[Vacation] Allegheny Forest,PA,USA. [I]

[rocky mountain]

i was kinda thinking about what oaktown said:

My first suggestion in looking at your latest draft is to keep in mind that "more" isn't always "better." Keep the number of rules and bonuses that the player has to follow down to a manageable level and the map will see more play after it's quenched.

one rule/bonus i'm kind of unsure about now is the oil -1... is it really necessary?

[seamusk]

6/25 Map Update. This is a major update because it involves both map changes and gameplay changes.

Gameplay Changes
I surveyed the players in the test games to get their input on the game mechanisms to this point. I used the gameplay badge criteria to stimulate responses. First, thanks to the game players, for playing the test games (which are slow and sometimes buggy) and for going above and beyond and providing input. These test games are invaluable. Here are some gameplay changes as a result:

• Oil Field Bonuses: The oil field bonuses have not come into play effectively at all. In fact, in the test games, they have been meaningless. On initial thought my feeling was to eliminate them. The map is plenty good. However, I have been encouraged to try adapting them first so I'm going to try that. They really are critical to the representation of the forest which is why they are there in the first place (plus the gameplay reasons stated). I had dozens of gameplay options before me and the goal was to affect map movement using a combination of positive bonuses (wilderness) and negative bonuses (oil & gas), to try and develop a complex map that isn't complex to interpret (emphasis on classic play instead of bombards or killer neutrals for example). In any case, currently the game play for the oil & gas bonuses calls for -1 armies for every 3 territories held. But players have been effective at avoiding them. Instead I'm adjusting the bonus into a more disipating bonus. On one hands this means more oil & gas fields in territories (gameplay demonstrates they need to be better located and more plentiful to work effectively in my opinion) and instead of just affecting the deploy, each territory with an oil & gas field will have an auto -1 deploy (ala dust bowl which inspired this gameplay initially). Ultimately I think I'll put a poll up on this once folks have a chance to digest...

• North Country Hiking Trail: The hiking trail has been changed to a system that folks are more familiar with so that it operates more like the subway in NYC. This will change how it is used of course. But will also make obtaining the 5 area bonus more likely. One test player expressed dis-like for the trail but thought this proposed solution might work. Another test player used the trail very effectively in their game. Note that the colors are subject to severe change. In any case, the new set up for the trail should be more intuitive for players.

• S Branch Tionesta Creek Bonus: As a test player noted, this bonus was too easy to get. Changed to +2 for 3 from +1 for 2 (EDITED DUE TO ERROR).

• Tunungwant Creek Bonus: Another test player noted this territory as being too easy to grab. The neutrals will be increased here (though I forgot to do this in this update - sorry).

I'll do a round up of the test player input on game player in a subsequent post.

Graphics Changes

• Changed thickness and color of hiking trail (probably gonna have to change again since I'm sure cyan won't be that clear on it) and added circle to represent campgrounds. Hopefully the trail is easier to understand and less abrasive on the eyes.
• Added new private land texture. Something that I hope blends in. I'm also playing with conquerace's suggestion of building fences but worried that will create more objects to clutter a complex map. I like the sort of camo feel the new private lands has. What do others think?
• Trimmed the Clarion River so that it no longer just stops randomly. Well, it is still kind of random but I think it looks better.
• Added oil drops to territories and re-configured for gameplay reasons stated above.
• Cleaned up some noise that had surfaced at borders and such.

There is still much to do. And yes I forgot to make the legend changes. But I already closed shop and wrote all of this so...

Version 2.6 Map - June 25, 2008

Click image to enlarge.

[ZeakCytho]

I recommend just getting rid of the oil and gas bonus. Tweaking the gameplay to get them to fit will be a pain in the ass and the symbols are just overrunning the map now.

[seamusk]

I recommend just getting rid of the oil and gas bonus. Tweaking the gameplay to get them to fit will be a pain in the ass and the symbols are just overrunning the map now.

Thanks for the comment. I should clarify that I'm not tweaking the gameplay just to get them to fit. I'm tweaking the gameplay to get them to work as intended. Interestingly I did come close to eliminating them so we'll see. They may go just yet.

[seamusk]

Test Player input. Besides what has been posted in the thread by test players here is a summary of the input I got by gameplay category. The one thing I've heard from everyone who has said something is that this map is fun. Obviously good to hear for a map maker. Especially given that the test play process itself is not fun at all.

