- Click image to enlarge.
Spent some time making a Cadillac... what's a 1950s travel road trip without a Cadillac? Also added a teepee and some color. Suggested gameplay changes discussed below.
iancanton wrote:lostatlimbo wrote:I also don't understand San Bernadino. Geographically (and even thematically), that should be Barstow - or at the very least, Victorville. I see that you intended it as the crux between I-15 and I-10, but I think it would be more interesting to have 10 connect with LA and add Palm Springs in between, and then replace San Bernadino with Mojave. I've had the misfortune of spending some time in San Bernadino, so forgive my prejudice.
if they're both in the song, then why not have both? from los angeles, would it work to have route 66 go east to san bernardino, then exaggerated north to barstow, with yuma connecting to san bernardino instead of to barstow (which links to las vegas instead)? mind u, i notice that all cities that connect to route 66 do so at only one point. is this deliberate and would my suggestion for barstow and las vegas spoil the desired arrangement of start positions?
I've already changed San Bernadino to Barstow, but I'm reluctant to add another city between LA and Kingman, both because of the tight spacing and because I'm not sure how to route the connecting highways. The start territories in there are nicely split up North, South, North, South.
And the Route 66 territories do not all connect in only one direction, but they each only connect to one (or in one case zero) starting territories. There are four Route cities that can be hit from both the north and the south.
I wouldn't be opposed to adding another city along the Route (even though I already think it will be hard enough to hold for the victory condition), but I think I'd rather see it in the eastern or central part of the map. The west already seems fairly busy, and neither Barstow nor Kingman were the most exciting stops along the way. Sticking another city in there would, in my opinion, upset the balance both in terms of play and graphics.
iancanton wrote:DJ Teflon wrote:Just an idea - might it be worth having non-route 66 terits as +2s? It would give more incentive for players to take them etc.
i second that.
Really? So we'd giving a bonus of +1 for holding
three of the territories for which this map is named, and a +2 for holding just one random peripheral territory? I'm not sure why this is an improvement, as it makes the Route cities less attractive than the non-route cities. And it seems like by giving random territories a bonus we're setting up a situation in which a player can get lucky by getting dropped next to more +2s than his opponent.
Or wait - does TJ Teflon mean that none-route 66 territories should start with neutral 2s to encourage taking them? That I can get behind, even though others argued against it earlier... I recognize that there are argument for and against.
Note that the standard per turn territory/army ratio is already reduced on the map, so picking up any two territories - Route 66 or otherwise - nets you an extra army. This was done specifically to encourage expansion in otherwise unattractive regions of the map. And because of this there are going to be some interesting starts...
- 1v1 games: each player starts with 9 territories, good for an initial placement of four armies. I think this is fine because P1 can't hit his opponent, only neutrals. And by hitting a neutral that borders an opponent space he has just opened himself up to attack. In round two each player will be able to place 5 armies (assuming having taken a neutral in round one), but again this works because they still probably can't see anything but neutrals.
- 3 player games: each player starts with 7 territories, and needs only one territory to up that to four. Again, all they see in those opening two rounds are neutrals, and to hit somebody else they have to break through a neutral wall putting their own real estate in harm's way.
- In games of four players and up it will be awfully difficult to string together Route 66 cities unless you get extremely lucky on the drop. I'd say big games on this map will be cat and mouse affairs, strategically pecking away at thin opponents and keeping your own borders to a minumum.
Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:33 pm
) to reduce the amount of colours used in your photos at the bottom. Try and make them appear a little more (not to much) appearing like the rest of the main map. Sort of detaching from reality a little so that the 'realistic' photos don't clash (not that they do so much) with the not so realistic map.
):
