USA Map Pack [Quenched]

[WidowMakers]

This isn't anything "official" just me talking. Lets look at the other precedents set by series maps. We've got DiM's Age of Realms series, Carinswk's Rail series, Cairnswk's Egypt series, Qwert's European Theatre series, and WM's probable Draknor series. Those in the AoR series are relatively unique but focus around Objectives, those in the Rail series are pretty similar with a some minor tweaks, those in the Egypt series also have some minor tweaks and the same goes for those in the European Theatre, and each level of Draknor has been proposed to be pretty different. So it seems like we've got a gamut of standard game play across a series...to series with more game play uniqueness. Since no series is exactly like another, as long as the series itself is interesting...it could live and thrive I suppose.

USA regions aren't so interesting to me, but what I can say is...is the link up with Tournament folks. Perhaps this series could continue and make an even more interesting relationship with them. This feels more like rambling than anything. That's why I said it was nothing official.


--Andy

So if the tourney folks say no then stop. And if they say yes then keep going?

WM

[brandoncfi]

Well...I say yes it is a great idea and I am sure many tourneys can and will use these maps as a focus
I can think of a few tourneys right now that I could make up using these maps

besides the more maps the better for my Map Blaster Tourney Series good luck and Ill try to put my two cents in as these maps travel through the foundry

[Optimus Prime]

WidowMakers, you are officially my hero. Seriously, I'm not joking, for the following reasons:

A. The USA map is my favorite of all time. I would play on nothing but it if I felt like I could fill the games.

B. Small maps are in short supply these days.

Let me explain why this will be so incredibly amazing for us over in Tournaments:

1. Such a high percentage of maps being released today have unique gameplay features that not everyone knows right off the bat. Sure, they learn with time, but those who learn it quickly then seek out those tournaments to gain a particular advantage. There is nothing wrong with that, they are utilizing their skills, but we need a good influx of standard gameplay maps for the tournament organizers to use. It is my official stance as a Tournament Director that all these maps should stay with standard gameplay given that the current USA map has standard gameplay and if they are intended to work as a unit with that map you should keep it consistent. Not to mention, we need more maps with standard gameplay to balance out the number with non-standard.

2. Tournaments using a particular theme are very, very popular these days, and will continue to be. The WWII maps and the AoR maps are insanely popular for running tournaments that have a progressive nature to them. This set of maps in conjunction with the USA map we already have will be even better for that type of thing. I'm not going to list all the possible formats I could run with a set of maps like this as it would bore you foundry folks, but I'll just say it makes this robot very, very happy.

3. I agree that the maps need to all be quenched an put into live play at the same time so that they can be readily used for tournaments. It was a real hassle for the ambitious organizers to wait for the future AoR maps in order to run all their tournaments. It was a great day when they were finally all completed.

4. The fact that these maps are small in nature but still support the 8 player game with one very minor exception will be of great worth to Tournaments. We have a big lack of smaller maps these days, and it is an area that has not been explored because of it. Lot's of tournaments revolve around larger maps, and I personally would like to see our organizers expand into the smaller map realm as well because there are some niche players (such as myself) who love the smaller maps and it's an audience I would like to tap in our tournaments.

These are just a few of the more major reasons that I think this project is absolutely amazing. I would love to see this type of project happen with some other maps such as Europe and others as well because it really does open up an entirely new realm for my organizers.

[Ditocoaf]

The more standard the gameplay, the better. I can't think of too many maps with simple Territories and Continents... so frankly, having these be plain-old Risk will make them stand out. I'd even lean away from the highway aspect (reminiscent of the "rail" maps), and go for counties or districts. Or if you're going to do cities connected by roads, at least take out the highway and capital bonuses. I know everyone seems to want more complex, interesting gameplay. But the fact is, there's a reason that it's so much more interesting to discuss strategy for the Classic map: on other maps, all of the complexities are laid out in the map design. In a simple, standard map, the complexities come in with strategy and gameplay.

