shell mound ruins looks a bit odd. in fact i can't even tell what it is. every other icon on the map is very clear except this one.
4. "war zone" name should be made like the tribe names in the legend. a dark coloured font with a glow.
5. some text areas are a bit too small. i can read them but others might not. definitely don't decrease their size when you make the small map or they will be unreadable.
Image

Re: Tribal War - Florida v4.1 [28 Jul 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:25 pm
by natty dread
DiM wrote:1. make your background layer transparent not white. it is visible on the margins and it would look better without it. see red marked area for an example


Since the map is converted to jpeg upon uploading and jpeg doesn't support transparency, I don't see the point of this...

Re: Tribal War - Florida v4.1 [28 Jul 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:28 pm
by cairnswk
Seamus76, i've looked at your map previously and decided to wait a little before commenting.
I'm glad to see that the legend "continent" names are a lot clearer to read.
I have to say that while i like the background, the fold line across bottom right corner is very distracting.
Also, is this the small or large map?

Re: Tribal War - Florida v4.1 [28 Jul 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:48 pm
by DiM
natty_dread wrote:
DiM wrote:1. make your background layer transparent not white. it is visible on the margins and it would look better without it. see red marked area for an example


Since the map is converted to jpeg upon uploading and jpeg doesn't support transparency, I don't see the point of this...


until that point we would feast our eyes on a more beautiful image. :mrgreen:

Re: Tribal War - Florida v4.1 [28 Jul 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:15 am
by natty dread
DiM wrote:
natty_dread wrote:
DiM wrote:1. make your background layer transparent not white. it is visible on the margins and it would look better without it. see red marked area for an example


Since the map is converted to jpeg upon uploading and jpeg doesn't support transparency, I don't see the point of this...


until that point we would feast our eyes on a more beautiful image. :mrgreen:


I would rather suggest using the clone stamp to pad out the edges so that there's no white visible.

Re: Tribal War - Florida v4.1 [28 Jul 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:15 am
by isaiah40
natty_dread wrote:
DiM wrote:
natty_dread wrote:
DiM wrote:1. make your background layer transparent not white. it is visible on the margins and it would look better without it. see red marked area for an example


Since the map is converted to jpeg upon uploading and jpeg doesn't support transparency, I don't see the point of this...


until that point we would feast our eyes on a more beautiful image. :mrgreen:


I would rather suggest using the clone stamp to pad out the edges so that there's no white visible.


Or, alternately, use the background color of this page as the background color around the seen edges of the map.

Re: Tribal War - Florida v4.1 [28 Jul 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:23 am
by TaCktiX
PNGs are allowed on CC I think. I know GIFs are, or else ConquerMan and Conquer 4 wouldn't work as they do.

Re: Tribal War - Florida v4.1 [28 Jul 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:32 am
by natty dread
TaCktiX wrote:PNGs are allowed on CC I think. I know GIFs are, or else ConquerMan and Conquer 4 wouldn't work as they do.


GIFs yes, but they're only used on animated maps. PNG:s, no.

I mean, I guess you could use GIF, but it would make your map look crappy, since GIF only supports 256 colours, and only 1-bit transparency. It's not a good tradeoff for a few transparent pixels.

Re: Tribal War - Florida v4.1 [28 Jul 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:13 pm
by Seamus76
CURRENT UPDATE INFO-2011-07-31:
Major changes for this update are:
1. Removed the Shell Mound Ruins and replaced it with another Conquistador. I then added a +2 bonus for holding both, and added that info to the legend. I also removed the Conquistador text on the right side.
2. I tried to fix the where the border colors were a little messed up, as pointed out by DiM. Let me know if I succeeded.

I should have the title soon. Let me know what you think about the new update, and any outstanding issues with regard to gameplay.

Current Version: v5.0
Image

Re: Tribal War - Florida v5.0 [31 Jul 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:34 pm
by koontz1973
The outer edge colours look OK but without doing a DiM it is hard to tell if you got them all.
Nice work in removing the fold at the bottom, it was distracting.