Balanced play. It should be unlikely that one or more players can start the game with a major advantage as a result of the initial drop or getting the first turn.
Got good ratings here.
Blue bonus (Tunungwant) needs fixing. Maybe increase neutral armies occupying.
No major starting point advantage.

Reasonable bonus structure. Bonuses should make sense given the size/style of the map, and be based on a consistent formula.
Looks good.
2 for 3 for S Br Tionesta Creek (Note I made mistake on this in prior post)

Game type flexibility. The map should support various game types and not be designed with specific/limited game settings in mind (standard, assassin, fog of war, 2 players, etc.).
Good, except for possibility of assassin games. Possibility of starting very far from your target could give large disadvantage.

Player-friendliness. Any information you need to know to play a map should be easy to gather by looking at the map itself. The legend should be clear and concise, and the map should be free of unnecessary or cumbersome rules.
Looks fine.
Concern about trail attack vector. Obfuscated by graphics and complicated.
Oil fields are worthless as is. Maybe increase penalty.
Really fun and fair map.

Open-play. There should be many ways a game might progress on a map, and many roads to victory. Such features as unpassable borders should enhance, not limit, gameplay, and every effort should be made to limit the number of dead ends and bottlenecks in a map, unless they are justified by the desired play of the map. The map should be fun to play, not frustrating.
Definitely many ways to progress, not bottlenecks, fun to play.
Haven't played enough to get a handle.

Function trumps form. The style of the graphics should not detract from ease of play: borders should be clear, titles and numbers easy to read, colors easy to distinguish, etc.
It hasn't always been clear which territories villages/cities can attack or be attacked by.
Making the territory numbers more clear continues to be an issue.
Shared territory markings continue to need to be clearer (but likes shared territory idea, suggested separate demarcation).
Bridges need to be larger and canoes need to clearly not appear like bridges.

[MrBenn]

I'm still concerned about the clutter on the map.

In my opinion, the legend is not player-firnedly or particularly intuitive at the moment... I'm having difficulty working out which region is which, and the colours don''t quite match the legend, and the orange shapes confuse the hell out of me. I think you need to find a different way of labelling - perhaps by using a darker shade of the region colour?

I'm not convinced that you need the dual-region territories, especially considering that you only need a few territories to get a bonus - and you need to clarify whether it is +2 for 3 whatever-tregion-terrs, or +2 for every 3 whatever-region terrs (if that makes sense).

In order to get some targetted feedback, it might help to focus development on a couple of aspects at a time - and please don't be too quick to convince yourself you've got it perfect

[seamusk]

In my opinion, the legend is not player-firnedly or particularly intuitive at the moment... I'm having difficulty working out which region is which, and the colours don''t quite match the legend

Yeah I have not updated the colors on the legend in a bit. But they have changed some in the game map. But not sure how the legend isn't "player-friendly". Can you elaborate. Not disagreeing, but not sure if you just mean the colors or something else. Keep in mind that I didn't update the legend with my last couple of updates. or at least this last one.

...and the orange shapes confuse the hell out of me. I think you need to find a different way of labelling - perhaps by using a darker shade of the region colour?

Well, the shape were done initially in order to help clarify any color confusion of the watersheds. Honestly I thought that confusion had gone away and was planning to just simplify to one color shape with a unique marking for the shared territories. But now you say the colors of the watersheds confuse you.

If folks think it makes sense I will likely either remove the orange labels all together or unify them. I have an idea for the shared territory labeling that is simple in any case.

I'm not convinced that you need the dual-region territories, especially considering that you only need a few territories to get a bonus - and you need to clarify whether it is +2 for 3 whatever-tregion-terrs, or +2 for every 3 whatever-region terrs (if that makes sense).

I thought that was clarified. The legend say +2 for 3 or more regions. Is there a better way to state this?

Gameplay is still ongoing and I have gotten positive feedback on the shared region territories. They make sense with the theme of the map as well. As those territories actually do fall into two watersheds. And this is a common issue in the forest of walking along ridges or in this case plateau regions that feed different streams. They aren't random inclusions is what I'm saying. I don't think they detract from the map either though getting the blending right has been an ongoing issue.

In order to get some targetted feedback, it might help to focus development on a couple of aspects at a time - and please don't be too quick to convince yourself you've got it perfect

I've never declared that I have anything perfect. Not sure where you are getting that from. There are things I like and don't like and that certainly affects how open I am to a suggestion. There is also a gameplay system which I developed from my board game design experience and there is a reason for each element. And there are reasons I did not include other possibilities.

