Fractured America [Quenched]

by **soundman** on Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:14 pm

It's awesome!! I think the should NOT be any auto-deploy on the capitals and just give a bonus for so many held. I like the idea of stars instead of the army circles for the capitals, but these stars sand out too much IMO.... Could you make them blend into the map better? Overall the map looks 200% better!

by **isaiah40** on Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:27 pm

soundman wrote:It's awesome!! I think the should NOT be any auto-deploy on the capitals and just give a bonus for so many held. I like the idea of stars instead of the army circles for the capitals, but these stars sand out too much IMO.... Could you make them blend into the map better? Overall the map looks 200% better!

Thank you soundman!

That's what I was thinking, but I figured I'd see what others thought about the autodeploy first. Yea I know the stars stand out a tad bit, and at the same time I don't want them to fade into the background either. Maybe if I reduce the opacity to 60% hmmm ... it might work.

by **jefjef** on Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:43 pm

Great looking map... How about 1 more tert? Say split Michigan.

by **isaiah40** on Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:47 pm

jefjef wrote:Great looking map... How about 1 more tert? Say split Michigan.

Okay so what would be the purpose of adding one more territory? There are already 88. Just curious :-k

by **jefjef** on Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:53 pm

isaiah40 wrote:
jefjef wrote:Great looking map... How about 1 more tert? Say split Michigan.

Okay so what would be the purpose of adding one more territory? There are already 88. Just curious

My bad math or tiredness. All apologies. Miscounted.

by **isaiah40** on Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:56 pm

jefjef wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:
jefjef wrote:Great looking map... How about 1 more tert? Say split Michigan.

Okay so what would be the purpose of adding one more territory? There are already 88. Just curious

My bad math or tiredness. All apologies. Miscounted.

NP I've done that way too many times myself. Any other suggestions concerning game play? I'll be removing the text for the auto deploy so there won't any of that. I'm thinking of straight standard play. What is your take on it?

by **soundman** on Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:03 pm

isaiah40 wrote:
jefjef wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:
jefjef wrote:Great looking map... How about 1 more tert? Say split Michigan.

Okay so what would be the purpose of adding one more territory? There are already 88. Just curious

My bad math or tiredness. All apologies. Miscounted.

NP I've done that way too many times myself. Any other suggestions concerning game play? I'll be removing the text for the auto deploy so there won't any of that. I'm thinking of straight standard play. What is your take on it?

I like it.

by **jefjef** on Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:32 pm

isaiah40 wrote:
jefjef wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:
jefjef wrote:Great looking map... How about 1 more tert? Say split Michigan.

Okay so what would be the purpose of adding one more territory? There are already 88. Just curious

My bad math or tiredness. All apologies. Miscounted.

NP I've done that way too many times myself. Any other suggestions concerning game play? I'll be removing the text for the auto deploy so there won't any of that. I'm thinking of straight standard play. What is your take on it?

Well I'm a standard play fan. Looks like a good map. Get r out there!

by **Peter Gibbons** on Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:54 pm

I might be in the minority here, but I think there needs to be more color contrast between New England and Quebec (and maybe between Quebec and Canada). Switching the Aztlan Empire with Quebec might accomplish this.

People might have the same complaint about Cuba and the Bible Belt. I'm not colorblind, but I know we have a lot of players that are and because of that, they stress the need for color contrast in adjacent bonus regions.

by **ben79** on Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:44 pm

wow perfect map =D>

( like the idea ) i'm colorblind ( 6 on a 10 scale ) and i think the colors are ok
looking foward to play your map =D>

by **isaiah40** on Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:18 pm

Here is version 4.6

Changes:

Swapped 4 bonus colors around and reduced the opacity of the capital stars.

Click image to enlarge.

Let me know what you think!

by **RedBaron0** on Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:17 pm

Wow... looking good.

Question, are the Great Lakes impassible? With the army circle on Lake Michigan I can't tell if Michigan should connect to Sudbury or Thunder Bay. Either nudge the circle into Michigan more or just add the word "lakes" to your list of impassibles.

Iowa... too many arrows, all things considered why no have the land there? All you really need is a impassible between Nebraska/Dakotas and Dakodas (which could get confusing too...) That line of the Missouri River is running through the Badlands which could be your impassible instead (mountains/desert)

You've got a couple 4 corner territory connections that can be confusing to whether the territories connect diagonally. The 2 I see are along the Canadian border, the Montana one is okay, but the Kenora one is fuzzy enough to make me wonder which territories connect to which.