[lord voldemort]

looks good wm...i agree with what opie said...there arent enuf simple small maps coming out atm...these would be a blessing..i say go for it...
also cause it sets a precedent and then cairns can do a similar thing with asutralia

[WidowMakers]

WidowMakers, you are officially my hero. Seriously, I'm not joking, for the following reasons:

A. The USA map is my favorite of all time. I would play on nothing but it if I felt like I could fill the games.

B. Small maps are in short supply these days.

Let me explain why this will be so incredibly amazing for us over in Tournaments:

1. Such a high percentage of maps being released today have unique gameplay features that not everyone knows right off the bat. Sure, they learn with time, but those who learn it quickly then seek out those tournaments to gain a particular advantage. There is nothing wrong with that, they are utilizing their skills, but we need a good influx of standard gameplay maps for the tournament organizers to use. It is my official stance as a Tournament Director that all these maps should stay with standard gameplay given that the current USA map has standard gameplay and if they are intended to work as a unit with that map you should keep it consistent. Not to mention, we need more maps with standard gameplay to balance out the number with non-standard.

2. Tournaments using a particular theme are very, very popular these days, and will continue to be. The WWII maps and the AoR maps are insanely popular for running tournaments that have a progressive nature to them. This set of maps in conjunction with the USA map we already have will be even better for that type of thing. I'm not going to list all the possible formats I could run with a set of maps like this as it would bore you foundry folks, but I'll just say it makes this robot very, very happy.

3. I agree that the maps need to all be quenched an put into live play at the same time so that they can be readily used for tournaments. It was a real hassle for the ambitious organizers to wait for the future AoR maps in order to run all their tournaments. It was a great day when they were finally all completed.

4. The fact that these maps are small in nature but still support the 8 player game with one very minor exception will be of great worth to Tournaments. We have a big lack of smaller maps these days, and it is an area that has not been explored because of it. Lot's of tournaments revolve around larger maps, and I personally would like to see our organizers expand into the smaller map realm as well because there are some niche players (such as myself) who love the smaller maps and it's an audience I would like to tap in our tournaments.

These are just a few of the more major reasons that I think this project is absolutely amazing. I would love to see this type of project happen with some other maps such as Europe and others as well because it really does open up an entirely new realm for my organizers.

So you want me to continue?

Thanks for the support. I only hope the maps turn out well for everyone interested. If there are others interested in this from a tourney perspective, make sure they see the thread and comment.

WM

[WidowMakers]

1) so frankly, having these be plain-old Risk will make them stand out. I'd even lean away from the highway aspect (reminiscent of the "rail" maps), and go for counties or districts.
2) Or if you're going to do cities connected by roads, at least take out the highway and capital bonuses. I know everyone seems to want more complex, interesting gameplay. But the fact is, there's a reason that it's so much more interesting to discuss strategy for the Classic map: on other maps, all of the complexities are laid out in the map design. In a simple, standard map, the complexities come in with strategy and gameplay.

1) Should I get rid of the roads and make the territories districts? With the same names of the cities but connected with borders not roads?
2) Should I get rid of the other bonuses (Interstate and capitals)? Do they take away from the standard gameplay or are they needed to help change it up a bit.

Everyone else, what do you think?

I thank you for your comments and will wait till this is discussed a bit before I start working again.

WM

[yeti_c]

1) Should I get rid of the roads and make the territories districts? With the same names of the cities but connected with borders not roads?

No I say keep them in - as long as you keep them a bit sublte (like currently) I wouldn't want all of the routes to be bonusable.

2) Should I get rid of the other bonuses (Interstate and capitals)? Do they take away from the standard gameplay or are they needed to help change it up a bit.

Consider removing capitals - but again I think I like the extra interplay that gives away from the straight normal gameplay.

C.

[wcaclimbing]

I'm not a big fan of the cities+roads, but they seem to work ok here. I'd like it more if it was split into regular territories, so it is more similar to the USA map, but its not a big deal.