With the new Conquistador, why that? It seems a little out of place on the left. With the tribes attacking in the war zone, you also have the canoe going to it. it seems totally out of place. I would put the shell mounds back in but change the icon to match the others.

New war zone (title) looks so much better, but you will have problems with TM-3 as a double digit army number or colour code will sit on top of it.

Re: Tribal War - Florida v5.0 [31 Jul 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:24 am
by TaCktiX
I'm going to agree with Koontz on the conquistador bonus. Doesn't quite seem necessary. Also the "Part of No Bonus" section sitting out in empty space has been bugging me for a while yet. I don't THINK you need to note it, but if you do perhaps the text can be better situated instead of out in the Atlantic.

Re: Tribal War - Florida v5.1 [1 Aug 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:11 pm
by Seamus76
CURRENT UPDATE INFO-2011-08-01:
I'm still working on the title, but wanted to get the Shell Mound/Conquistador area put to bed. I removed the second Conquistador, and added Shell Mound back. I also removed the "ruins" image I had and replaced it with a Teepee icon. I liked the idea of a bonus for taking both the Shell Mound Ruins and the Conquistador so I added that to the legend. Another small update was to move the "WAR ZONE" label a little.

In addition to any outstanding Gameplay issues, I would like to know if everyone likes the new Shell Mound Ruins icon, as well as the bonus for holding it and the Conquistador.

Current Version: v5.1
Image

Re: Tribal War - Florida v5.1 [1 Aug 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:18 pm
by DiM
i don't usually comment too much on gameplay but i'm making an exception now as i'm a bit concerned with the castle bonus. +5 for 1 terit with 1 border?
also some of the other bonuses seem weird. miccosukee has +3 for 1 terit. Ais has +3 for 2 terits. too much.
oh and there's an indication on the map that the castle is part of no bonus but the castle itself is a bonus so it might be kinda confusing.

another concern is the bow and hatchet bonus. in the legend it says +2 but is that +2 for each bow? or +2 for all bows? if it is for each bow then it's way too much. if it's for all bows then it might be too little. and in any case it must be made clearer in the legend.

Re: Tribal War - Florida v5.1 [1 Aug 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:53 am
by koontz1973
Going to focus only on the game play aspects Seamus.

Your whole area with the conquistadors needs a major look at.
To much bonus for so little territory. With 5 neutrals to take out, no one will take it as all of the way zone can attack it. This is dead space because of it. I would suggest you take out the whole region and make it part of the war zone. Place the conquistadors helmet icon elsewhere in the war zone, close but not to close. Merge this bonus with the shell mounds (looks like a tee pee now) bonus for the 5 should work.

How about another canoe on the right. Leading from ch2 or je3 to the war zone. This opens that part of the board up a lot more.

With the bonuses (and I am sorry for saying this as it will cause you no end of pain), in the legend you have a symbol for a tribal chief. On the map there is only one. I understand that this symbol represents only one of the many chiefs you have and that you wanted all of them to have there own symbol but there will be players confused by this. You need to place either simplify the bonus, change the legend or have one chief symbol. My personal feeling is that you do not need to change but better ask a mod to look at it and see if they say it is OK>

Canoe 2 goes straight to the shell mounds. I would suggest you move this to a war zone territ.

That is enough for now. Will have another look later.

Re: Tribal War - Florida v5.1 [1 Aug 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:58 am
by natty dread
Oh, and saying that "impassables are part of no bonus" seems a bit redundant... :-s

Re: Tribal War - Florida v5.1 [1 Aug 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:57 pm
by Seamus76
Thanks for the feedback guys, I really appreciate it.

i'm a bit concerned with the castle bonus. +5 for 1 terit with 1 border?
Your whole area with the conquistadors needs a major look at. Too much bonus for so little territory. With 5 neutrals to take out, no one will take it as all of the way zone can attack it.

