First Nations of North America [Quenched]

[SultanOfSurreal]

I agree that the gameplay gives far too much of an advantage to people who drop heavily in the south. The top third of this map is going to be a barren wasteland for the entire game, until the winning player has to mop up.

The remedy is simple. Add a +2 bonus region for holding all the Greenlandic tribes. It makes sense (the greenlandic inuit had a lot more in common with each other than the northern alaskan inuit) and it adds a nice small bonus to the very north. The arctic region then becomes smaller too.

[oaktown]

I agree that the gameplay gives far too much of an advantage to people who drop heavily in the south. The top third of this map is going to be a barren wasteland for the entire game, until the winning player has to mop up.

The remedy is simple. Add a +2 bonus region for holding all the Greenlandic tribes. It makes sense (the greenlandic inuit had a lot more in common with each other than the northern alaskan inuit) and it adds a nice small bonus to the very north. The arctic region then becomes smaller too.

The three Greenland tribes can be held from just one spot - Nunaseak - so making Greenland a region makes it a region with an easy hold. I agree that an eleven territory region is a potential gameplay wasteland, but with so many small regions elsewhere on the map maybe this isn't the end of the world. I'd rather the removal of a territory or two - a lot of those territories only have one border anyway, so they don't offer anything in terms of gameplay or map connectivity. Kutchin, Tunimiut, Inughiut, and Etheneldeli are nothing more than places in which to hide.

Loving the trees, and the region colors are looking easier to distinguish for me. One little thing- in the places where there is border access between mountain ranges the region colors are lost, like Pomo and Piute or Tilingit and Dakelh... can we have the contrasting colors on either side of the border back?

And if anybody doesn't yet know, this map will be participating in our Incubator experiment... thanks Tisha.

[Tisha]

I agree that the gameplay gives far too much of an advantage to people who drop heavily in the south. The top third of this map is going to be a barren wasteland for the entire game, until the winning player has to mop up.

The remedy is simple. Add a +2 bonus region for holding all the Greenlandic tribes. It makes sense (the greenlandic inuit had a lot more in common with each other than the northern alaskan inuit) and it adds a nice small bonus to the very north. The arctic region then becomes smaller too.

The three Greenland tribes can be held from just one spot - Nunaseak - so making Greenland a region makes it a region with an easy hold. I agree that an eleven territory region is a potential gameplay wasteland, but with so many small regions elsewhere on the map maybe this isn't the end of the world. I'd rather the removal of a territory or two - a lot of those territories only have one border anyway, so they don't offer anything in terms of gameplay or map connectivity. Kutchin, Tunimiut, Inughiut, and Etheneldeli are nothing more than places in which to hide.

Loving the trees, and the region colors are looking easier to distinguish for me. One little thing- in the places where there is border access between mountain ranges the region colors are lost, like Pomo and Piute or Tilingit and Dakelh... can we have the contrasting colors on either side of the border back?

And if anybody doesn't yet know, this map will be participating in our Incubator experiment... thanks Tisha.

I really like the number 72 for territories.. it works nice. Is there a number a couple less that also works great? If so, then I wouldn't mind cutting out a couple territories.
you don't think Greenland being separated would help out the north at all? I kinda like it.. but I don't think it can be worth two with only one border.

[oaktown]

Carving out Greenland as its own region would provide a nice little bonus for somebody to start the game, but it doesn't give them anywhere to go. They'd still be stuck behind two big, hard to hold regions.

I have another thought: create a region out of the labrador coast and call it Nitassinan, which is what the Innu people people call their homelands. It would include Monagnail, Naskapi, Innu, and Beothuk. A player that starts there would have access to three regions and can decide his/her own destiny. At four regions/three borders it is a good +3... in fact I'd say it works better as a +3 than Mexico, which has the advantage of being close to a small region - now that I look at it the Mesoamerica/Carribean block seems pretty powerful.