Just curious, are you making this with vectors?

[t-o-m]

ok i dont say this a lot, but QUENCH THEM ALL NOW!

[RjBeals]

Honestly, I think you should not separate all the states. Keep them grouped. And I also don't like the highways. The graphic style is great.

[t-o-m]

Version 1

is it me or does oklahoma not match its legend colour?

also this one is sadly my least faveourite of the maps, i dont relly like the green-ness
i also think there should be some kinda of texture** on the lengend and the highway and state capitals descriptions

**not really texture but the kind of style that you did on the land

[Ruben Cassar]

I'm liking these maps. Nice job WM.

I think they are just right in terms of gameplay as well...not over complicated and not simple.

Keep up the good work!

[edbeard]

getting rid of the highways is a huge change in gameplay.

you couldn't split up the states like you have it now. I think it makes the whole series less interesting. the highways add another unique thing to these maps.

also, you couldn't really do the state capitals as you have done.


The whole series is really nice because you're using major highways and roads. You're also putting in relevant background symbols for these states. It adds a bit of education to the maps.


The only thing I don't like is on a map like the southwest where a road from San Antonio to El Paso and Midland to El Paso connect. Does this mean all three cities connect? I would think they do, but it's not really intuitive.

[dittoeevee8888]

Version 1


Statistics:

Number of territories: 40
Number of Bonus State Groups: 9
Number of Bonus State Capital Groups: 6
Number of Bonus Interstates: 3

Details:

-The bonus values have not been determined yet they are open for discussion.
-The colors are roughly based on the Blue Rockies bonus group from the USA map currently on CC.
-Here are the icons in the background of each state: Idaho (Potato) / Montana (pig) / Utah (pick axe [mining]) / Wyoming (cattle) / Colorado (snow) / Kansas (Wheat) / Nebraska (Sheep) / S Dakota (Soybeans) / N Dakota (turkey)
-The images in the background are the 1) Rockie Mountians

Firstly, North Dakota should definately NOT get 7, 3 territories for seven bonus armies definately doesn't seem right, probably 2 or 3 max. I think the 7 for Montana is too high, 5 or 4 seems reasonable to me.
I also dislike the blue-ness of the states. I don't think it goes well with the background that much...

Version 1

is it me or does oklahoma not match its legend colour?

also this one is sadly my least faveourite of the maps, i dont relly like the green-ness
i also think there should be some kinda of texture** on the lengend and the highway and state capitals descriptions

**not really texture but the kind of style that you did on the land

And it's not just you, oklahoma's legend and state colour are different.

I don't like the fact that the 40 interstate has a +7 bonus for 5 territories, I think it's too much.

Great job on the 3 maps you've done so far, though.

Also, from a tourney organizer's POV, it's a good idea...series are really popular, especially a specific groups of maps...it makes everything easier for my Jeopardy! tourney

[Ditocoaf]

getting rid of the highways is a huge change in gameplay.

you couldn't split up the states like you have it now. I think it makes the whole series less interesting. the highways add another unique thing to these maps.

I'm arguing that these maps don't need another unique thing, and in fact shouldn't have them. Almost all new maps are looking for something to make them more complex, but this means that there are very few maps with straight-standard gameplay. In fact, these maps would be more unique if they just had plain standard gameplay-- because it's so rare. Besides, the map shouldn't be that much more complex than the actual USA map. USA is just a plain, standard map.

I think just the cities/roads themselves (As opposed to borders) is fine. It looks like you're taking the USA map, and drawing the cities and roads on them for a more detailed look. However, the highway bonuses, and the capital bonuses, put in a whole overlapping bonuses thing that disconnects these from the parent map. Games will be complex enough, just through how people choose to strategize. Very few people complain that Classic is a boring map. And these maps are a sort of homage to the USA map, which is completely plain, yet nobody here thinks that it is a boring map.

