Scotland [Quenched]

yamahafazer · Post by **yamahafazer** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:43 am

It's looking very nice... I like the attack lines in the water too... I was wondering how you were going to do them, but they fit in very well..

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:46 am

I'm confused - why two versions of the same map in the same thread?!

C.

Balsiefen · Post by **Balsiefen** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:29 am

yeti_c wrote:I'm confused - why two versions of the same map in the same thread?!

C.

Oaktowns map is graphics and will be the one eventually put up.

My map is there just to try out gameplay ideas quickly without messing up oaktowns nice graphics

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:36 am

Balsiefen wrote:
yeti_c wrote:I'm confused - why two versions of the same map in the same thread?!

C.
Oaktowns map is graphics and will be the one eventually put up.

My map is there just to try out gameplay ideas quickly without messing up oaktowns nice graphics

Right I see... that wasn't that well explained!!

C.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:13 am

Perhaps the first post should be re-written to better reflect the fact that this is a two-headed monster. Bals started this project, but hit a ceilings in terms of what his software could accomplish, so I offered to rework it. I'd like to leave the majority of the decision-making regarding bonuses and territories up to him, while I just photoshop it and make it look purty.

Bals: Considering the point we seem to be at now, i suspect you won't have to keep creating alternative versions. I think that my version has caught up in terms of the gameplay features that are on the map - I have all of the borders, territory titles, cities, unpassables, attack routes across the water, and our bonuses match. Feel free to just give written directions for issues and changes as they come up.

Balsiefen · Post by **Balsiefen** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:59 am

oaktown wrote:Perhaps the first post should be re-written to better reflect the fact that this is a two-headed monster. Bals started this project, but hit a ceilings in terms of what his software could accomplish, so I offered to rework it. I'd like to leave the majority of the decision-making regarding bonuses and territories up to him, while I just photoshop it and make it look purty.

Okay i'll do that

Bals: Considering the point we seem to be at now, i suspect you won't have to keep creating alternative versions. I think that my version has caught up in terms of the gameplay features that are on the map - I have all of the borders, territory titles, cities, unpassables, attack routes across the water, and our bonuses match. Feel free to just give written directions for issues and changes as they come up.

yea, i was thinking the same thing. We shouldnt have any changes that will ruin the graphics anymore so that'll make it easyer.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:48 pm

maybe you can PM a mod to remove the poll question? it's out of date and may be confusing.

Post by **iancanton** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:27 pm

Balsiefen wrote:Should we up the central bonus to 5?

this could well be a good idea, though i prefer a 5 bonus for holding all cities, to bring the cities into the big league. the fact that aberdeen is adjacent to angus means that the cities can be connected by occupying only three additional territories. this strategy starts to look worthwhile when a 5 bonus is offered.

ian.

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:34 pm

Removed the poll. For further reference, send all poll removals/updates to Coleman via PM!

By the way, I love the graphics you two have going...

--Andy

illusions850 · Post by **illusions850** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:51 pm

how are you supposed to know which bonus is which?

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:28 pm

illusions850 wrote:how are you supposed to know which bonus is which?

see my to-do list.

ParadiceCity9 · Post by **ParadiceCity9** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:56 pm

oaktown that looks really good...everything's really clear and well developed.

Balsiefen · Post by **Balsiefen** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:54 am

iancanton wrote:
Balsiefen wrote:Should we up the central bonus to 5?
this could well be a good idea, though i prefer a 5 bonus for holding all cities, to bring the cities into the big league. the fact that aberdeen is adjacent to angus means that the cities can be connected by occupying only three additional territories. this strategy starts to look worthwhile when a 5 bonus is offered.

ian.

actually, you may be right. Usually, bonuses like that are ignored because they are so hard to keep, but that combined with oaktowns idea would really make them somthing to go for. That in turn would have an interesting effect by making the south and east busier, making it more true to the real scotland

Mr_Niels · Post by **Mr_Niels** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:22 am

i love the mountains, good work!

