Cairns Coral Coast [Quenched] - Loaded!

[Gozar]

The style and look of this map is really nice.

Hope to play soon!

Cheers!

[cairnswk]

The style and look of this map is really nice.

Hope to play soon!

Cheers!

Gozar, those kind of comments are always welcome, LOL. Much appreciated. I hope so also.

[cairnswk]

i would just move the waterfall to the left slightly, or continue the darker blue riverline all the way to the mountains, to make the divide clear.

Enigma, I have adjusted the river to run underneath the waterfall right to the mountain edge of the Palmerston - there should be no misapprehension about that issue now. Thanks!

[AraAmanda]

Nice map, I would definitely not want to play it without cards though LOL..that would like be taking on the world 2.0 map LOL..I just don't have that much patience, but overall great job!

[cairnswk]

Nice map, I would definitely not want to play it without cards though LOL..that would like be taking on the world 2.0 map LOL..I just don't have that much patience, but overall great job!

Thanks AraAmanda....i agree it will take a big game without cards.

[cairnswk]

Any more feedback???

[spinwizard]

i am not keen on the texture, how did u do the bridges.

ps. look at the new eye candy on my france map

[cairnswk]

i am not keen on the texture, how did u do the bridges.

Which texture are your referring to?

[spinwizard]

i am not keen on the texture, how did u do the bridges.

Which texture are your referring to?

sorry the land 1, the parchement. i prefer 2 use metal, try that

[cairnswk]

i am not keen on the texture, how did u do the bridges.

Which texture are your referring to?

sorry the land 1, the parchement. i prefer 2 use metal, try that

Mmmm. I tried the metal look and I prefer the parchment - it gives more of an undulation effect over the land which i think it is a better look for this map.

Bridges
The bridges are a simple rectangle black border with two single line bars over the ends same colour as territores, the fill in the rectangle is solid texture linear fill with each territoy colour at opposing ends - you have to re-angle the linear axis line so that the correct angle of fill occurs when the rectanlges are angled - if you get all that.

[Wisse]

i don't like the sea textures and the bridges

[Enigma]

just realized lake morris is also missing the glow.
dont use a metal texture. ich.

[cairnswk]

just realized lake morris is also missing the glow.
dont use a metal texture. ich.

Thanks Enigma....I think that Lake Morris is now fixed with glow top of previous page map....and I have no intention of using metal if you're referring to background suggestion.

[cairnswk]

i don't like the sea textures and the bridges

Wisse, appreciate you dropping by...but some things will not be for everyone. If there are more anti sea-texture and bridge comments I will see about alternatives. I myself feel they suit this style of map.

[KEYOGI]

We've already established that I think this map has no appeal, but I might as well add some constructive feedback.

My first major concern is in the regions of City Estates, Sugarland and Bananaland. You hold all three of these regions and you have yourself a bonus of 9 for three borders. Combine this with the fact that you can expand into Dairy Farmers without increasing your borders, and you have 19 territories worth an extra 6 armies. That's a possible 15 for three borders. In my opinion, that corner/edge of the board is way too strong. Perhaps look into some ways of working around this.

I agree with Wisse, I'm not a fan of the bridges or the sea texture. I'm not overly keen on the land texture either.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... the map is very cluttered. As far as I can tell, the tableland rises and waterfalls have no significance. I feel they just add to the clutter.

While I'm not a fan of the mountains to begin with, I don't understand why you have some in the places where they are. Does Atherton need to be seperated from Tolga Heights? Babinda and Bartle Frere? The Gillies and Topaz?

I have other concerns, but I think the map could benefit from a clean up before I mention them.

[Samus]

My first major concern is in the regions of City Estates, Sugarland and Bananaland. You hold all three of these regions and you have yourself a bonus of 9 for three borders. Combine this with the fact that you can expand into Dairy Farmers without increasing your borders, and you have 19 territories worth an extra 6 armies. That's a possible 15 for three borders. In my opinion, that corner/edge of the board is way too strong. Perhaps look into some ways of working around this.

You could make similar claims about just about every map in play. Skyrim/Hammerfell/Summerset Isle in Tamriel, the Agean/Asia Minor/Boreia Ellada in Ancient Greece, South America in World 2.1, just about ANY 3 regions in CCU if you hold the Quad, the list goes on. This has never been a problem on any of these maps because in actual games, people fight back.