First, even though the Spanish Fort (castle) is only attacked by one terit, it is extremely hard to hold because, as koontz pointed out it is only protected by the Conquistador who can be attacked by all of the war zone. That is why it was given the +5 bonus, so that players would find it appealing to try for, and be more of a plausible strategic play. With a bonus of +5 for taking out 5 neutrals there are dozens of playable opportunities for players, in any game type to take this bonus, and then secure it at the Conquistador.

I would suggest you take out the whole region and make it part of the war zone.

I think this would take away a big part of the strategic play of the fort, and conquistador. On a side note, the theme of the map (and the War Zone) was somewhat designed around the fort, the natural impassable of the St Johns River (the longest river in Florida) and it's time period. Once the Spanish landed in St Augustine, looking for the fountain of youth, and established their colony, and the Castillo De San Marcos, it lead to the eventual slaughter, by hand and disease of most of the Native American Indian tribes. Thus you have this little protected area to which they eventually exploded.

With the bonuses (and I am sorry for saying this as it will cause you no end of pain), in the legend you have a symbol for a tribal chief. On the map there is only one. I understand that this symbol represents only one of the many chiefs you have and that you wanted all of them to have there own symbol but there will be players confused by this.

The current legend was worked out with the help of MarshalNey's feedback, and while it only holds one of the tribes symbols I think it is clearly implied that they are only there to represent all of the symbols as a whole. I think no matter what you do or change, if it's not the Classic map there will be something that confuses someone. Please take a look back at v3.2 on the first post to see the legend I had changed to from the current, and then based on feedback changed back from that to what you see now.

another concern is the bow and hatchet bonus. in the legend it says +2 but is that +2 for each bow? or +2 for all bows? if it is for each bow then it's way too much. if it's for all bows then it might be too little. and in any case it must be made clearer in the legend.

The bonus of +2 is for each bow and arrow, and +2 for each tomahawk. Which I will try to clarify in the legend, but that issue had not been expressed previously. And just to ask out of curiosity, why is +2 too much? The values had been debated in previous posts and seemed to have settled on +2 being not only reasonable, but to also make them a playable option. You might find that as a reoccurring theme, but I'm not a fan of bonuses that go to waste during a game. With their being 6 total weapons, them starting 2 neutral, and being +2, why won't players fight for them? Or at the very least take one or two?

also some of the other bonuses seem weird. miccosukee has +3 for 1 terit. Ais has +3 for 2 terits. too much.

If you look back at the previous versions you'll see the current values had been worked out based on forum and Mod input, which I am more than open to. The current values were debated out, and settled based not only on the number of terits within the region, but also taking into consideration the number of terits that can attack that region. For instance, Miccosukee is only 1 terit, but it is attacked by all of the War Zone, and by JE-2. This makes it pretty hard to hold, so the +3 is an incentive for players to take it. Ais, is the same way. At +1 or even +2, no one would bother taking it.

oh and there's an indication on the map that the castle is part of no bonus but the castle itself is a bonus so it might be kinda confusing.

It's really just to indicate that there is no regional bonus for holding the fort and the conquistador. I can certainly remove that wording if others feel the same way.

Re: Tribal War - Florida v5.1 [1 Aug 2011] pg8

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:36 pm
by DiM
Seamus76 wrote:
DiM wrote:another concern is the bow and hatchet bonus. in the legend it says +2 but is that +2 for each bow? or +2 for all bows? if it is for each bow then it's way too much. if it's for all bows then it might be too little. and in any case it must be made clearer in the legend.

