Moderator: Cartographers
Industrial Helix wrote:Well, there is a limit to how many maps you can have in the gameplay or graphics workshop and its a total of two between them.
Industrial Helix wrote:That said, if you continue this map, you're going to need some better names that "Tigris 1" or "Euphrates 2"
Industrial Helix wrote:I'd like to see the map use more of the rivers, perhaps something like an attack downstream. I figure they were massively important to Sumeria in terms of sustaining the cities, shouldn't they play a role in the map as well?
Industrial Helix wrote:I'm not a huge fan of the plus 2 for x amount because I hate sitting there and counting each player's cities... I'd rather see an autodeploy of 1 per city.
Industrial Helix wrote:And is it Sumer or Sumeria?
jigger1986 wrote:I like it, small, but not overly simplistic like Lux/doodle.
DJ Teflon wrote:Nice idea. I like the advantages provided by the river, that adds to the context / setting. Also, the number of territories, allied to the theme, could make this a popular map for quick speed games.
DJ Teflon wrote:I'd recommend calling it 'Ancient Civilisation' or something though - other folks may come along wanting to create maps from even earlier epochs.
As Helix suggested, some more interesting territory names would add to the flavour.
RedFlyingGolf wrote:I love the idea! Maybe because Sumer is in the Fertile Crescent, you can tie in farming to the map gameplay? Not every map has to have that kind of gameplay though, I just thought it could be interesting. Also, I actually would like it more if you included all of the empires in Mesopotamia. Just some thoughts.
Victor Sullivan wrote:Including the farming aspect (assuming you are not referring to the kind of farming that's against the rules on CC ) seems like a neat idea, but I do want to maintain a certain simplicity. I don't think I will be including anything outside of Sumer, because I want to keep the map small, and keep the map, well, Sumer.
Thanks for all your comments I would definitely appreciate more, if you have them.
-Sully
Industrial Helix wrote:Well, i just don't like the +2 for X amount because I really is a pain to sit there and count everyone's cities. And when I have to do that, I play a map less than I would.
Industrial Helix wrote:Well, i just don't like the +2 for X amount because I really is a pain to sit there and count everyone's cities. And when I have to do that, I play a map less than I would.
The big gameplay problem I foresee is that players are going to basically sit on top of the territories and use that to guard their cities, the game is essentially going to be decided by whomever gets Euphrates 3 first. What if you made the territories killer neutrals so that players have to go from city to city in their conquering rampages? It would be close what an invading army would have to deal with and woul dmake for a much more fun game, imo.
Industrial Helix wrote:It's a shame we can't do conditional autodeploys. I think that would be quite nice for this map.
Industrial Helix wrote:Overall, i think the gameplay is a big improvement. It opens up the cities and increases their importance yet doesn't neglect the land territories but creating an incentive to hold them (and thus tie the rivers to the cities).
Industrial Helix wrote:The Tigris and Euphates bonus seems far too high (unless they include the cities as well).
Industrial Helix wrote:I'd like for the rules to explain the idea you have of the geographical reasons for the gameplay. For example, instead of saying cities need the territory for the bonus you could say "Cities give an increased bonus of +2 by holding the land which ties them to the river."
Anyway, I'd recommend a brief for this.
Industrial Helix wrote:Looks good to me... one last thing I need to make sure of though. Will you be developing gameplay and having someone else do graphics, like you did Pachisi? Or are you going to do them yourself?
Also, write a design brief so I can add this map to the map surveyors dispatch coming up.
Victor Sullivan wrote: how could other mapmakers make maps dated before this, if Sumer was the first civilization?
ballong wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote: how could other mapmakers make maps dated before this, if Sumer was the first civilization?
that depends on how you define civilisation..
yes they were (together with the egyptians) one of the earliest people to develop writing rather than pictography..
but there were walled cities many thousands of years before the sumer
and the word sumer is akkadian.. much later...
the sag gi ga lived in ki en gir
OliverFA wrote:I'd like to ask something that I don't fully understand. In order to get the city bonus, do you need the city to be connected to its river area, or to any river area?
I'll say with an example: It doesn't seem logical to get Kish bonus if you have Tigris 2. In my opinion you should only get Kish bonus if you had Tigris 4.
Victor Sullivan wrote: (4) record keeping
ballong wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote: (4) record keeping
yeah that would be one definition that puts sumerians and egyptians among the first civilisations.. although I´m sure there existed more rudimentary ways to keep records even before writing proper.. but enough with my spam.. doesn´t really matter.
Do you plan to include any marshlands or lakes in your map? The marshes seem to have been an important part of the sumer creation myth..
ballong wrote:and I wasn´t kidding about ki-en-gir btw.. if you call it by its akkadian name you probably should include the true sumerian name somewhere.. or at least the cuneiform writing.
Return to Melting Pot: Map Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users