Thanks for the comments Mr Benn.

[rocky mountain]

I'm having difficulty working out which region is which, and the colours don''t quite match the legend, and the orange shapes confuse the hell out of me. I think you need to find a different way of labelling - perhaps by using a darker shade of the region colour?

the colours match fine except for spring creek which is the one i'm assuming you meant. i told seamusk about that a while ago, but nothing has changed yet... i think that the darker shade idea is good.

and you need to clarify whether it is +2 for 3 whatever-tregion-terrs, or +2 for every 3 whatever-region terrs (if that makes sense).

no, it doesn't really make sense... whats the difference between them? wait a minute... when did it become (ex.) +2 for 3 or more terr.??? keep it at +2 for 3 terr., so then if you have 4 the bonus is 6!

seamusk:
the new private land color blends in too much with tionesta creek.
why do you keep changing the colour of spring creek? change the legend not the map this time.
the light blue trail just doesn't look good, especially as its a nature trail which would mean more browny colours like before. however i do like the new trail gameplay thing. (but now that means in my game, i don't have any trail terits anymore )
one thing that is bugging me is that under the trail circles you can see the actual trail.
i'm thinking test games aren't a great idea anymore... it takes too long, and you keep having to adjust every time gameplay shifts. i gets quite annoying... i noticed other people printed out the map, and played it. that might be a better idea...
towns aren't really a huge advantage... they're auto deploy, just like the cities. when there's 2 auto deploy things and one of them you must conquer yourself, it would be better if one was a standard bonus (the villages) it could be a +2 non-autodeploy.
my thoughts for the day.

[seamusk]

the colours match fine except for spring creek which is the one i'm assuming you meant. i told seamusk about that a while ago, but nothing has changed yet... i think that the darker shade idea is good.

I know, sorry. I was more focused on gameplay this time. The whole legend is falling behind the times anyhow.

Yeah, I'm gonna try that. So get rid of the symbols all together?

no, it doesn't really make sense... whats the difference between them? wait a minute... when did it become (ex.) +2 for 3 or more terr.??? keep it at +2 for 3 terr., so then if you have 4 the bonus is 6!

It has always been the way it is written now. I realized that it was not clear in the legend so I changed it. I'm open to the allowing of multiple bonuses for one player on one region.

the new private land color blends in too much with tionesta creek.

why do you keep changing the colour of spring creek? change the legend not the map this time.

I don't think i've changed it in eons. Not intentionally. There are actually a couple of layers on each watershed. And some time ago I screwed up and deleted the colored spring creek layer (the other is a 0% fill that controls the bevel). Well, there are three actually now that I think about it.

the light blue trail just doesn't look good, especially as its a nature trail which would mean more browny colours like before. however i do like the new trail gameplay thing. (but now that means in my game, i don't have any trail terits anymore )
one thing that is bugging me is that under the trail circles you can see the actual trail.

Yeah, my thinking was that this setup is more similar to other maps with subways and what not and therefore more intuitive for players. I agree that the blue is way out of place.

i'm thinking test games aren't a great idea anymore... it takes too long, and you keep having to adjust every time gameplay shifts. i gets quite annoying... i noticed other people printed out the map, and played it. that might be a better idea...

I might do that as well at some point but one thing I learned from board game design (and all pros will tell you this) is that test play is the most essential part of game design. I know its slow and painful but it has been a huge asset thus far. And I appreciate those who have been willing to partake. And yes one of the annoying aspects of being a test gamer is having things change on you on the fly. Sorry about that.

towns aren't really a huge advantage... they're auto deploy, just like the cities. when there's 2 auto deploy things and one of them you must conquer yourself, it would be better if one was a standard bonus (the villages) it could be a +2 non-autodeploy.
my thoughts for the day.

This is certainly doable. Let me chew on it...

[sandypants]

The national forest looks sick. I can't wait to kick you butt through it. It's cool to have a map with some character + local love.

[mibi]

this map is way too cluttered and unnecessarily complicated to give off any kind of forest vibe.

[seamusk]

6.27 map update. The changes for this update are as follows:

• Completely reworked legend
• Removed the Ranger Stations as a gameplay element
• Reworked territory numbers and removed signs
• Added unique "link" symbol for territories that cross watersheds
• Changed trail color
• Changed bridges


Version 2.7 Map - June 27, 2008

Click image to enlarge.