Basically, the more that these feel like part of a series that INCLUDES the USA map, the better.

[Optimus Prime]

I don't like the fact that the 40 interstate has a +7 bonus for 5 territories, I think it's too much.

It might only have 5 territories, but it currently has 12 places it has to defend from. I wouldn't put it any lower than a +6, it's going to be damn hard to hold that.

[Unit_2]

The Rockies are too blue...Its kinda hurts my eyes to look at them all plus the legand that is blue along with the background, its just too much.

[edbeard]

well it's good to have discussion on bonuses, but WM said he just put numbers on there and didn't actually think about the bonuses. So, I'd rather wait for him to finalize these maps before bonus talks start.



I like the roads because when we put cities, they can actually be in the spots they belong and not representing a larger area. I'm not saying the map NEEDS these roads and cities to be a good map. I think they do make these maps good though. The gameplay is good and like I said before, cities being in their actual spots is quite nice. There's no better way to represent these areas than by their major cities. And, when you separate by regions, you take away from that. Furthermore, this being a series of six maps, it's nice to have that one thing that separates it from other maps. The roads and cities do that.



One other thing, I think it's already quite difficult to talk about the maps in one thread. Any thoughts to making separate threads?



I think unit needs to get his eyes examined because I think I've seen him say that things hurt his eyes in about four or five threads at least. Maybe just don't sit so close to the screen and don't stare at the screen for too long and hard.

[The Fuzzy Pengui]

i like what you've done so far WM, definitely a great idea and well thought out.

at first i would have agreed with unit_2 about the blue being too much, but then i remembered i had my monitor a lot brighter because i was gaming and turned it back down. it's still really blue, but more soothing than it seemed at first (and it also goes along with keeping the affect of the original map).

i really like what you've done so far, great idea and keep up the good work!

[Ditocoaf]

I like the roads because when we put cities, they can actually be in the spots they belong and not representing a larger area. I'm not saying the map NEEDS these roads and cities to be a good map. I think they do make these maps good though. The gameplay is good and like I said before, cities being in their actual spots is quite nice. There's no better way to represent these areas than by their major cities. And, when you separate by regions, you take away from that. Furthermore, this being a series of six maps, it's nice to have that one thing that separates it from other maps. The roads and cities do that.

Yeah, I'm liking the roads/cities thing more. But I still really think that the highway bonuses and capital bonuses should go away. The highway bonuses moreso than the capitals. All this is for the reasons I explained in my previous posts.

[WidowMakers]

Honestly, I think you should not separate all the states. Keep them grouped. And I also don't like the highways. The graphic style is great.

What do you mean keep them grouped? Should I have less bonus groups? Or you just don't like the space in between.

The reason they are separate is so the text has room to fit.

1) Should I get rid of the roads and make the territories districts? With the same names of the cities but connected with borders not roads?

No I say keep them in - as long as you keep them a bit sublte (like currently) I wouldn't want all of the routes to be bonusable.

I plan on making them look better and less jagged. The roads will not all have bonuses. I just added interstates to add another level of gameplay and information. By the time people play these maps 3 times they will know each state capital and how to drive all over the USA.

2) Should I get rid of the other bonuses (Interstate and capitals)? Do they take away from the standard gameplay or are they needed to help change it up a bit.

Consider removing capitals - but again I think I like the extra interplay that gives away from the straight normal gameplay.

C.

As I stated above I wanted to make teh capitals an important thing on these maps. If we are going to have fun we might as well learn too. SO I added the STAR for the capitals. I figured that if there was a star graphic, there might as well be a bonus structure associated with it.

I'm not a big fan of the cities+roads, but they seem to work ok here. I'd like it more if it was split into regular territories, so it is more similar to the USA map, but its not a big deal.

Just curious, are you making this with vectors?

