Iceland [Abandoned]

by **Gilligan** on Mon May 21, 2007 5:18 pm

much better! just need bonuses and names

by **Jafnhár** on Mon May 21, 2007 5:21 pm

Gilligan wrote:much better! just need bonuses and names

Thank you but before I put on the names, do you have comments on anything first? Some things might be harder to change after putting on the names and stuff.

by **Gozar** on Mon May 21, 2007 5:41 pm

But I like the border very much ...

Fair enough.

by **Gilligan** on Mon May 21, 2007 7:01 pm

Jafnhár wrote:
Gilligan wrote:much better! just need bonuses and names

Thank you but before I put on the names, do you have comments on anything first? Some things might be harder to change after putting on the names and stuff.

2 things.

1) I think you should add a territory to connect the Red and Blue bonuses, it would make Red a little harder to defend rather than one border.
2) Are the white territories territories?

by **Jafnhár** on Mon May 21, 2007 7:09 pm

Okay, I'll connect these territories and see how it'll look.

The glaciers (white) are not supposed to be territories, I think it will be clear when the army circles and the names will be written on the map.

by **Gilligan** on Mon May 21, 2007 7:21 pm

Jafnhár wrote:
The glaciers (white) are not supposed to be territories, I think it will be clear when the army circles and the names will be written on the map.

Ah, that makes sense now. Impassable, I'm assuming? I also think it will be quite clear once the armies are on the map and the names as well.

by **PerkinsRooster** on Tue May 22, 2007 11:50 am

I like the white border.

I think you should lighten the colours a tad to make them stand out. The background is very dark, so the map should be lighter.

You deleted the mountains, but I think they are necessary for playablilty. There should be at least 1 'continent' that only has 3 attackable borders.

by **Jafnhár** on Tue May 22, 2007 12:57 pm

PerkinsRooster wrote:I like the white border.

I think you should lighten the colours a tad to make them stand out. The background is very dark, so the map should be lighter.

You deleted the mountains, but I think they are necessary for playablilty. There should be at least 1 'continent' that only has 3 attackable borders.

I agree, the colours are a bit too dark; next version will be brighter. Still, I wanted these particular colours to be dark because I thought they'd show Icelandic nature without being too cartoonish (like the last version was).

The borders between the south and the east "continents" (near Breiðamerkjurdjúp) will be impassable (just like they have been in reality due to the rivers streaming from the glacier). That should improve gameplay a lot, I doubt I'll need any mountains. I'll see later.

by **Jafnhár** on Tue May 22, 2007 1:44 pm

Version 1 (darker):

Version 2 (lighter):

Which version is better?

by **Jafnhár** on Wed May 23, 2007 7:54 am

I need to hear some opinions about the above post so I can continue working on the map.

by **tseepra** on Wed May 23, 2007 3:56 pm

I think both versions are fine, but the broders of the countries are quite pixalated (no smooth). If I had to choose I would go with the darker version.

Also there is quite alot of blank space above the map.

But otherwise I think it is coming along very well. I like that not all the countires in a continent are the same color, it make the countries seem unique.

by **PerkinsRooster** on Wed May 23, 2007 9:50 pm

I'm actually thinking version 1 is nicer as well.

As for playability, I still prefer to a little less common borders. For example, I don't like the Germany map because there are so many common borders that games seldom last past round 3, especially in triples.

by **owenshooter** on Wed May 23, 2007 11:39 pm

like 80% of iceland is uninhabitable, and there is nothing there... sooo, basically, you just need to have keflavik vs. reykjavik, right? just an observation... and what about the military base with the subs? seems like if you had that base you should be able to attack almost anywhere! just up and rambling... i like any map that is a new map...-0

by **Jafnhár** on Thu May 24, 2007 7:41 am

tseepra wrote:I think both versions are fine, but the broders of the countries are quite pixalated (no smooth). If I had to choose I would go with the darker version.

Also there is quite alot of blank space above the map.

But otherwise I think it is coming along very well. I like that not all the countires in a continent are the same color, it make the countries seem unique.

I agree that the borders are pixilated, to be changed. The blank space above the map will be used to type the number of bonus armies you get.

