1776! - Battlefields of The American Revolution (Withdrawn)

[Elijah S]

This is in the preliminary stages, so all input is appreciated.
(note - the image has been revised)

54 territories
12 ways to earn bonuses
3 ways to win

[mattosaurus]

This looks good, and has some interesting gameplay. You might want to add the Declaration Committee and make the goal to unite america and form the nation. Gives it a bit more of an edge I think. Maybe call it "The Founding of America" or something like that. Have you ever seen 1776? you might be able to add some intrigue in having to get all 13 colonies united. Maybe lock the later battles until all 13 colonies are in the hand of the "Americans" since thats what our goal was and start with some neutral territories in the colonies, the ones that weren't sure if they wanted to be part of a revolution yet. Could be really cool play if done right. I'll keep an eye on it and give some suggestions.

[Elijah S]

This looks good, and has some interesting gameplay. You might want to add the Declaration Committee and make the goal to unite america and form the nation. Gives it a bit more of an edge I think. Maybe call it "The Founding of America" or something like that. Have you ever seen 1776? you might be able to add some intrigue in having to get all 13 colonies united. Maybe lock the later battles until all 13 colonies are in the hand of the "Americans" since thats what our goal was and start with some neutral territories in the colonies, the ones that weren't sure if they wanted to be part of a revolution yet. Could be really cool play if done right. I'll keep an eye on it and give some suggestions.

If you mean the map "1776", yes - It was an idea I started last March. This map is based on that one. (I may even change the name back to 1776)
As for uniting the 13 colonies - I think it's just a matter of phrasing, since one of the ways to win is to own all 13 colonies or win all battlefields. -But I could make the main legend look like a scroll or something.
Graphic-wise, I'm hoping for some community opinion, and maybe advice from other carto's.

[mattosaurus]

Actually I meant the movie 1776. I didn't know there was a map called 1776.

[Suzy1]

I really like the look of this map. I am glad you are keeping a similar appeal as with The American Civil War map. It is definitely your signature series. Looking it over, I think the gameplay brings alot of strategy and intrigue. Best of luck with it! By the way, the amount of play on your Civil War map is quite impressive. It is my favorite, but who knows what this new one will bring!

[oaktown]

If I'm reading your legend correctly, nobody can win this game? If battlefields don't attack each other, you're just going to have a map full of trapped armies. And Shawnee borders nothing, as does de Galvez?

I'm sure there's something I'm missing. The inner battlefield idea is interesting, but the gameplay across the rest of the map needs clarification. And the map would be much easier to follow if you could plop an "88" every place that you intend to have a territory - less guess work.

[Elijah S]

If I'm reading your legend correctly, nobody can win this game? If battlefields don't attack each other, you're just going to have a map full of trapped armies. And Shawnee borders nothing, as does de Galvez?

I'm sure there's something I'm missing. The inner battlefield idea is interesting, but the gameplay across the rest of the map needs clarification. And the map would be much easier to follow if you could plop an "88" every place that you intend to have a territory - less guess work.

I should've mentioned in the first post that I haven't finished placing territories in the west (hence , it looks like de galvez and shawnee have no adjacent territories.)

As for the battlefields not attacking each other - they don't, but each battlefield has a commander labeled in red or blue. -These commanders can attack the point, and be attacked from the point that I'm calling the "battle site". For example - Gates can attack New York; Smith and Gage can attack Massachusetts; and Hood can attack both Maryland and Virginia.

I'm continuing work on the graphics and should have all territories (I'm aiming for 50 or so total) drawn in within the next couple of days. -After that I'll run Jota's program and put the army numbers in.

[Elijah S]

I've updated the image and changed the name back to 1776! (which was the original title I used when I was working on this last spring.

Also, I've added a special feature that will allow players to surrender. (comments welcome!)

My TO DO list:

Finish the borders in the west.
Review the phrasing of the main legend.
Continue to improve graphics.
Put in the army numbers.

Any ideas, suggestions, or questions are greatly appreciated, as I'm moving ahead on this and could use some feedback. Thx! -Elijah

[RjBeals]

the surrender feature is awesome! Way to think outside the box -
Will the center netural be just 1? And you're sure this is possible with the xml?

[Elijah S]

the surrender feature is awesome! Way to think outside the box -
Will the center netural be just 1? And you're sure this is possible with the xml?

