These are my replies. Kab and Andrew may have their own.It's certainly an ambitious map, and looks to be well on its way. But I'm a veteran player, I've played all kinds of funky maps, and I spent quite some time this afternoon sussing out the gameplay on this map and it was pretty headache-inducing. I fear that you guys are still on the wrong side of the line separating complex from confusing.
That's a matter of opinion.It's worth pointing out that I've focused entirely on the small map. And I keep referring back to it as I write this, and I again have a headache from squinting and trying to read tiny type and differentiate between strikingly similar bonus colors.
I recommend either the use of the large map, or a pair of good contact lenses, or both of the above.The simplest thing is that the map sacrifices so much for the sake of historical authenticity that it no longer functions well as a game map. You also need to recall that games will not play out in any way like the Napoleonic wars did. Waterloo games, for instance, never turn into a true British-vs.-French battle.
True as to the second comment. We don't expect it to. For instance, the one-way attacks may work in a historical sense (altho it's worth pointing out that Napoleon did indeed land on malta in June of 1798), but from a gameplay perspective I don't see any good reason why an army in Gibraltar can warp to Malta (a fact that is obscured by the legend, btw). Same with Corse and Aboukir (which is kind of a confusing name, given that the naval battle is much better known as the Battle of the Nile and that there was a land-based Battle of Aboukir in 1799). Absent a compelling gameplay argument, I would recommend eliminating both.
They are called ships. The same system is used in most Europe games, except they are called Sea territories instead of sea battles. There is no reason whatsoever to eliminate them, and I already explained in detail why they should be kept.The sheer number of bonuses creates comprehension problems. The fact that the bonus legend doesn't appear to be laid out in any sort of organized manner only compounds the problem. Consider reworking it so that bonuses are generally listed north to south, or east to west, or alphabetically. More to the point, consider consolidating some bonuses.
Ther are many maps with bonus systems which are much more complicated that here. In fact, there is nothing complicated about our bonus system: In fact, there are only 3 types: regions, additional territories next to regions, and land or naval battles. It is simplicity itself when you compare with maps like Iraq or City Mogul, or World 2.1 or WWII, to name but a few I am familiar with.The blizzard of bonuses create other legibility issues. Colors are one, the fact that the UK and Denmark bonuses are so close to the same color is a flaw. Also, have you checked to see how this map will appear to the color-blind?
We can change the Denmark color. There is no blizzard of bonuses. All maps need to be checked for user-friendliness and we will do so, yes.The terits themselves, along with the terit names, are way too cramped. I actually got a giggle from the hanging "a" in Transylvania. Plus the labels are often not terribly legible against the exceptionally busy background you have (this is particularly problematic in the former holy roman empire area). You might want to consider changing the label font to something more impactful. Terit names need to pop. And you might want to consider consolidating some terits.
Glad we put you in a good mood. Of course, we will fix the hanging "A" in Transylvania. Again, we can deal with clarifying somewhat the territories, but I do not accept that our map is in any way more crowded or illegible than, for example, Waterloo or WWII.Also the terit names have no real consistency. Normandy is Normandie, and Corsica is Corse, yet Rome isn't Roma, nor is Lisbon Lisboa.
Yes, we can work on consistency.Some of the bonus labels are tough (you've already talked about the problem with the Confederacy of the Rhine... maybe consider having the bonus label on the map simply read "Rhine"). The fact that there is none for Italy creates a problem, since maps need to have some kind of internal consistency to pull them back over the line from confusing to complex. That's something you'll want to have a hard look at.
Although I totally see your consistency point re: Kingdom of Italy, I don't think Ithis itself is a big issue. There was no space for a Kingdom of Italy label, but the legend is quite clear. No confusion there. I'll talk to Kab and see if there is any solution to this.Some other issues:
Raskholnikov wrote:Besides this common definition, anyone who knows a bit about Napoleon will know about his "Campagne de l'Orient", which means to Egypt and Palestine. Finally, since it is a +1 for the Ottoman Empire, it clearly must be adjacent to it. So really there is no reason to spend 2 minutes finding it on the map. We could try writing it in bigger letters, though, if you think that would help.
Like nobodies, it took me quite some time to find the Orient label. And while I can appreciate that you've done your research, the players won't necessarily have done so either. More to the point, the word has gone through some semantic drift over the centuries, since "Orient" is now much more popularly used as a blanket term for the Far East. Perhaps there's a better (or at least less confusing) term for it... or you could just scotch the label and have the legend reflect that Ottoman gets a +1 with Palestine and Egypt, or just fold both into the Ottoman bonus.
Well then the players will get to learn something. i like the Orient name and bonus and it fits great where it is.No matter what it's called, having the bonus label tucked in between the big honking swords is a bad idea. Clear bonus labels are much more important than graphical flourishes on the signatures, so you might want to try and rework that area. In fact, you could very easily get rid of the swords altogether, they're too distracting, especially since the information conveyed by them is the least important data on the map.
All this is a matter of opinion - and I don't share it. We could, if Kab agrees, fix the swords so they interfere less with gameplay clarity. Raskholnikov wrote:Also, if you compare this map with other CC maps like Waterloo (but many others as well) you will find that by comparison ours is really not that full or cluttered.
That is a matter of opinion.
Indeed it is. Raskholnikov wrote:A radical solution would be to code all region names with a one letter-one number system, like WWII, and only have the full territory name displayed in the drop-down menu. Do you think the additional "clarity" would be worth transforming the map into, effectively, a chess board (e2 - f1)?
You may have to, if you're unwilling to begin consolidating terits and bonuses.
Well let's see what Kab and Andrew think. I am open to this. Raskholnikov wrote:Again, I respectfully disagree on the "too much information" comment. The only additional info we have compared with a map like Europe 1914 is the land battles sign. That's it. At most, we could rework the graphic names of the various countries to make them smaller, but that would take away from the idea of having a "time=period map" rather than just an Atlas map one can find in any book.
Aesthetics and historical accuracy are all well and good, but not when they impede legibility and gameplay.
I don't agree they do.In closing, in case I haven't hit this point hard enough, I offer the following from the first post:
The idea was to recreate Europe by the time of Napoleon, in 1812 precisely. Europe by that time offers a multitude of political and social idiosyncrasies holding all the right ingredients for a map that could be both interesting in terms of game-play and at the same time respect carefully all historical facts.
You'll find fewer people on this site that are more interested in geography and history than I. But form must follow function, and the look and theme of the map must be utterly subservient to gameplay and legibility.
Utterly subservient? Now, please, telll us what you REALLY think... Well this is your opinion and I for one don't share it to the extent to which you choose to go.Thus far that has not been the case with this map, which is why, despite the fact that it's one of the more impressive drafts I've seen recently, I fear that you gents will have to go back to the drawing board for a substantial reworking.
Your evaluation is entirely yours. Whilst I have found some helpful comments, on the whole I consider it to be overly negative and critical. I am willing and indeed eager to proceed with changes that will actually improve the aspect and playability of the map; however, "substantial reworking" is a very subjective term to which I don't suscribe. I prefer to take each issue on a case by case basis and decide if it needs changes or not.
Many thanks for the time and effort you put into providing this detailed critique. I for one do not agree with most of it, but can nonetheless appreciate the effort you put into it and realise it constitutes a great learning experience for you. I think with time you will learn how to become a relatively good Foundry member, provided you take it all less seriouly and realise this is not part of an application for the position of Chief Gameplay Designer and Cartographer for Nintendo. In other words, relax, tone done the negativity, be a bit more friendly and less imperious, and one day you'll get to be reasonably good at this. ;