Antarctica v9 [I, Gp, Gr]

[oaktown]

How are the colours for people? I think the pink of Victoria Land is very close to the purple of West Ant. The border between Transantartic and McMurdo is still difficult to make out.

I have trouble with everything from West Ant. out - the Peninsula, West Ant and Marie Byrd land are all about the same to my eyes (this is why I'm not the graphics CA!).

The same is true for West. Ant/Victoria Land/Poalr Plateau, but since those are very clearly distinguised in the small map it's less of an issue for me. Now that you've drawn my attention to the colors, I notice that the borders within a region use the color of the region, but I guess I don't quite get what's going on with the borders between bonus regions. If they were a very distinct neutral color or different weight that clearly indicated a regional border it would render the color similarities less of an issue for the colorblind.

[edbeard]

1. as Oak said, the colour in West Ant is too similar to surrounding places. purple, green and blue right next to each other is bad. furthermore, mcmurdo and transantarctic right next to each other and you could think trans belongs with the Victoria land continent.

2. the arrows going into the south pole look very very weird. the way you've done it makes it like one of those optical illusions where depending on how you look at it you've got arrows going opposite ways.

[e_i_pi]

How are the colours for people? I think the pink of Victoria Land is very close to the purple of West Ant. The border between Transantartic and McMurdo is still difficult to make out.

Benn, every time I redo the colours, a fresh batch of complaints comes in. If someone could suggest a solution, it would be great. At the moment, every time I change a colour, it yields complaints from a new party. But to the tasks at hand:
Transantarctic -> McMurdo is solved by making that stretch of land wider, and I plan on doing that, just haven't got round to it.

I know that gimil will want to have a look at the small map before giving any stamps out... Now is probably the time to work on it, as I expect there are going to be a couple of visibility issues.

I'm not starting the small map until there's final satisfaction on the graphical basics with the large (colours / borders / layout). I'm going to be redoing the text and circles entirely, so I want the graphics pretty much set in stone before I start on the small version. The last thing I need is to have to do separate work on both the small and large.

I have trouble with everything from West Ant. out - the Peninsula, West Ant and Marie Byrd land are all about the same to my eyes (this is why I'm not the graphics CA!).
The same is true for West. Ant/Victoria Land/Poalr Plateau, but since those are very clearly distinguised in the small map it's less of an issue for me. Now that you've drawn my attention to the colors, I notice that the borders within a region use the color of the region, but I guess I don't quite get what's going on with the borders between bonus regions. If they were a very distinct neutral color or different weight that clearly indicated a regional border it would render the color similarities less of an issue for the colorblind.

The bonus map is there purely for the colour-blind, and should render enough distinction between the continents. I will endeavour to create continent borders on the main map also, but the territory borders have to come first, as the continent layer is built from the territory layers. As above with the small map argument, I don't want to have to redo things two or three times over, it's a waste of time.

1. as Oak said, the colour in West Ant is too similar to surrounding places. purple, green and blue right next to each other is bad. furthermore, mcmurdo and transantarctic right next to each other and you could think trans belongs with the Victoria land continent.
2. the arrows going into the south pole look very very weird. the way you've done it makes it like one of those optical illusions where depending on how you look at it you've got arrows going opposite ways.

1. They were distinct about 3 pages ago, but the crushing weight of opinions has mushed the colours closer together. I may have to simply redo absolutely every colour, or get rid of them altogether.
2. Well, if I change them now, it will be version 4 of the arrows going to the South Pole. I'll see what I can do.

-----------------------

I just quickly did a different version of borders and overlay. Can I get some feedback on this snapshot... (the old version is on the right)

Mainly regarding the distinction of the continent borders. Does it need to be thicker, more well defined? I know the colours are still dodgy, but even dodgy colours should have clearly visible borders. (Middle East cough cough)

[Blitzaholic]

looks well designed

[InsomniaRed]

The borders look 10x better in the updated version Eipi. And I think the colors look great, regarding MrBenn's post, but I do agree about East & Victoria; the colors are pretty close, but I think the layout makes them easily distinguished from each other. Looks great Eipi

[joe cool 360]

Hey, I just found this map in the forum, gotta tell you it looks awesome, very unique.
Can't wait to play on it.
The only thing I had trouble with were the ships, they looked fuzzy and I had a little trouble distinguishing them from the water, especially Argentina and New Zealand.