Yes, the center (which will be labeled "Resign") will be a neutral 1.
I'm sure it's possible with the xml, because it will work the same way as missing 3 turns; What I'm not sure of is if it can be scripted with the game xml or if it would have to be scripted on the server side.
I've sent yeti_c a PM and posted in AADOMM. Hopefully, someone with much better xml abilities than me will give it some thought.

[pamoa]

very nice complicated map
i love battlefield insets
but i'm very concerned about your black bg and blue territories
you absolutely need to make a try with 888's army symbols in blue
because of the black border of numbers and the blue inside which isn't contrasted enough
(there wasn't any other option but it's a CC graphic default you have to work with)
If this is large map you also will have a lot of problems with army placement in "small" states
and last are state militia an additional army inside each state?

good work go on

[pamoa]

are you in competition with American Revolution thread

[Elijah S]

:?: are you in competition with American Revolution thread

I don't look at it as competition - at least any moreso than all maps in progress compete for comments, etc.
I started working on this last spring but RL prevented me from doing much with it then.
And the other American Revolution is good. -I like the look of it. But the two maps are way different in appearance and gameplay.
Plus, considering there are several maps on Europe, WW2 and North America, I think CC could accomodate both maps if they get through the process.

[Elijah S]

This is the small map.
I'm continuing to work on the graphics, but this gives an idea of the territories, army placements and gameplay.

[pamoa]

...i'm very concerned about your black bg and blue territories
you absolutely need to make a try with 888's army symbols in blue
because of the black border of numbers and the blue inside which isn't contrasted enough
(there wasn't any other option but it's a CC graphic default you have to work with)
If this is large map you also will have a lot of problems with army placement in "small" states

as I said blue and black bg are a big concern you have to use paler colours only to differentiate territs from rivers
and you should make your test with "888" as a lot of players do use the colour code in front of army numbers
and your map should be able to deal with a "b99"

[Elijah S]

This is the most recent version.

[Suzy1]

This is 1 fine looking map, better than many that are in play. I really like what you did to it. I hope you have good luck with it.

[MyTurnToWin]

I will comment from the perspecitve of a player rather than a map maker. I really like the look of the map which is important to me. Easy on the eyes to read and understand. Also I appreciate variety in the game play, such as surrender. Regarding 'surrender', will it be very clear that going to that space means you are surrendering? I am remembering the times I took the wrong territory and have visions of taking that one and losing the game.

Someone did comment that there is another map on the same topic. There is plenty of room in CC for maps on the same topic.

Looking forward to many great games on this new map.

[conquerhero]

map really looks interesting - ques: the heavy blue line, must be a river, looks impassable - how is it crossed to do some attacking? keep it up, Elijah - really promising - also, as someone else wrote, your other creation is one of my favorites - Americn Civil War - this one could become another favorite

[Elijah S]

I will comment from the perspecitve of a player rather than a map maker. I really like the look of the map which is important to me. Easy on the eyes to read and understand. Also I appreciate variety in the game play, such as surrender. Regarding 'surrender', will it be very clear that going to that space means you are surrendering? I am remembering the times I took the wrong territory and have visions of taking that one and losing the game.

Someone did comment that there is another map on the same topic. There is plenty of room in CC for maps on the same topic.

Looking forward to many great games on this new map.

I"ve given up on the surrender idea, as it seems to have more opposed to it than in favor.

On Conquerhero's question about the river - I haven't drawn in the bridges yet, but they should be in the next revision.
I've got several things on my "to do" list that will help clarify some things.

Thanks for your support... I hope you'll revisit this thread and continue to contribute to the development of this map!

[Suzy1]

Elijah, I don't mean to sound cynical here, but I do find it odd that no one from the foundry seems to be even interested in giving an opinion of your map. You designed a map for this site already that has had a significant amount of play, as I do think this new map would also. Have you ever considered opening a site of your own?

[jbrettlip]

I like the concept of this map, with its several win options. It is just too busy right now for me. Perhaps the whole map image could be shifted left, and the explanation at the right (where the ocean is empty space) or even at the top. I would also scrap the commanders as the only one that can attack out of the scrolls to the battlefields. Adds to confusion, and requires a lot of disclosure.

[Timminz]

This looks very nice. The only possible problem I see regarding game-play, is the large number of choke points. I believe that only causes problems in large escalating games though.

Perhaps a little more clarification on attack paths around the battlefields. Specifically, can Smith attack Gage, or do they have to go through Mass? and I just noticed that Mass. is not included in the abbreviation legend.