This move reduces the size of Northeast Woodlands (which you could simply rename "Woodlands"), Arctic, and Subarctic, all of which I think are good things. And it leaves Greenland as part of the arctic, where it geographically belongs.

[Risky_Stud]

Carving out Greenland as its own region would provide a nice little bonus for somebody to start the game, but it doesn't give them anywhere to go. They'd still be stuck behind two big, hard to hold regions.

I have another thought: create a region out of the labrador coast and call it Nitassinan, which is what the Innu people people call their homelands. It would include Monagnail, Naskapi, Innu, and Beothuk. A player that starts there would have access to three regions and can decide his/her own destiny. At four regions/three borders it is a good +3... in fact I'd say it works better as a +3 than Mexico, which has the advantage of being close to a small region - now that I look at it the Mesoamerica/Carribean block seems pretty powerful.

This move reduces the size of Northeast Woodlands (which you could simply rename "Woodlands"), Arctic, and Subarctic, all of which I think are good things. And it leaves Greenland as part of the arctic, where it geographically belongs.

I agree, but i think she should also keep the Greenland bonus. Gives the map an all around feel.
Plus with so many bonus option's and the amount of territories, i don't think anyone would get stuck there.
Especialy if you attack down one on a larger bonus in Nunaseak. I think it would make as much gameplay up north
as down south.

[SultanOfSurreal]

if you do keep the greenland bonus region, i almost wonder if the colors for that and the arctic bonus should be swapped. I do like it the way it is, but... it is greenland after all.

[Tisha]

if you do keep the greenland bonus region, i almost wonder if the colors for that and the arctic bonus should be swapped. I do like it the way it is, but... it is greenland after all.

no.. white is colder...

[lancehoch]

What if you combined the two small Greenland territories into the mainland for one bigger territory, then split Nunaseak into two? The territory count would remain the same, but you would get rid of one dead end territory (maybe even a second depending on connections).

[grandin]

[...] create a region out of the labrador coast and call it Nitassinan, which is what the Innu people people call their homelands. It would include Monagnail, Naskapi, Innu, and Beothuk. A player that starts there would have access to three regions and can decide his/her own destiny. At four regions/three borders it is a good +3... in fact I'd say it works better as a +3 than Mexico, which has the advantage of being close to a small region - now that I look at it the Mesoamerica/Carribean block seems pretty powerful.

This move reduces the size of Northeast Woodlands (which you could simply rename "Woodlands"), Arctic, and Subarctic, all of which I think are good things. And it leaves Greenland as part of the arctic, where it geographically belongs.

I agree, but i think she should also keep the Greenland bonus. Gives the map an all around feel.
Plus with so many bonus option's and the amount of territories, i don't think anyone would get stuck there.
Especialy if you attack down one on a larger bonus in Nunaseak. I think it would make as much gameplay up north
as down south.

[lt_oddball]

you are stil not convincing me.. and I don't know why you are telling me to come up with a technical argument, when you don't even have one yourself ***1***. every time you post you are saying something else.

first it was secret alliances
then you say there shouldn't be a big differences in bonuses through out the map
then my map doesn't have choices, when there clearly are with the bonuses of 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8.. and 72 territories.
now you are worried about the 8th player not starting with 15 territories, when that isn't even possible on my map
***2****

72 divided into players 8 is 9 territories each
6 players is 12 territories each, and there are plenty of bonuses for 6 players to choose from

**1*** then read again...I did provide enough arguments.
In return, please explain why your choice for mega bonuszones in arctics and plains(close together and not divided over the map..strange).
A united states of inuit republics ?
The number of inuits in the time span between 1000 and 1450 A.D. outnumbers the Meso Americans by a ratio of 8 to 3 ?
Even today there are millions of inuits against a couple of thousand of mexican indians ?
Please speak.