You've come a long way in a short time, keep up the good work and you'll be into the Foundry in no time!

by **Evil DIMwit** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:19 am

RedBaron0 wrote:Iowa... too many arrows, all things considered why no have the land there? All you really need is a impassible between Nebraska/Dakotas and Dakodas (which could get confusing too...) That line of the Missouri River is running through the Badlands which could be your impassible instead (mountains/desert)

I think the arrows around Iowa are fine. The rivers serve to break up the monotony of the plains and to separate the continents better.

by **jefjef** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:45 am

Evil DIMwit wrote:
RedBaron0 wrote:Iowa... too many arrows, all things considered why no have the land there? All you really need is a impassible between Nebraska/Dakotas and Dakodas (which could get confusing too...) That line of the Missouri River is running through the Badlands which could be your impassible instead (mountains/desert)

I think the arrows around Iowa are fine. The rivers serve to break up the monotony of the plains and to separate the continents better.

(and they truly are major rivers - including the Ohio.) I like it. Kinda gives the "Fractured" feel to it.

by **RedBaron0** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:16 am

I like the river, I just thought it might look better with most(or all) of those arrows gone from territories that would touch if the land connected, thus negating the need for the arrows, which when clustered like that, IMO, detract from the map itself.

Whatever Isaiah and the community thinks, it isn't a big deal one way or the other.

by **soundman** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:20 am

Stars are much better.

RedBaron0 wrote:Iowa... too many arrows, all things considered why no have the land there? All you really need is a impassible between Nebraska/Dakotas and Dakodas (which could get confusing too...) That line of the Missouri River is running through the Badlands which could be your impassible instead (mountains/desert)

Well when I take a good look at it, I think there may be a few too many. Not sure how to fix that though since I like the river through there...

by **WidowMakers** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:09 am

isaiah40 wrote:Here is version 4.6

Changes:

Swapped 4 bonus colors around and reduced the opacity of the capital stars.

Let me know what you think!

Too many blue bonuses. Get rid of one blue and add back another darker green

by **isaiah40** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:46 am

Revision 4.7 here!

Changes made:
- Changed one bonus from a blue to a green
- Changed Bible Belt capital from TN to NC
- Removed 3 attack routes from Iowa

Click image to enlarge.

What do you think?

by **madmom** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:51 am

I think it looks great and am anxious to play it. Well done, Isaiah! =D>

by **soundman** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:42 pm

You need to drop the Republican Party bonus. Otherwise, looks great! =D>

by **jefjef** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:44 pm

soundman wrote:You need to drop the Republican Party bonus. Otherwise, looks great!

This bonus is assailable from 9 terts. It needs to be a good bonus. Middle of map. Almost impossible to hold.

by **soundman** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:50 pm

jefjef wrote:
soundman wrote:You need to drop the Republican Party bonus. Otherwise, looks great!

This bonus is assailable from 9 terts. It needs to be a good bonus. Middle of map. Almost impossible to hold.

Looks like 8 to me... And according to the bonus spreadsheet tools, it should be a bonus of 4. I think it should be dropped to 5 since most of the other bonuses (when I run em through the spreadsheet) are +1.

by **isaiah40** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:01 pm

soundman wrote:
jefjef wrote:
soundman wrote:You need to drop the Republican Party bonus. Otherwise, looks great!

This bonus is assailable from 9 terts. It needs to be a good bonus. Middle of map. Almost impossible to hold.

Looks like 8 to me... And according to the bonus spreadsheet tools, it should be a bonus of 4. I think it should be dropped to 5 since most of the other bonuses (when I run em through the spreadsheet) are +1.

It should be, but because it has 8 territories bordering it, plus I put in my spreadsheet of an addition of 1 because of where it is it came out as +6. I think that is a good bonus for it. Plus Iowa has 3 bordering territories that can attack it (being the capital), so that would bump up the bonus. It won't be lowered any time soon.

by **soundman** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:03 pm

isaiah40 wrote:
soundman wrote:
jefjef wrote:
soundman wrote:You need to drop the Republican Party bonus. Otherwise, looks great!

This bonus is assailable from 9 terts. It needs to be a good bonus. Middle of map. Almost impossible to hold.

Looks like 8 to me... And according to the bonus spreadsheet tools, it should be a bonus of 4. I think it should be dropped to 5 since most of the other bonuses (when I run em through the spreadsheet) are +1.

It should be, but because it has 8 territories bordering it, plus I put in my spreadsheet of an addition of 1 because of where it is it came out as +6. I think that is a good bonus for it. Plus Iowa has 3 bordering territories that can attack it (being the capital), so that would bump up the bonus. It won't be lowered any time soon.

Ok. Well that map looks great and I don't see anything at the moment that could be improved.

by **thenobodies80** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:11 pm

isaiah40 wrote:It should be, but because it has 8 territories bordering it, plus I put in my spreadsheet of an addition of 1 because of where it is it came out as +6. I think that is a good bonus for it. Plus Iowa has 3 bordering territories that can attack it (being the capital), so that would bump up the bonus.

Agree.

Only few suggestions:

If michigan is a problem, simply use imagination. 2040, after a civil war...why michigan borders must be exactly as they are now?
try to rotate the WA-VICTORIA arrow (horizontally), if necessary move a bit the WA circle to the right, i think it will look better

No more starting positions or starting neutrals?