I understand the roads are a departure from the current USA map. BUT... if i use regions instead of cities and roads, the map just does not work. If you look at TEXAS. There is a TON of room. Dividing the map into 6-7 regions of cities will not look right and feel right. That is why I went with the cities roads instead. Plus as I mentioned earlier, the map will be more realistic and representative of reality with cities and roads.

And yes I am using vectors. I used the pen tool in photoshop to trace each state in the USA map (and added a few ones that were ommited. wait to see teh NE and GL regions) By doing it this way, I will be able to scale the small map into the large map and will not lose any picture quality. Every part of the map (except the roads) is vector based and scalable for the large.

is it me or does oklahoma not match its legend colour?

also this one is sadly my least faveourite of the maps, i dont relly like the green-ness
i also think there should be some kinda of texture** on the lengend and the highway and state capitals descriptions

**not really texture but the kind of style that you did on the land

I see that. I must have missed it when I was tweaking teh map. I will fix it later once we get the bigger picture items resolved. Same goes for the legend and other graphical aspects.

getting rid of the highways is a huge change in gameplay.

you couldn't split up the states like you have it now. I think it makes the whole series less interesting. the highways add another unique thing to these maps.

also, you couldn't really do the state capitals as you have done.


The whole series is really nice because you're using major highways and roads. You're also putting in relevant background symbols for these states. It adds a bit of education to the maps.

Thanks Ed. That is basically what I wanted to do; Make simple fun maps that allow a person to learn at the same time. I think the biggest issues we will have now is colors (Rockies Map) and what gameplay aspects are really needed. I think the current 3 should stay, but we can all discuss it.

getting rid of the highways is a huge change in gameplay.

you couldn't split up the states like you have it now. I think it makes the whole series less interesting. the highways add another unique thing to these maps.

I'm arguing that these maps don't need another unique thing, and in fact shouldn't have them. Almost all new maps are looking for something to make them more complex, but this means that there are very few maps with straight-standard gameplay. In fact, these maps would be more unique if they just had plain standard gameplay-- because it's so rare. Besides, the map shouldn't be that much more complex than the actual USA map. USA is just a plain, standard map.

I think just the cities/roads themselves (As opposed to borders) is fine. It looks like you're taking the USA map, and drawing the cities and roads on them for a more detailed look. However, the highway bonuses, and the capital bonuses, put in a whole overlapping bonuses thing that disconnects these from the parent map. Games will be complex enough, just through how people choose to strategize. Very few people complain that Classic is a boring map. And these maps are a sort of homage to the USA map, which is completely plain, yet nobody here thinks that it is a boring map.

Basically, the more that these feel like part of a series that INCLUDES the USA map, the better.

Thanks for the comments. This seems to be the biggest hurdle we need to cross before I continue.

1) Standard gameplay and bonus. Same as USA map only with cities and roads instead of states and borders
or
2) Standard gameplay and bonus + Bonus groups (capitals) + Overlapping bonuses (interstates/States and capitals)

We need to get this decided ASAP.

well it's good to have discussion on bonuses, but WM said he just put numbers on there and didn't actually think about the bonuses. So, I'd rather wait for him to finalize these maps before bonus talks start.

That is correct.

I like the roads because when we put cities, they can actually be in the spots they belong and not representing a larger area. I'm not saying the map NEEDS these roads and cities to be a good map. I think they do make these maps good though. The gameplay is good and like I said before, cities being in their actual spots is quite nice. There's no better way to represent these areas than by their major cities. And, when you separate by regions, you take away from that. Furthermore, this being a series of six maps, it's nice to have that one thing that separates it from other maps. The roads and cities do that.

I agree 100%. I touched on this earlier as well.

One other thing, I think it's already quite difficult to talk about the maps in one thread. Any thoughts to making separate threads?

In the first post I explained why I wanted to keep them all together. if an issue comes up in one thread that effects all maps, some peopel might not read that. Then I need to post in 6 threads about a possible change, then if someone doe snot understand why the change is needed or proposed I need to sen them to the thread where the issue arose. If all 6 maps and all issues with 6 maps are in 1 thread the everyone can follow them all. Anyone interested in one map will be interested in all 6. I will keep them together.