P.S. I like the moving ticker idea suggested earlier, but that would just be icing on the cake.

[laci_mae]

Hey, I just found this map in the forum, gotta tell you it looks awesome, very unique.
Can't wait to play on it.

Ditto.

I wonder if oak's concerns could be helped by a general lightening of the earth. I know you're going for a dark look, but a little lighter might help with the overwhelming nature of the colors. It would also help contrast the space/background.

Keep up the good work.

L

[gimil]

HI e_i_pi,

Just a quick note to ask you to remeber to put the page number of your most recent update in the thread title. Makes things easiler to follow.

Cheers,
gimil

[jiminski]

....I wonder if oak's concerns could be helped by a general lightening of the earth. I know you're going for a dark look, but a little lighter might help with the overwhelming nature of the colors. It would also help contrast the space/background.

this has come up quite a few times now. I am against the lightening of the sea as i think the pastel shades are strengthened specifically by the dark blue ocean.

In my opinion the the subtle landmass colour would be diminished in impact without the Ocean to frame and contrast it.

[e_i_pi]

....I wonder if oak's concerns could be helped by a general lightening of the earth. I know you're going for a dark look, but a little lighter might help with the overwhelming nature of the colors. It would also help contrast the space/background.

this has come up quite a few times now. I am against the lightening of the sea as i think the pastel shades are strengthened specifically by the dark blue ocean.

In my opinion the the subtle landmass colour would be diminished in impact without the Ocean to frame and contrast it.

Quite right Jim. I've tried a few variants, and what I've posted is by far the best of the best. Contrast is an important element of art, and the richness of the sea compared with the more pastel shades of the land is what makes this striking. I appreciate that there are styles out there that are tried and true, but I'm a big fan of going for some thing different rather than simply fitting in. Next update (later this week) will hopefully setlle once and for all the problem with the borders and colours

[e_i_pi]

New version, with colours switched around, fleets trimmed a little, borders made better, and many other small changes.

I've upped a small and large version, so visibility issues with small can be ironed out. The problem border are all sorted out, with the possible exception of Cape Adare-McMurdo. Is this border clear anough yet?
SMALL - No Cirlces yet

Click image to enlarge.

LARGE

Click image to enlarge.

[yeti_c]

I still think it's pretty tricky to see either of Transantartics borders...

I think the problem is that the blue employed there is close to the water colour.

C.

[MrBenn]

Transantarctic is the one territory that is hard to make out... as far as colours go, I think you may still need to tweak them around... I know it's a pain - it took me ages to get the colours balanced and visible properly on Europa

I'm not sold on the placement of the region names, they don't seem to quite fit properly - I can't work out if it's to do with the textured impassables, or the blocky text not quite fitting in properly??

[joe cool 360]

Man, those few improvements definately helped.
The borders are definately clear. I can't see any real need to improve on them.

I'm not sold on the placement of the region names, they don't seem to quite fit properly - I can't work out if it's to do with the textured impassables, or the blocky text not quite fitting in properly??

I don't know, those look pretty good to me, altough I can see what you're saying about some of the names that extend into the mountains, they are somewhat difficult to read.
If my opinion mattered at all, I'd say it's ready to pass. But it doesn't and maybe for good reason

[e_i_pi]

Man, those few improvements definately helped.
The borders are definately clear. I can't see any real need to improve on them.

I'm not sold on the placement of the region names, they don't seem to quite fit properly - I can't work out if it's to do with the textured impassables, or the blocky text not quite fitting in properly??

I don't know, those look pretty good to me, altough I can see what you're saying about some of the names that extend into the mountains, they are somewhat difficult to read.
If my opinion mattered at all, I'd say it's ready to pass. But it doesn't and maybe for good reason

Thanks joe cool

But regarding the placement of names, I do hear Benn. The stroke on them is too heavy, maybe needs to be trimmed a pixel. Also, the whole area around transantarctic mountains is a mess. It needs cleaning, and it's been troubling me since day one. Victoria Land text needs to move too. It's going to get a good kick up the bum in time, but right now I'm working on a draft for a new map, and dealing with some guy up the 'scarp who needs me to redo a frikkin training program RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Sometimes real life work, while profitable, is annoying and time-consuming.