Other than that, the only thing I can think of, is that the borders in the west could be a little cleaner, but I think graphic issues come much later in the process.

Cheers

[Industrial Helix]

Hmmm... interesting concept here. I think it has a lot of potential and I like where you're going with it.

I really hope that you reconsider the surrender option because I think it will bring a new element to this game that most maps don't have, as well as emphasize the American Rev. as a series of battles influencing the outcome of the war/game.

Graphics need some work, imo. But you've got plenty of time to work on that, I suppose. Especially with more important concerns over the gameplay.

One thing that I got nabbed on in my own map was not having the colonies shaped like they were in 1776. No one seems to have mentioned that here, but its something you might want to keep in mind.

Also, what about a special bonus for having won all the battlefields, which would really emphasize the reality that if you won all battles then logically you won the war.

Anyway, I do like your approach to the map and theme. Best of luck working it through the foundry and I'll keep an eye out for updates.

[TaCktiX]

An interesting and I'd say good take on the American Revolution. Framing a war is technically about its component battles, so this map's concept is dead-on.

Graphics
- All of your text in the same font as "The American Revolution", particularly the big "1776!" looks very jagged. Have some smoother anti-aliasing on it to assist.
- The entire continent seems to be floating off in space, or part of some alien's holographic display. I know this is preliminary, but the addition of Canada (as a greyed-out non-playing area) and an ocean would be lovely.
- The river is okay, but could use some improving in overall color. The forests...please improve them ASAP, they look like a mutated fungus taking over the Southeast.
- With the addition of Canada and such, boxing out or otherwise setting apart the title section will be needed. You'll figure out something, I'm sure.
- Florida gets abruptly cut off as the legend approaches. It's like some alien monolith took part of the Sunshine State out as it landed. Complete the landmass and let it fall "under" the legend using some outer glow on the bonus legend.
- The militiamen look good, but they don't seem to fit with the other icons on the map. It might be because they "pop" out of the map more than the ships and the Indian symbols, so addition of that effect (again assisted by some frigging deep blue sea) would likely fix that.
- The borders in the left part of the map are way too straight. I know the entire map's lines are reasonably straight, but the ones in the west look like they were arbitrarily decided with a 1-second stroke with the Line Tool. Add in some waviness and curves.

Gameplay
- While the legend is understandable, it seems haphazard in its placement. Rules of different types are all present in the same setup, making it difficult to remember it all after a few glances. Do some grouping and/or splitting on the legend to fix this.
- The battlefields are too choke-tastic. Each has only one entrance and exit point, allowing people to effectively defend multiple battlefields with single territories. The worst is the two battlefields in Massachusetts. With a little work, a person could hold down a +4 with only one territory. Add in more commanders who can be exited from, and consider making a battlefield enterable from the state it is in, and each adjacent state (for instance, Trenton could be attacked from Delaware, New York, and Pennsylvania).
- The states are too close to their forms circa Civil War. Most of the western portions of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina were still held by the Indians at the time of the Revolutionary War. Take some inspiration from the other American Revolution map and get the colonies looking like the colonies. Moving the impassables might be a necessity as a result.
- Other than the Indian Nations (one of which is in the middle of the colonies), there is absolutely zero advantage to a Western start. Perhaps change the Indian bonus to +1 for 2, +2 for 3, and have some incentive for having the West in addition.
- The de Galvez lacks a bonus entirely, and I don't see a need to have it on the map, as it's just one more dead-end.
- The bonus legend is okay, but separating out the Battlefields from the Other Stuff would be good. You've got the bottom of the map to play with there, so use it.
- The battlefield bonuses seem arbitrary (why does Yorktown get +3 when it has the same number of territories as Bunker Hill?), but this might be fixed by going with some edits to the Battlefield rules (see above). The other bonuses look completely spot-on, though.
- I know you're using a motley assortment of army numbers, but the neutral-colored ones confuse me, as I doubt you mean for those to start neutral.
- Some representation of the actual battlefield lines (similar to your first draft, but a little nicer) would be a good way to illustrate the Battlefield aspect, as well as reinforce the attack rules.
- The use of Battle site is confusing. When I first read it, I thought "oh, so you can attack Saratoga the territory". Then I kept reading and realized Battle Site meant the State where it happened in. A different term than Site ("battle's state", perhaps) will likely be needed.

I won on the third objective: lots of feedback. Why? This map got
.