Dust Bowl [Quenched]

[Optimus Prime]

I love the revision. The idea of using the "counties" works out really well. I'm not sure about the negative bonus though....can't decide what would work best with that. It would probably rarely come into play for the most part.

[Coleman]

Make holding the entire drought area more damning. I'd say -9 or -10.

[RjBeals]

Make holding the entire drought area more damning. I'd say -9 or -10.

I wanted to - but don't understand how it would work? Since you start out w/ 3 minimum I thought that would be the most to "not start with". However, maybe it could take 1 army off each territory - until you only have 1 man left on each... or maybe even take away that 1 man and make it neutral..

hhmm.... me likes!

Or maybe no matter what, whoever holds those regions should always lose 1 army at the start of every game?

[Coleman]

I don't think in any game it is possible to start with the entire drought area. Maybe I need to count again.

Rats, you can in 3 and 2 player...

Okay then... Maybe make it -3 for any x amount or something.

[RjBeals]

I didn't mean start with the entire drought area. I meant that at the start of each turn, you get a minimum of 3 armies to place (besides apocalypse map). I wasn't sure how xml would figure out to take 8 or 9 armies away. Like would it take 1 man off each territory you owned? That's what I meant. But you've sparked an interest though.

[I GOT SERVED]

Firstly, I like the progress this map is making. But I have one question.

You have one section to the left of Lubbock (Texas) that isn't named. Is this an extension of one territory? Or is it a different territory all together?

[RjBeals]

Firstly, I like the progress this map is making. But I have one question.

You have one section to the left of Lubbock (Texas) that isn't named. Is this an extension of one territory? Or is it a different territory all together?

Thanks - and that is just a dead territory. Just there to keep the map flowing, however it will not be in play.

[tenio]

Maybe you could have something like hold 3 territories in dust bowl = -3

hold 6= - 1

hold all = + ?

[spiesr]

No, it would be better like:
3=-1
6=-2
and so on with whatever numbas you like...

[oaktown]

unpassable borders? the rockies should be in there, as should some rivers... the Platte?

[RjBeals]

Maybe impassable borders - but I'm really not thrilled about that. I don't think a river is needed - it kinda defeats the purpose of the drought. I experimented with mountain ranges when I was creating Italy, but I couldn't get a style that complimented the feel of the map, and I think the same might be true here. If impassable borders will help gameplay, I'm up for creating something though.

[Inhuman14]

It'd be sweet if you could mess with the game server by awarding you negative armies... I wonder what it would do... }:-)

[BaldAdonis]

According to the map in the book, at the very least Clayton was located in the dustbowl area. But you are right, only the far right side of the state was effected. If you think I should take out cities in NM, I can - but I was trying to keep the map balanced.

I don't know anything about the geography of the dustbowl, I'm just saying that without a stake in it, New Mexico is not affected like the other regions are, so it's important to have at least one New Mexico territory in the dust bowl.

I'm also not sure what you mean about the northern region bonus

I just meant those two up above Kansas/Colorado. Not sure what they were, so I just said "northern region". Nebraska maybe? I was never good at US geography.

How are the territories connected? If crossing state lines is ok, I'd like to see more impassable borders, otherwise every region has at least 3 territories to defend, and others (Colorado, Kansas) are vulnerable everywhere. If players can only attack through the dustbowl and inside a state, then Cheyenne doesn't go anywhere. Also, if the latter is the case, consider that Texas has 4 to defend, and New Mexico/Oklahoma only 1 each.

[Anarkistsdream]

Is that top little section: "Lured by the promise of...." a quote? If so, you have to either cite the source or ask permission, depending on the copyright.

"Drought" is spelled wrong.

[RjBeals]

Is that top little section: "Lured by the promise of...." a quote? If so, you have to either cite the source or ask permission, depending on the copyright.

"Drought" is spelled wrong.

Ahh. Good point. Yes it's a quote from pbs.org so I'll paraphrase into my own quote. And I'll fix spelling. Thanks Anarkist.

[I GOT SERVED]

Firstly, I like the progress this map is making. But I have one question.

You have one section to the left of Lubbock (Texas) that isn't named. Is this an extension of one territory? Or is it a different territory all together?

Thanks - and that is just a dead territory. Just there to keep the map flowing, however it will not be in play.

That dead territory is going to confuse a lot of people, myself included. Maybe you should merge it with Lubbock.

[RjBeals]

That dead territory is going to confuse a lot of people, myself included. Maybe you should merge it with Lubbock.

Naa... I think it will be more clear when the armies are on the board. If more people think it's confusing, I'll rework.

REV-2
1) I'm trying to figure a way to make impassable borders, and this is what I've come up with. I'm going to add land cracks (tying to look like dried desert cracks). My problem is I think I'll have too many cracks all over the board and it will look bad.

Since I've added color to the states, I may tone down the bold state borders to match (or closely match) the grayish territory borders. Then bolder cracks wouldn't look so bad along state lines / impassible areas. Even though i really like the state borders bold like they are now..

2) Since I've added color to the states, the inner "drought" area didn't look good as a shade of red. That gave too much color. Instead I've given red outlined army circles. I think pretty obvious - what about the rest of you?

3) Added some more +/- Bonuses. (I plan to give Texas a +5 Bonus)

4) Rewrote the explanation paragraph into my own words. I'm not the greatest at prose - anyone have suggestions.

5) Do you like my corn / crops graphic? Since I have negative bonuses, I thought it would only be fair to have additional positive bonuses. I tried to place the crops on the outer regions since that’s where there would be more water for growing crops.

[I GOT SERVED]

That dead territory is going to confuse a lot of people, myself included. Maybe you should merge it with Lubbock.

Naa... I think it will be more clear when the armies are on the board. If more people think it's confusing, I'll rework.

Fair enough. The background color in the states cleared that up.

1) I'm trying to figure a way to make impassable borders, and this is what I've come up with. I'm going to add land cracks (tying to look like dried desert cracks). My problem is I think I'll have too many cracks all over the board and it will look bad.

I personally really like the cracks. Another one or two would look fine without over doing it.

2) Since I've added color to the states, the inner "drought" area didn't look good as a shade of red. That gave too much color. Instead I've given red outlined army circles. I think pretty obvious - what about the rest of you?

The red circles look fine. Although the outline was nice, I think it looks nicer like this.

3) Added some more +/- Bonuses. (I plan to give Texas a +5 Bonus)

I'd suggest giving Texas a +6 bonus. That seems better, namely because all of the border territories. I'd also suggest giving Oklahoma a larger bonus as well, also because of the border territories.

[spiesr]

The not territory should be the yellow color...

[sfhbballnut]

I think something might need to be done about the overall look, I know the idea is to make it follow the theme, but it has a sleep, kinda depressed look of the dustbowl right now, and thtat doesn't come across to well,like the idea though, keep at it

[RjBeals]

...but it has a sleep, kinda depressed look of the dustbowl right now, and thtat doesn't come across to well,like the idea though, keep at it

Thanks for the input, but that's the look I was going for. The period was during the great "American" depression in the 1930's. I don't want bold colors. I want dull colors. In fact I didn't really want colors at all, but I had to compromise. What do you mean it doesn't come across to well - like at first glance it looks bla and boring?

[RjBeals]

The not territory should be the yellow color...

But then it would screw with the the shape of the actual state. People from texas wouldn't like that.

[Anarkistsdream]

I hate to say it, but I think the cracks look like tree roots...

Cracks in the ground look more like this:

[RjBeals]

agree... I'll work on the cracks.

[d.gishman]

I kinda liked how the central drought region was all one colour... it's just easier graphically to visualize that area quickly