All will be fixed up in time

[joe cool 360]

Yeah, no worries, real world takes priority.
I'm just excited, it looks like a great map.
I think when it comes out, I'm gonna spend all my time on it and supermax prison riot.
At least until i get bored and move on
and this just looks too funny.

[MrBenn]

With the region names, have you tried making them a pale grey - I'm not sure they need to have any colour on them.. if they do, it could be the merest hint of colour in the grey??

[Mr. Squirrel]

Sorry if this has been discussed already, but why aren't the flags right for their respective countries? Why don't I see a little American flag waving proudly above our one ship.

[e_i_pi]

Sorry if this has been discussed already, but why aren't the flags right for their respective countries? Why don't I see a little American flag waving proudly above our one ship.

Argentina: Argentinian Antarctic Territory Flag
Australia: Australian Antarctic Territory Flag
Great Britian: British Antarctic Territory Flag
France: French Antarctic Territory Flag
Norway: Norwegian Naval Ensign (no territorial flag exists)
New Zealand: New Zealand Antarctic Territory Flag
Russia: Russian Naval Ensign (Russia does not lay claim to Antarctica, but reserves the right to in future)
USA: Former US Naval Jack (USA does not lay claim to Antarctica, but reserves the right to in future)

[e_i_pi]

Version 8 is up. Main changes were continent colours. West Antarctica is now blood red - this is not a coincidence Font of provinces is changed, mainly for comparison purposes. I think it looks neater, but others may have issues. A few other minor changes here and there, but nothing major. Just trying to resolve the Transantarctic Mountains problem.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[e_i_pi]

I'd appreciate some gameplay discussion guys. Here's what I'm tossing up:

• Each of the ships starts with 3 armies, autodeploys 2. This is pretty much set in stone.
• Should there be the usual automatic 3 armies per turn? (I think this is actually a minimum anyhow, so may be a moot point)
• The land territories start neutral. Should there be 2 or 3 neutrals on each territory? Any more I think would be overkill.
• The biggest exploit I can see is in a quads game with everyone stacking on one player, them going for the pole, and wiping out everyone elses fleets in round 3 or so. This is especially true in FoW games. To combat this, there needs to be a fair amount of neutrals on the pole itself to stop it from happening instantly. I'm thinking somewhere in the range of 10-15, possibly 12. 5 or less is far too few, I think 12 is good, but there needs to be discussion.
• South Pole is -1 army per turn. Should it be -2? Should it have -1 at all? (I think it should, but others may disagree)

Graphics issues are fine to bring up, keeping in mind that if you mention Transantartic, I will find you and forcefeed you cardboard. See i can work on graphics in my own time, but once the GFX are done, the gameplay needs to be ironed out. We may as well be doing this now to economise time.

[joe cool 360]

This is what I think:

there should be the usual 3 min. armies per turn, idk just cause

As for the number of neutrals, I guess that would depend on how long u want the game to take. U could also have armies increase as u get closer to the pole, but that's kind of counter-intuitive, u'd expect there to be less armies as u got closer.

As for the quads cheat, wouldn't the other team try to do the same thing? So, that might even out the advantage, and even make it pretty interesting, stacking armies on one player to rush for the pole, while other players establish a beachhead. I'm pretty sure if I were on the other team, I'd start doing the same thing for us (that is stacking armies on one player)...

I like South pole -1 per turn, I could deal w/ it being -2 per turn... but I prefer -1.

I don't have any complaints about transarctic, but the brownish-yellowy territory lines blend in with the mountains...
(sorry)

Again, can't wait to play on this map!!!
Great improvements!

[e_i_pi]

Thanks for all the gameplay suggestions and feedback JC360, much appreciated, and taken on board. I want to canvas several forum-goers opinions before I start putting a package together of what the gameplay will be.