PerkinsRooster wrote:I'm actually thinking version 1 is nicer as well.

As for playability, I still prefer to a little less common borders. For example, I don't like the Germany map because there are so many common borders that games seldom last past round 3, especially in triples.

I'll probably use version 1. Can you please explain what you mean with "common borders", I'm afraid I don't understand you.

owenshooter wrote:like 80% of iceland is uninhabitable, and there is nothing there... sooo, basically, you just need to have keflavik vs. reykjavik, right? just an observation... and what about the military base with the subs? seems like if you had that base you should be able to attack almost anywhere! just up and rambling... i like any map that is a new map...-0

Wow, that would make an excellent map (:roll:), if not for the most unfortunate departure of the US army last year. Oh well. Maybe someday we can make a historical map, only time can tell.

by **RobH** on Fri May 25, 2007 8:00 am

who really cares about the color scheme?????????

by **boberz** on Sat May 26, 2007 1:37 am

me, some of the colours seem too close to me the yelow looks very like green and so does grey, i prefer lighter version

by **PerkinsRooster** on Sat May 26, 2007 11:54 am

RobH wrote:who really cares about the color scheme?????????

We all do. Thanks for your valuable input...

by **PerkinsRooster** on Sat May 26, 2007 12:10 pm

Jafnhar, what I mean are territories that can be attacked by all 4 sides.

I guess that in itself isn't a problem, but when you combine that with having bonus areas where you have to defend on 4 or more borders it becomes not only hard to keep bonus areas, but hard to capture them in the first place.

This is why I think some maps are unpopular (like Indochina, Germany, Brazil), than others (classic, middle earth, arctic, Europe). Compare them and you might see what I mean.

by **owenshooter** on Mon May 28, 2007 8:40 pm

i understand this is your home, etc... i've been to iceland several times, and i love it too... however, i just don't think an island with ONE major road and the majority of the place being uninhabitable makes for a good map. i mean, are you going to capture glaciers, volcanos, and the blue lagoon? i just think it is too compact of an area to be THAT interesting... good luck.-0

by **Jafnhár** on Tue May 29, 2007 6:47 am

owenshooter wrote:i understand this is your home, etc... i've been to iceland several times, and i love it too... however, i just don't think an island with ONE major road and the majority of the place being uninhabitable makes for a good map. i mean, are you going to capture glaciers, volcanos, and the blue lagoon? i just think it is too compact of an area to be THAT interesting... good luck.-0

by **Jafnhár** on Tue May 29, 2007 6:52 am

PerkinsRooster wrote:Jafnhar, what I mean are territories that can be attacked by all 4 sides.

I guess that in itself isn't a problem, but when you combine that with having bonus areas where you have to defend on 4 or more borders it becomes not only hard to keep bonus areas, but hard to capture them in the first place.

This is why I think some maps are unpopular (like Indochina, Germany, Brazil), than others (classic, middle earth, arctic, Europe). Compare them and you might see what I mean.

I understand your point, this is the reason why I don't play the Australia map (for example) anymore.

Still, if I eliminate the borders between the south and the east (under the glacier, near Breiðamerkurdjúp) the problem would not be so great, would it?

by **PerkinsRooster** on Tue May 29, 2007 10:06 am

Yes, after thinking about it I think that would probably be a sufficient fix.

by **RjBeals** on Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:09 pm

Jafnhár wrote:April 21st update:

My idea is to have four main "continent" (for a lack of a better term) bonuses (yellow, blue, green and red) since Iceland is usually divided into four parts (norðurland, vesturland/vestfirðir, suðurland og austurland). It is yet to draw the "countries" to it, but the lines I have already drawn could be "subcontinents" or something in that direction. The brown zone in the middle is the interior and I expect it not to be passable.

What thoughts do you have? Is this some good?

I've always loved Iceland, and it seems that Jafnhar isn't working (or even around) here anymore since June 2007, so this map never made it too far. I may attempt to redraft this. It will help refine my mountain / relief abilities in maps. There seemed to be a few people that didn't think it was a good idea to have a conquer map of a barely inhabitable island, but I think with the right look, it will be accepted. If I continue, I'll create a new thread.