The Rockies are too blue...Its kinda hurts my eyes to look at them all plus the legand that is blue along with the background, its just too much.

Thanks unit_2. I figured someone would say something about the Rockies. I really don't know what to do. I want to keep the blue feel from the USA amp and keep the background feel as well. i really don't see any other choice. Are there any suggestions?

Thanks
WM

[WidowMakers]

So things to do:

A) Agree on bonuses:

Option 1) State / Interstate / Captial (current)
Option 2) State / Capital
Option 3) State Only

B) Agree on Territory Layout:

Option 1) Cities and roads (current)
Option 2) Regions and borders

C) Agree on Colors (territory):

Option 1) Keep same color scheme as USA map based on region (current)
Option 2) Switch up colors to help distinguish bonuses, regardless of region and current USA map colors

D) Agree on Territory Icons and Icon Colors:

Option 1) Use symbols/icons that represent a resource / industry / wildlife / plant /state ?? and use those to help differentiate the state from others (current)
Option 2) See (C). Switch up colors and have no icons.

After all of these get worked out I will update the map accordingly and we can than start to talk bonus values and border or road connection tweaks. I can then also finish teh last 2.5 maps (SE, GL and NE) and we can keep moving along.

So please post you comments
Thanks
WM

[Ditocoaf]

getting rid of the highways is a huge change in gameplay.

you couldn't split up the states like you have it now. I think it makes the whole series less interesting. the highways add another unique thing to these maps.

I'm arguing that these maps don't need another unique thing, and in fact shouldn't have them. Almost all new maps are looking for something to make them more complex, but this means that there are very few maps with straight-standard gameplay. In fact, these maps would be more unique if they just had plain standard gameplay-- because it's so rare. Besides, the map shouldn't be that much more complex than the actual USA map. USA is just a plain, standard map.

I think just the cities/roads themselves (As opposed to borders) is fine. It looks like you're taking the USA map, and drawing the cities and roads on them for a more detailed look. However, the highway bonuses, and the capital bonuses, put in a whole overlapping bonuses thing that disconnects these from the parent map. Games will be complex enough, just through how people choose to strategize. Very few people complain that Classic is a boring map. And these maps are a sort of homage to the USA map, which is completely plain, yet nobody here thinks that it is a boring map.

Basically, the more that these feel like part of a series that INCLUDES the USA map, the better.

Thanks for the comments. This seems to be the biggest hurdle we need to cross before I continue.

1) Standard gameplay and bonus. Same as USA map only with cities and roads instead of states and borders
or
2) Standard gameplay and bonus + Bonus groups (capitals) + Overlapping bonuses (interstates/States and capitals)

We need to get this decided ASAP.

Make a poll, with a link to my post above, and someone else arguing the other side. Or just go with my opinion .


I hope I didn't come off too angry above. I think this project is awesome, which is why I care about it enough to get worked up. These maps already look quenchable, and this has to be one of the best ideas to go through the foundry in a while. Plus, the backgrounds look like my avatar .

[Ditocoaf]

A) Agree on bonuses:

Option 1) State / Interstate / Captial (current)
Option 2) State / Capital
Option 3) State Only

B) Agree on Territory Layout:

Option 1) Cities and roads (current)
Option 2) Regions and borders

C) Agree on Colors (territory):

Option 1) Keep same color scheme as USA map based on region (current)
Option 2) Switch up colors to help distinguish bonuses, regardless of region and current USA map colors

D) Agree on Territory Icons and Icon Colors:

Option 1) Use symbols/icons that represent a resource / industry / wildlife / plant /state ?? and use those to help differentiate the state from others (current)
Option 2) See (C). Switch up colors and have no icons.

My votes:

A:3
B:1
C:1
D:1

C and D can be merged: Do you want different colors, or different patterns (current)?