I don't have any complaints about transarctic, but the brownish-yellowy territory lines blend in with the mountains...
(sorry)

Fimbul is definitely subject to the problems of a brown continent (due to the mountain pass looking pinched off). I'll update the colour on that continent to something more orangey/yellowy to give it distinction from the mountains.
I have noticed myself there is an issue with Getz, the right-hand border needs to shift over about 5 pixels, so no need for anyone to point that out, it's already on the to do list.

Aside from this, I can't see any graphics problems, with the possible exception that the NZ arrow leading to Ross may need to shift up 2-3 pixels at the tip. I think we're getting close to the line between constructive criticism of graphical problems, and opinion on what player xyz thinks looks nice. If there are graphical issues, sure point them out, but if it's just a matter of "I don't like this" or "I prefer that", don't be surprised if it doesn't get accepted.

If there's no more pressing issues (which I don't think there is), let's move onto gameplay talk, it's feeling a little neglected.

[joe cool 360]

Actually I just thought of something...
What if instead of territory bonuses (coninent bonuses are fine), you increase the # of autodeploy a little and make that ur only source of reinforcements until a continent is conquered. That might add realism in that it's kind of difficult to maintain a barracks in Antartica, and if in real life, people were invading the Antarctic, they would be doing it almost solely by shipping troops in. Then once they had captured an area (like the coninents on this map) they would begin using that area for resources, which would count as troops in this game. Just an idea, of course it's up to you.

So disregard my previous post that said I think there should be territory reinforcements, truth is I rarely know what I'm thinking.

[oaktown]

I'd appreciate some gameplay discussion guys. Here's what I'm tossing up:

Gameplay questions... my favorite! I wish folks would do this more often - I love having something to address rather than just pulling this crap out of my Cart' Ass.

Each of the ships starts with 3 armies, autodeploys 2. This is pretty much set in stone.

So, why set in stone? Depending on how thickly you pour on the starting neutrals, you may need to autdeploy more than two per turn.

Should there be the usual automatic 3 armies per turn? (I think this is actually a minimum anyhow, so may be a moot point)

With the (relatively new) reinforcement tag you can adjust it up or down, and change the rate at which one picks up new armies. You could also eliminate it all together, and just go with the auto-deploy on the ships. This would kinda make sense, since no nation is going to be going around recruiting new armies anywhere in this continent. Armies of penguins maybe?

The land territories start neutral. Should there be 2 or 3 neutrals on each territory? Any more I think would be overkill.

I always raise my eyebrow at using less than three, because in card games you are creating some easy takes. This is fine if you're certain that the map is going to be balanced for all players - everybody should have equal access to an easy card on their first turn. You could set it up so that any territory leading to the south pole is higher than the outer territories, but this leads back to the equity problem. Maybe all landing point could be two just to get the game going and to encourage players to hit the beaches, but everything else three?

The biggest exploit I can see is in a quads game with everyone stacking on one player, them going for the pole, and wiping out everyone elses fleets in round 3 or so. This is especially true in FoW games. To combat this, there needs to be a fair amount of neutrals on the pole itself to stop it from happening instantly. I'm thinking somewhere in the range of 10-15, possibly 12. 5 or less is far too few, I think 12 is good, but there needs to be discussion.

Yep, the scenario you mention would be messy. If you put more emphasis on auto-deploys and less on per-turn reinforcements this wouldn't be an issue, however, since you can't stack you auto-deploys.

Putting a sizable stack on the pole isn't a bad idea. You could also gradually increase the number of neutrals in each territory as they approach the pole... make the pole ten, bordering terit's 7, terit's one more layer out 4, etc.

South Pole is -1 army per turn. Should it be -2? Should it have -1 at all? (I think it should, but others may disagree)

Eh. If somebody had to break through a ton of armies to take it they'll probably have a big enough stack that a -1 isn't a big deal; plus, you don't lose that army until your turn comes back up, so it doesn't make the space any harder to defend. I see the logic in making the pole a harsh environment that slowly sucks your armies away, but I'd say don't add another rule to the map unless you really think it improves gameplay. If it ain't broke...