***2*** all evolving over the same issue. that big center Plains bonuszone leading to AND unfairness to the last players of the row, AND middle stage game problem (final players roaming around the centerchunk..pragmatic solution is (secret)alliances or large stock ups which both suck) AND no wide (enough) choice (relates the unfairness issue; you have a couple of KEYbonuszones that guarantee mapsuccess .. obvious for any intelligent player to recognize, and too few to benefit all players).
The 15 terr. (or rather general example with 3xn starting territories like your 12 example) is a general issue that could be a problem if you don't correct it with the correct number of starting neutrals... too often mapmakers don't pay attention to it).

[Risky_Stud]

you are stil not convincing me.. and I don't know why you are telling me to come up with a technical argument, when you don't even have one yourself ***1***. every time you post you are saying something else.

first it was secret alliances
then you say there shouldn't be a big differences in bonuses through out the map
then my map doesn't have choices, when there clearly are with the bonuses of 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8.. and 72 territories.
now you are worried about the 8th player not starting with 15 territories, when that isn't even possible on my map
***2****

72 divided into players 8 is 9 territories each
6 players is 12 territories each, and there are plenty of bonuses for 6 players to choose from

**1*** then read again...I did provide enough arguments.
In return, please explain why your choice for mega bonuszones in arctics and plains(close together and not divided over the map..strange).
A united states of inuit republics ?
The number of inuits in the time span between 1000 and 1450 A.D. outnumbers the Meso Americans by a ratio of 8 to 3 ?
Even today there are millions of inuits against a couple of thousand of mexican indians ?
Please speak.

***2*** all evolving over the same issue. that big center Plains bonuszone leading to AND unfairness to the last players of the row, AND middle stage game problem (final players roaming around the centerchunk..pragmatic solution is (secret)alliances or large stock ups which both suck) AND no wide (enough) choice (relates the unfairness issue; you have a couple of KEYbonuszones that guarantee mapsuccess .. obvious for any intelligent player to recognize, and too few to benefit all players).
The 15 terr. (or rather general example with 3xn starting territories like your 12 example) is a general issue that could be a problem if you don't correct it with the correct number of starting neutrals... too often mapmakers don't pay attention to it).

If you don't like it, then don't play it.
You seem to be the only person with a secret alliance problem.
I don't see why anything should change at all.

[Elijah S]

I like the looks of this map and have read a few of the arguments regarding it somehow encouraging alliances - which I think is complete nonsense. -If players are predisposed to form an alliance, they can do it on any map, and there's nothing about this one that would play any differently than the other classic-style maps.

I do suggest you move the Shawnee territory to the spot just below it, and rename the Shawnee territory "Cherokee" - as the Cherokee Nation stretched from eastern KY and TENN down into GA and east into Virginia and the Carolinas - making it a sizeable area. So to exclude the Cherokee completely seems like maybe an oversight.

I hope you continue with this - despite the comments from the peanut gallery, as I know how difficult it is to move through the process if you're not one of those mappers who's "part of the gang." Foundry politics is ridiculous and I've noticed that those with more than one map quenched seem to have little problem moving along.
Best of luck.

[lt_oddball]

- despite the comments from the peanut gallery,.

I find that almost all map foundry strings contain too much comments and too much waisted time on issues over graphics and colours and font types and sizes. Your true peanuts nitpicking, Elijah.
Whereas very little attention is given to gameplay / game balance.
Mostly because the mapdesigner has no clue and no eye for it, but worse is that once the mapmaker has a personal vision of his map and has put effort into drawing it, his/her hard-headedness obstructs any constructive discussion about game play issues.
"njet-no-nicht-nein-neen"

Because the map is relatively far developed I don't ask for rigorous (graphical) changes. I am conscious about it.
But at least hear the arguments , return with counter arguments that MAKE SENSE, and then decide (or let decide in a vote).. in stead of turning the head away in insolence.

So far Qwert and cairnswk respond much better to map criticism with either enthusiasm or counter criticism. And certainly not all of the suggestions are incorporated.