[Androidz]

it looks great but i haveing a hard time seeing the area numbers. but it might just be me

[rocky mountain]

it looks great but i haveing a hard time seeing the area numbers. but it might just be me

ya i think its just you...
ok this is kinda a big update...
the minimap is nice. it looks more foresty than the actual map, so its a nice touch. but is the bonus +2 for 3 or more, or is it +2 for every 3? also, some text is hard to see like millstone creek. is it +2 for 3 or 5? and tunungwant text is all kinda hard to see...
i realized that tionesta and tidioute are at a slight disadvantage because they are at the downstream of the river. tidioute has a canoe on the township terr. (which is no longer a township terr.) so its a little vulnerable from Warren.
clarion/spring 5 looks like 2 different terits especially with the 2 numbers in separate sides. i would move the 5 over to more the middle. the same with above/tunungwant 1... tionesta/alleghany 5, the number is isolated too much.
the private land by sheffield blends in too much with tionesta.
that one canoe is connected to tionesta 3 right? moce it over slightly...
i have to go now so maybe more later...

[seamusk]

it looks great but i haveing a hard time seeing the area numbers. but it might just be me

ya i think its just you...

Can anyone confirm this? I have no problems either but a third party would be best.

ok this is kinda a big update...
the minimap is nice. it looks more foresty than the actual map, so its a nice touch. but is the bonus +2 for 3 or more, or is it +2 for every 3? also, some text is hard to see like millstone creek. is it +2 for 3 or 5? and tunungwant text is all kinda hard to see...

Playing with this right now. Text being hard to read is not good. THis could take a while...

i realized that tionesta and tidioute are at a slight disadvantage because they are at the downstream of the river. tidioute has a canoe on the township terr. (which is no longer a township terr.) so its a little vulnerable from Warren.

Yes this is true. The oil fields which are predominate in the forest's upstream areas was a hopeful tool for balancing. Warren Township had one before but I thought that was too much so I moved it to West Branch Tionesta 7.

clarion/spring 5 looks like 2 different terits especially with the 2 numbers in separate sides. i would move the 5 over to more the middle. the same with above/tunungwant 1... tionesta/alleghany 5, the number is isolated too much.

Thanks!

the private land by sheffield blends in too much with tionesta.

Still! damnit.

that one canoe is connected to tionesta 3 right? moce it over slightly...

yep thanks!

[AndyDufresne]

I'll start at the top of the map, and work my way down, yes?

I have some reservations regarding the Wilderness Areas, mostly placement. I'd assume these reflect real placements, but Tionesta's seem a little too easy. These also seem rather after the fact in thought and really only add a few minor things to game play. They feel more unncessary than necessary.

"Canoes can attack next downstream territory with a canoe." (I assume you mean territories downstream that also have a canoe, as upon first reading it seems like a broken and redundant sentence.) Regarding canoes game play wise, are they needed? I think this map could benefit from the removal of some non-key game play elements. I'm not sure if the canoes are key (they improve movement, but really that is essentially minimal since it's all down stream).

The chain linking the Watersheds (you use this term, but never define it...so it may be worthwhile to include over your bonus map "Watershed Legend/Bonuses") is pretty gimicky looking. I'd consider using something else...or finding a better way to signify this, as it currently looks sloppy and has an unfinished feeling to it.

The oil field's also feel gimicky and detract from gameplay.

City and Town graphics oddly don't mesh with the rest of the graphics. There also seems to be a plethora of them for this map, are all necessary and needed? I'm not sure they are.

You will also have to work on your color scheme. The current configuration and color choice most certainly does not say forest by any means.

Also rethink your numbering system for territories. Sometimes you start in the south and count north other times it opposite...and even it looks in a few other places random. I can see you are doing this because of your shared territories, but perhaps you need to use a special marker for these to have numbering consistencies.

Overall, eliminate unnecessary, superfluous game play ideas and think about the presentation of the map in general (numbering system, colors and their sequence, icons, etc).


--Andy

[seamusk]

I have some reservations regarding the Wilderness Areas, mostly placement. I'd assume these reflect real placements, but Tionesta's seem a little too easy. These also seem rather after the fact in thought and really only add a few minor things to game play. They feel more unncessary than necessary.