The bonus of +2 is for each bow and arrow, and +2 for each tomahawk. Which I will try to clarify in the legend, but that issue had not been expressed previously. And just to ask out of curiosity, why is +2 too much? The values had been debated in previous posts and seemed to have settled on +2 being not only reasonable, but to also make them a playable option. You might find that as a reoccurring theme, but I'm not a fan of bonuses that go to waste during a game. With their being 6 total weapons, them starting 2 neutral, and being +2, why won't players fight for them? Or at the very least take one or two?


i'm not saying people won't go for them. on the contrary, they are very appealing because they give such a big bonus. i admit i haven't checked the whole thread to see what happened but here's how i see this.
imagine a 1v1 game. there are 44 terits so i get 22 to start and that gives me 7 troops to deploy at first. let's say we get an even spread in the warzone. i get 4 terits and you get 4 terits. i put my troops in one terit on the war zone and that gives me a 10 troop stack. with 3 good rolls in a row i can take 3 tomahawks/bows and then using my other terits from the war zone i can reinforce each of my tomahawks with 5 troops at the end of my turn and i've secured an aditional +6 on top of a +8 for having 25 terits.
your turn comes and you have no choice but to break my bonuses. if you go for another bonus group and even take it i'll just come with my +14 and break you next turn. so you deploy your 7 troops in a war zone terit and get a 10 stack. can you honestly say you'll break 3 terits with 5 troops each with a 10 stack? in many cases you'll barely break one and the next turn i'll own you and it's game over by round 3.

point is no bonus should be possible to take with just a simple roll of the dice and then give such a huge advantage that it decides the game.in a 1v1 game i'll go for the bows / tomahawks and definitely miccosuke. nothing else will matter.


Seamus76 wrote:
DiM wrote:also some of the other bonuses seem weird. miccosukee has +3 for 1 terit. Ais has +3 for 2 terits. too much.

If you look back at the previous versions you'll see the current values had been worked out based on forum and Mod input, which I am more than open to. The current values were debated out, and settled based not only on the number of terits within the region, but also taking into consideration the number of terits that can attack that region. For instance, Miccosukee is only 1 terit, but it is attacked by all of the War Zone, and by JE-2. This makes it pretty hard to hold, so the +3 is an incentive for players to take it. Ais, is the same way. At +1 or even +2, no one would bother taking it.


Mod does not equal God and they can be wrong just like any of us. except me. I AM GOD :lol:
in my years of map making i've discovered one thing. the number of terits that can attack a certain territory is in many cases irrelevant. just for fun i used the bonus calculator that most people around here swear by to compute the bonuses from my steamworks map. it's horribly wrong and it gives me only +7 + 8 bonuses for continents with 2 borders and 4-5 terits. and all this because the map is very open and a border can be attacked from at least a dozen places.
that calculator might work fine on something classic but on what you have here it is utter crap.
the fact that a terit can be attacked by 20 others doesn't actually mean it will be attacked by them.

again imagine a scenario. 8 player game. i deploy 3 troops and form a 6 stack. good dice and i take ap-3. i reinforce with 2 more troops from another terit. that gives me a 7 stack on that terit. yes the entire war zone can attack me but who will do it when they have just 3 to deploy and it will mean attacking 6v7? nobody. yeah sure if the other 7 players all focus on attacking my terit they might finally break it but nobody will do it. and in round 2 i have an unbreakable +3.

compare miccosukee with caluso.
you say micossukee has +3 because that terit can be attacked by the entire war zone. if that argument is valid then what should caluso's value be?
that continent has not 1 but 3 areas that can be attacked by the entire war zone. also it has 5 places where it can be attacked by other neighbouring continents and on top of that it has 10 terits so it is much much harder to take. so why is it worth just 8? if the same standards apply then it should be worth at least 30-40 troops. but that would be absurd wouldn't it?

same thing with the castle bonus. +5 for 1 terit is HUGE and it can only be attacked from the conquiztador. it can't even be attacked from the entire war zone. not that it would justify its bonus if the entire warzone could attack it.

Seamus76 wrote:
DiM wrote:oh and there's an indication on the map that the castle is part of no bonus but the castle itself is a bonus so it might be kinda confusing.

It's really just to indicate that there is no regional bonus for holding the fort and the conquistador. I can certainly remove that wording if others feel the same way.


i know what it indicates. it's just that it seems pointless. usually you have to point out the bonuses not the terits that aren't bonuses.
so if it doesn't say anywhere that there's a regional bonus there, it must surely mean there's no such bonus.