[Risky_Stud]

what your saying makes no sense oddball, because alliances can happen on all maps
no matter what the layout. so for you to say that it definetly is going to happen on this map is irelivent.
you need to come up with something better. It should'nt change the map maker's mind and i hope it
does'nt. i personally like the layout in the center the way it is. your just stating your opinion
and that's fine, but your opinion has been heard and the mapmaker does'nt feel like a change is neccesary.
You should quit repeating yourself and respect the desicion of the mapmaker. she is the one putting in
all the effort, not you. And like i said before, if you don't like the decision then don't play this map!

[hwhrhett]

- despite the comments from the peanut gallery,.

I find that almost all map foundry strings contain too much comments and too much waisted time on issues over graphics and colours and font types and sizes. Your true peanuts nitpicking, Elijah.
Whereas very little attention is given to gameplay / game balance.
Mostly because the mapdesigner has no clue and no eye for it, but worse is that once the mapmaker has a personal vision of his map and has put effort into drawing it, his/her hard-headedness obstructs any constructive discussion about game play issues.
"njet-no-nicht-nein-neen"

Because the map is relatively far developed I don't ask for rigorous (graphical) changes. I am conscious about it.
But at least hear the arguments , return with counter arguments that MAKE SENSE, and then decide (or let decide in a vote).. in stead of turning the head away in insolence.

So far Qwert and cairnswk respond much better to map criticism with either enthusiasm or counter criticism. And certainly not all of the suggestions are incorporated.

how is it posisble that a map would be more prone for secret alliances than any other map? i mean secret alliances are defined by people and not maps right?

[MrBenn]

Can I just ask a quick question.... have you run the map territories/borders etc through one of the bonus calculators? I'm keen to get this one moving forwards, so we really need to make sure that the gameplay/bonuses are sorted

[Tisha]

Can I just ask a quick question.... have you run the map territories/borders etc through one of the bonus calculators? I'm keen to get this one moving forwards, so we really need to make sure that the gameplay/bonuses are sorted ;-)

new avatar is good MrBenn.
I tried to run the bonuses through, but had no clue what I was doing..
let me post my next update, then you can run them through for me.. :P

[RjBeals]

why don't you make this map a transparent png file, so the white edges do not show up behind the jagged outter map edges?

[Tisha]

why don't you make this map a transparent png file, so the white edges do not show up behind the jagged outter map edges?

that is what I want, but for some reason png makes it blur up..

[lanyards]

JPEG

Click image to enlarge.

PNG

Click image to enlarge.

[Tisha]

great for you Lanyards

I said when I save it as png.. it goes blurry
I don't know why it changed sizes either..
JPG

Click image to enlarge.

PNG

Click image to enlarge.

Interlaced PNG

Click image to enlarge.

[Danyael]

maybe its that secret alliance problem that's making it blurry
i can't figure out what is going on
are you saving as a png well the layers are not flattened?
or are you flattening the img and then saving?
the easiest way to get around it would be save as jpeg
open the jpeg and magic wand the white away and save as png give that a try i hope it helps

[Tisha]

maybe its that secret alliance problem that's making it blurry
i can't figure out what is going on
are you saving as a png well the layers are not flattened?
or are you flattening the img and then saving?
the easiest way to get around it would be save as jpeg
open the jpeg and magic wand the white away and save as png give that a try i hope it helps

I didn't flatten it.. I try not to mess with that
My luck, I would flatten the only one I have to working on.



*goes to make a copy of the file..just in case*

[Danyael]

by no means flatten it i just find pngs act weird when there layer count is very high in cs3
thats why just save as jpeg and turn that into the png

[lanyards]

great for you Lanyards

I said when I save it as png.. it goes blurry
I don't know why it changed sizes either..

I was just saying it can be done without looking blurry, and I think it needs to be done for this map. The resizing part probably is what is making it blurry.