Actually, the Wilderness/Oil & Gas Dynamic is something that if I can tweak it to work properly will help achieve the gameplay I'm seeking. If they appear as add-ons that is a fault of mine in the design. That said, yes that reflects real Wilderness (and proposed Wilderness). An important part of what I need to determine is if this somehow throws competitive play off balance. In any case, the Wilderness bonus has played a meaningful role so far in both test games going.

"Canoes can attack next downstream territory with a canoe." (I assume you mean territories downstream that also have a canoe, as upon first reading it seems like a broken and redundant sentence.) Regarding canoes game play wise, are they needed? I think this map could benefit from the removal of some non-key game play elements. I'm not sure if the canoes are key (they improve movement, but really that is essentially minimal since it's all down stream).

I've had nothing but good reports on the canoes so far. So I'm inclined to keep them unless game tests suggest otherwise. Given that there are less than 10 I don't think they interfere graphically at all either. For what its worth I did remove the ranger station movement and the oil & gas fields element is under consideration for adaption or possibly deletion.

The chain linking the Watersheds (you use this term, but never define it...so it may be worthwhile to include over your bonus map "Watershed Legend/Bonuses") is pretty gimicky looking. I'd consider using something else...or finding a better way to signify this, as it currently looks sloppy and has an unfinished feeling to it.

Actually the chain is in the legend up top. The rest of this paragraph got jumbled. But I think what you are saying is that the chain links stink. Is that right? Find another way to symbolize dual-watershed territory. I think you are right. Now I must decide on what...

The oil field's also feel gimicky and detract from gameplay.

Actually, they don't detract, they don't affect gameplay. The implementation is being changed and the layout was fixed.

City and Town graphics oddly don't mesh with the rest of the graphics. There also seems to be a plethora of them for this map, are all necessary and needed? I'm not sure they are.

It is a conquest map. The cities (there are are the starting points. I actually wanted 9 but couldn't work it. There are five villages. I'm unsure if that is too many, just right, or whatever. I'm interested to see what happens as a couple of villages just got taken in the test games. Hopefully the gameplay there will tell us something.

You will also have to work on your color scheme. The current configuration and color choice most certainly does not say forest by any means.

I can revisit it if I need to. I'm getting contradictory reads on it though. Maybe others can comment.

Also rethink your numbering system for territories. Sometimes you start in the south and count north other times it opposite...and even it looks in a few other places random. I can see you are doing this because of your shared territories, but perhaps you need to use a special marker for these to have numbering consistencies.

I'll go to the special marking then. That is exactly why they kind of jump around. I tried to maintain consistency but it was very difficult/

Overall, eliminate unnecessary, superfluous game play ideas and think about the presentation of the map in general (numbering system, colors and their sequence, icons, etc).

of course. ALways on the prowl for this. Thanks for taking the time Andy.

[rocky mountain]

I actually wanted 9 but couldn't work it. There are five villages.

there are 9 cities, and 6 villages. buckaloons changed from archaeological site to village making the count 6.... there have always been 9 cities...

i think that you make make the private lands the colour you have on the mini map. it looks better and a bit more foresty which is what people are wanting. as for the whole colour scheme, the only ones that look out of place are tunungwant, and millstone creek. tionesta looks fine on the mini map, but not so great on the actual map which is more important...

maybe you can have the watersheds have their own number system without counting the shared terits. then have the shared terits in their own sign (not weird sign, but looks cool ) to distinguish it from the others, and have like split watershed 1, split watershed 2, etc. or something of that sort. then the numbering system in the watersheds don't have to be all wonky. will that work? it can be altered of course, but its the main idea... that's my numbering suggestion...

Text being hard to read is not good. THis could take a while...

its mainly just for Tunungwant on the mini map it look like tunnngwant. the border is blocking some of it. the +2 for 3 (it is 2 right?), the 2 is being blocked by the border also. pretty much all of the watershed names have a bit being covered by the borders...
you need to have your name on there somewhere...

[seamusk]

maybe you can have the watersheds have their own number system without counting the shared terits. then have the shared terits in their own sign (not weird sign, but looks cool ) to distinguish it from the others, and have like split watershed 1, split watershed 2, etc. or something of that sort. then the numbering system in the watersheds don't have to be all wonky. will that work? it can be altered of course, but its the main idea... that's my numbering suggestion....

This is what I've settled on for now. Except letters instead of numbers...