Hell, even in this map you could take the Swamps, the Beaches, and City Estates with 3 borders assuming you also held Kuranda and Gordonvale. The top and the bottom can't both be overpowered.

You're talking about one player controlling a third of the map. Yeah, no kidding, the game is basically over when that happens. If you allow an opponent to take 19 territories unchecked, it's not the map's fault you're about to lose.

[mibi]

My first major concern is in the regions of City Estates, Sugarland and Bananaland. You hold all three of these regions and you have yourself a bonus of 9 for three borders. Combine this with the fact that you can expand into Dairy Farmers without increasing your borders, and you have 19 territories worth an extra 6 armies. That's a possible 15 for three borders. In my opinion, that corner/edge of the board is way too strong. Perhaps look into some ways of working around this.

You could make similar claims about just about every map in play. Skyrim/Hammerfell/Summerset Isle in Tamriel, the Agean/Asia Minor/Boreia Ellada in Ancient Greece, South America in World 2.1, just about ANY 3 regions in CCU if you hold the Quad, the list goes on. This has never been a problem on any of these maps because in actual games, people fight back.

Hell, even in this map you could take the Swamps, the Beaches, and City Estates with 3 borders assuming you also held Kuranda and Gordonvale. The top and the bottom can't both be overpowered.

You're talking about one player controlling a third of the map. Yeah, no kidding, the game is basically over when that happens. If you allow an opponent to take 19 territories unchecked, it's not the map's fault you're about to lose.

mhm, if a area of the map is too powerful, you can believe there will be more than one person with their eye on it.

[Teya]

It is so easy to advance up the map though. That is the problem. You can do it quickly without increasing borders much during the process at all. Its easy to get, its easy to hold. That is why it is such a problem.

The tableland rises and waterfalls really dont seem to give the map the 3d effect you are hoping for either. They just add to the clutter as keyogi mentioned.

[Samus]

After browsing the maps in the Game Finder, there is one and only one map in which you cannot hold multiple regions with 3 borders: Chinese Checkers.

Which actually turns out to be a problem. The total lack of any strategic points makes teamwork impossible and keeps strategy at a very basic level.

Every other map is like this, and they play better for it. You guys act like you'll get to take your first 8 turns in a row before the other players get to do their turns. What do you think your opponents are doing all this time? Fighting each other over Fruit Pickers?

[Teya]

Holding multiple areas with 3 borders is not the issue here. The issue is that you can advance into these areas so easily without increasing borders on the way up.

Take SA on classic for example. 2 borders. To advance up in NA you have to increase your borders. Advancing into central america doesnt increase. But if you advance more, you have an extra border.
In this map, you dont really increase ever.
As for the arguement of you can do the same with swamps, beaches and city estates. I think that just points out how bad the playability is.

Advancing into more territories to gain more bonuses is one thing. Doing it without increasing your borders, like in the map is a bad thing.

[Samus]

Your argument doesn't even make sense. The map is bad because it's all overpowered? What does that even mean?

Look, obviously you aren't going to agree with me hypothetically because you won't give up on your unrealistic scenario. All I can do is list maps where you can do the same thing.

Ancient Greece: Start with Asia Minor, take The Agean (without increasing borders), take Boreia Ellada (without increasing borders).

British Isles: Start with Scotland, take Ireland (without increasing borders).

USApocalypse: Start with Aquaria, take Silicon Overmind (borders never go past 3).

Tamriel: Start with Skyrim, take Hammerfell (which actually REDUCES borders as you go).

OR

Tamriel: Start with Elsweyr, take Black Marsh (without increasing borders).

Philippines: Start in Icolos, take Central Luzon (without increasing borders).

Alexander's Empire: Start with Mauryan Empire, take Selucus North (borders never go past 3), take Selucus (borders never go past 3).

Australia (ironically enough KEYOGI's map): Start with Western Australia, take Northern Territory (reducing borders from 4 to 3).

OR

Australia: Start with Victoria, take New South Wales (borders never go past 3).

Arctic: Start with N. America, take N. Islands (borders potentially increase to 4 briefly).


I'm sure there are plenty more examples, but that's what I could find at a quick glance. If these maps are not problems, I cannot see how CCC would be.

