Page 1 of 9

[Abandoned] - Peru

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:44 am
by Rih0
Mod Note:Abandoned - If resurrected, this one must be checked again.

.................................................................................................................................................
Image
.................................................................................................................................................

Number of territories: 35 (4 ports and 5 outside countries included)
Mapmakers: Rih0, maybe anyone else can help if interested.
Actual version:

V 5.1: (changes onto river and mountain + BigSize Img)
Click image to enlarge.
image


show: BigSize


Bonus:

Rainforest: +3
North Highlands: +5
North desert: +3
South Highlands: +1
South desert: +4

Central Highlands has NO bonus

Ports: +2 for 3 / +3 for all
Outside/external countries: +5 for 4 / +7 for all

Neutrals:

External/outside countries and ports are neutral 3
Lima is neutral 5
Puno is neutral 3

show: Older versions

Re: [Official] Design Brief Submissions

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:10 am
by natty dread
You don't need to put my name in it... I have already 2 maps going for design briefs, so I can't have a 3rd one... the new rules of the Foundry. I'll still keep giving advice to you if you wish.

ps. I haven't quenched a map yet, but I have 3 projects of my own...

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:27 pm
by MrBenn
Merged the above thread out of the Design Brief Submissions thread

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:46 am
by Rih0
Ok. Thanks for help anyway.

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:51 pm
by natty dread
If you're still continuing the development... I would suggest you start figuring out the gameplay. What are the bonus values for each bonus area? How many neutrals start on the capital? The bonus values need to be put on the map.

Also it would seem to me that not all the abbreviations are necessary. Try to squeeze in as many of the territory names as you can, it is a lot better to have the names a bit cramped than to have tons of abbreviations to look up.

Ie. Pasco could well fit in the territory area. Amazonas could also, if you don't mind that the names overlap other territories, which isn't a problem IMO if done so that the territory names are clearly centered to the territories they represent.

Also some of the abbreviations don't quite make sense to me... R = Apurica? Why not "Apu." or "Ap."?

Huancavelica could be HC rather than Ha...

Also the rules of the game need to be clearly stated in the legend. Ie. if the ports all connect to each other, it needs to be mentioned in the map. A map needs to be such that you will know how to play it just by looking at the image...

Well, I guess this is enough for you to work on for your next update. Looking forward to it.

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:30 pm
by cairnswk
Rih0
That's a great start you've got there.
Are these districts traditional?
You've got about 26 territories there i think, and the map in realtion to the geography i guess is rather linear.
Is there any way you could further subdivide the green territories to add a couple more inland territories to the map?
And are you planning anything for the ports?

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:40 pm
by Rih0
1st: no, I wont divide anything else. Those are the real peru divisions, and that's the idea on the map.

2nd: the ports are strategical points. They can assault each other.

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:42 pm
by the.killing.44
Rih0 wrote:1st: no, I wont divide anything else. Those are the real peru divisions, and that's the idea on the map.

26 terts is not going to make the cut; you should get upwards of 36.

Nice start though.

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:47 pm
by natty dread
the.killing.44 wrote:26 terts is not going to make the cut;


Why not. Think doodle, luxembourg...

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:57 pm
by cairnswk
Rih0 wrote:1st: no, I wont divide anything else. Those are the real peru divisions, and that's the idea on the map.

2nd: the ports are strategical points. They can assault each other.


Thanks for your reply.
Can you get the "ports can assault each other" on the map so we know.

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:01 pm
by Rih0
I'll do it, but updates wil take some time to go on(4 day trip)

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:43 pm
by the.killing.44
natty_dread wrote:
the.killing.44 wrote:26 terts is not going to make the cut;


Why not. Think doodle, luxembourg...

2 is more than enough…

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:43 pm
by Rih0
ok, legends on the map. What else needed?

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:49 pm
by Evil DIMwit
the.killing.44 wrote:
natty_dread wrote:
the.killing.44 wrote:26 terts is not going to make the cut;


Why not. Think doodle, luxembourg...

2 is more than enough…


Madagascar, Duck and Cover, Egypt: Lower, Egypt: Upper... There are at least half a dozen maps with 26 territories or fewer.

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:29 pm
by Industrial Helix
Hmm... I bet you could make the actual map bigger if you turned it a little. That way you could get some more of those names in there. I'm not a huge fan of the abbreviations :P

I say ditch the capital bonus.... seems like every map does it now.

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:49 pm
by MrBenn
While it's true to say that there is not currently a map of Peru on Conquer Club, the general consensus appears to be that the map is probably a little small to succeed through the foundry.

You've already knocked back the suggestion of attempting to subdivide the administrative regions - is there any other approach you could take to increase the playable size of the game board?

Simply adding cities/capitals probably feels a little bit contrived - it might be worth giving some consideration to the history of Peru - the Incas, the silver mines, Paddington Bear and marmalade sandwiches... (I was joking about Paddington Bear). It might be worth considering how to tap into something Peruvian to give the map a bit of flavour.

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:08 pm
by Rih0
Ok, Less keywords now. V 2.0 is done with bigger size and improved grafics (I will include gameplay soon).

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:36 pm
by Rih0
Ok guys, anyhing you would like in the mountains?

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:11 pm
by Industrial Helix
I already see the gameplay being a problem. A player goes for green, then expands to purple and has an easily defensible bonus. Perhaps a few mountain passes?

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:16 pm
by Rih0
Don't worry, It wont have a big bonus. Also, there are western countries that won't have anything diferent from normal territories

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 1:49 pm
by Rih0
I want to know wich version is better (A or B), so vote down here please.

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:38 pm
by AndyDufresne
I'd go with the A Version---it is unique in that it does incorporate the outlying countries---and is also a smaller map graphically---which I think makes this project look a little better. I'd focus my effort into that version.


--Andy

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:02 pm
by Rih0
Conquer club: Now I need to know: can I move it to the gameplay workshop? If don't, what I still need to do?

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:34 pm
by skeletonboy
"Western countries has no bonus" could be confusing since they are to the east of the map...

Re: PERU

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:10 pm
by Teflon Kris
Stick with it - "26 territories is not making the cut" is not based on a divine law - more small maps would be welcomed by a fair section of the playing community. ;)

Plus, more south american maps would be welcomed too.