[seamusk]

6.28 Map Update.

So, thanks everyone for the input. The map gets a lot more feedback since it made the foundry whch is helping a lot. It seems each update is major now. In any case this update has the following:

Adopted a separate territory labelng for dual watershed territories. Used the diamond which folks liked before. Re-labeled all the territories.

Made major adjustments to the legend again in order to allow for a larger and jopefully more legible mini-map. Added the word each to clarify how the bonuses work.

I added walls to the private lands, changed their texture, and re-organized the one near Sheffield for clarity purposes.

Version 2.8 Map - June 28, 2008

Click image to enlarge.

[Androidz]

New postby seamusk on Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:06 am

rocky mountain wrote:

Androidz wrote:it looks great but i haveing a hard time seeing the area numbers. but it might just be me


ya i think its just you...

No its just me, i must have been sleepy i seem them better todayxD. But when there are neatruals on the terriorie then it start being alittle caotic. they blend into echoter..thats just me for sure to tough:P

[seamusk]

No its just me i must have been sleepy i seem them better todayxD. But when there are neatruals on the terriorie then it start being alittle caotic. they blend into echoter..thats just for sure to tough:P

You know, I think I noticed this a bit too. I will see if there is something I can do about that...

[seamusk]

I actually wanted 9 but couldn't work it. There are five villages.

there are 9 cities, and 6 villages. buckaloons changed from archaeological site to village making the count 6.... there have always been 9 cities...

This is when we know seamusk needs sleep. I couldn't even get the number of towns right. 9 was the goal. 8 player games with 1 extra for that gameplay variable. And yes I do have 9.

i think that you make make the private lands the colour you have on the mini map. it looks better and a bit more foresty which is what people are wanting. as for the whole colour scheme, the only ones that look out of place are tunungwant, and millstone creek. tionesta looks fine on the mini map, but not so great on the actual map which is more important...

I can tweak Tionesta and see if I can get it closer to the mini map. Funny how that works since the mini-map is literally just a snapshot of the larger map. Who'd a thunk it'd look different...

I'm not sure what to do about Millstone and Tunungwant (we can call this Tuna for short as the locals do). I can play around but the challenge is coming up with 9 foresty shades/colors for the map without folks complaining that there is too much brown or green or something. I'm open to suggestions.

How does the new mini-map look readability-wise? I need to make sure it is more than marginally readable. For obvious reasons but also because at some point the map gets shrunk again to small size and it needs to be readable.

[gimil]

Right now I feel that their is to many random bonuses on the map that will serve to make a starting position somewhere have a better advantage than others.

Does really need to be so many +1 bonuses all over the map?

Also on the minimap with each region having different bonus terr no. of terrs, I dont feel is a good idea. It would be much easier to balance and understand if it was uniformed for the whole map. e.g. +2 for 3 territories within a coloured region"

Also why is there the river flow direction? I remeber that there was a reason for it but it doesnt seem to be on the map anymore.

Rather than naming contients watersheds people would find it easier to undrstand if they where simply called regions./

Graphics are a far way off but they are much better than the lasttime I looked.

[seamusk]

Right now I feel that their is to many random bonuses on the map that will serve to make a starting position somewhere have a better advantage than others.

Hence the test games. Getting the gameplay just right is key.

Does really need to be so many +1 bonuses all over the map?

Are you talking about the oil fields? those are decay. Basically, the map has three kinds of bonuses:
1. cities and villages (similar to feudal really)
2. Continents (aka watersheds).
3. Wilderness/Oil & Gas. Wilderness if a +1 for 2 floating continent that balances somehwat against the oil & gas fields decay.

Well, there is a 4th, the trail. This one just makes too much sense not to keep. If I do anything it might be to alter the villages as someone suggested earlier. Maybe delete one or two or adjust so they are not auto-deploy bonus.

Also on the minimap with each region having different bonus terr no. of terrs, I dont feel is a good idea. It would be much easier to balance and understand if it was uniformed for the whole map. e.g. +2 for 3 territories within a coloured region"

Not sure why I didn't think of this before. Great idea. Done.

Also why is there the river flow direction? I remeber that there was a reason for it but it doesnt seem to be on the map anymore.

Still there. Canoes.

Rather than naming contients watersheds people would find it easier to undrstand if they where simply called regions.

Well, in a sense folks should learn to understand what watersheds are right? I know what you are saying though. Let me think on it.

Graphics are a far way off but they are much better than the lasttime I looked.

thanks.