[KEYOGI]

My concerns with the gameplay aren't exclusive to the 3 border triple bonus. I guess Teya sort of summed up my concerns better than I did.

The middle of the map is kind of a free-for-all that I don't think will bode well for anyone who gets the majority of their deployment there. I feel that the edges of the map are basically just ladders up and down the board and hold a distinct advantage for those who can take advantage of this.
The shear number of impassable borders on this map would make it hard for anyone to actually do much about others advancing up/down the side of the map.

Maybe connecting some of the islands from different regions to each other would help, or possibly open up some of the attack routes blocked by mountains. I've never claimed to be a gameplay expert, I just look at the map and shudder at the thought of getting stuck in the middle.

[Samus]

My concerns with the gameplay aren't exclusive to the 3 border triple bonus. I guess Teya sort of summed up my concerns better than I did.

The middle of the map is kind of a free-for-all that I don't think will bode well for anyone who gets the majority of their deployment there. I feel that the edges of the map are basically just ladders up and down the board and hold a distinct advantage for those who can take advantage of this.
The shear number of impassable borders on this map would make it hard for anyone to actually do much about others advancing up/down the side of the map.

Maybe connecting some of the islands from different regions to each other would help, or possibly open up some of the attack routes blocked by mountains. I've never claimed to be a gameplay expert, I just look at the map and shudder at the thought of getting stuck in the middle.

North America and especially Europe are exactly like you're talking about, and those are two of the best maps. If you have a bunch of your troops deployed in Central US or Germany, you deal with it. It is indeed a disadvantage, but not a game deciding one. I find it odd that the same Foundry that is now in love with giving away bonuses for single territories is suddenly screaming "oh no! What if initial deployment is unbalanced!"

There are 60 territories, playing this map without unlimited fortifications would be painful regardless of how the regions were laid out. If you start out with a large amount of armies in a region you deem too difficult to take or hold, load up your armies and advance them into a "better" region.

[KEYOGI]

North America and especially Europe are exactly like you're talking about, and those are two of the best maps. If you have a bunch of your troops deployed in Central US or Germany, you deal with it. It is indeed a disadvantage, but not a game deciding one. I find it odd that the same Foundry that is now in love with giving away bonuses for single territories is suddenly screaming "oh no! What if initial deployment is unbalanced!"

There are 60 territories, playing this map without unlimited fortifications would be painful regardless of how the regions were laid out. If you start out with a large amount of armies in a region you deem too difficult to take or hold, load up your armies and advance them into a "better" region.

I think this map is sufficiently different to NA and Europe that I don't think they provide a fair comparison.

I have no idea what the sudden craze is with single territory bonuses. Apart from Montreal, are there actually any maps live on the site that have this feature? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

[Samus]

North America and especially Europe are exactly like you're talking about, and those are two of the best maps. If you have a bunch of your troops deployed in Central US or Germany, you deal with it. It is indeed a disadvantage, but not a game deciding one. I find it odd that the same Foundry that is now in love with giving away bonuses for single territories is suddenly screaming "oh no! What if initial deployment is unbalanced!"

There are 60 territories, playing this map without unlimited fortifications would be painful regardless of how the regions were laid out. If you start out with a large amount of armies in a region you deem too difficult to take or hold, load up your armies and advance them into a "better" region.

I think this map is sufficiently different to NA and Europe that I don't think they provide a fair comparison.

Why not? If you start with good positioning in Africa, you can move to take Near East (or vice versa). If you start with most of your forces in Germany or the West, the game will be more difficult for you.

But Africa and Near East aren't any big secret, and so those are areas of higher contention. I'm sure the coast will be one of the areas that's the same way, but people will know that and they'll fight over those areas. You would move armies starting in Dairy Farmers over towards Sugarland or Bananaland the same way you would move armies starting in Germany over towards Russia or Scandinavia.

I have no idea what the sudden craze is with single territory bonuses. Apart from Montreal, are there actually any maps live on the site that have this feature? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

I think you're right about that, and there are significantly fewer maps currently in production with single territory bonuses thanks to me. Although along the same "lucky initial deployment" lines, I worked out the rough odds on page 29 of the King of the Mountains map, it is a relative certainty that one of the players will start the game with 2 Kings, and rather high odds of someone starting with 3.