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:41 pm

Oaktown's Version 6, I think:

What's new:
• celtic vine border
• a thistle, which is either too heavy or too big at the moment.. work in progress
• thistle leaves of different colors in the legend, growing from the border
• compass with my sig

To do:
• finalize bonuses... are we upping the cities to +5?
• rework colors; they look fine on the map, but my color-blind eyes can't tell the leaves apart very well. They could also use further softening.
• perhaps move Shetlands out of the border, which I just noticed (oops)
• play around with the leaves in the legend a bit to get them just right.
• XML, army count placement, small map

Sorry the updates are far between - two maps going at once!

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:43 pm

Lanarkshire could easily be made into 2 seperate terrs, north lanarkshire and south lanarkshire. (guess which one i live in)

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:46 pm

gimil wrote:Lanarkshire could easily be made into 2 seperate terrs, north lanarkshire and south lanarkshire. (guess which one i live in)

In light of recent discussions regarding ideal territory counts, it would be nice to add some territories to bring this map up to at least 39 to avoid the extra bonus for the first player in a two or three player game. Trouble is we've already got a mess of little territories in the regions that would be most natural for additions. Lanarkshire could work - how about splitting up one or two of the big territories farther north?

Nobunaga · Post by **Nobunaga** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:39 pm

... I like that thistle. Not too intrusive, in my opinion.

...

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:22 pm

Why not add this cheeky fellow in?

the rampent lion.

It will add to the old scottish felling you have going.

Post by **iancanton** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:40 pm

oaktown wrote:it would be nice to add some territories to bring this map up to at least 39 to avoid the extra bonus for the first player in a two or three player game. Trouble is we've already got a mess of little territories in the regions that would be most natural for additions.

oaktown's reasoning is very interesting and worthy of consideration. the idea that 36 is not a good number has never occurred to me before.

here's another idea: rather than adding three territories, how does deleting three compare (i think the natural mergers are reuniting ayrshire, reuniting inverness-shire and combining argyll with mull, as mull was always part of argyll and not part of the western isles)?

that gives at least three options: 39, 36 or 33 territories!

the thistle leaves and vine border are lovely touches.

ian.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:47 pm

small map, 457x600:

Large map, 602x790:

So, I've changed up the colors a bit... as a colorblind user I find this color scheme to be more friendly.

Also, first stab at small map. It'll take some work fitting in army counts, but it's doable.

iancanton wrote:here's another idea: rather than adding three territories, how does deleting three compare (i think the natural mergers are reuniting ayrshire, reuniting inverness-shire and combining argyll with mull, as mull was always part of argyll and not part of the western isles)?

You would only have to delete one territory to avoid the first turn advantage, but fewer than 36 territory makes for thin starts in larger games. It's worthy of further discussion.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:33 am

Oaktown i an very much impressed with the work you have done here.

As for the territory count, id like to see more rather than less. Mainly because i want to see this as a standard, average map rather than a small one.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:54 am

I can understand where gimil is coming from but there is a growing demand for smaller maps so I'd like this to stay as it is to help meet that.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:00 pm

Coleman wrote:I can understand where gimil is coming from but there is a growing demand for smaller maps so I'd like this to stay as it is to help meet that.

evidently its a mater of taste, so we will jsut have to wait and see where the discussion lies.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:03 pm

I'm going to let Balsiefen make the final decision here (based on everybody's comments of course), as I'm just the pixel-pusher on this one.

Personally I am a fan of the classsic-sized game. We could easily drop territories and make this a small map, but that wasn't the original intention.

So discuss...
• 36 is a good size for limiting starting neutrals in all games, and it is where we are now.
• 39 would be a good size for eliminating first turn advantage and have no neutrals in two and three player games. If you like this please consider where we should add terits.
• 40 would eliminate first player advantage and eliminate neutrals in 4 and 5 player games. if you like this option please consider where we should add terits.