First Nations of North America [Quenched]

by **Tisha** on Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:23 pm

a three territory bonuses really needs to start neutral in a 72 territory map? come on guys...
Greenland is three territories with only a +1

by **khazalid** on Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:26 am

it plays perfectly and it looks great. well done tish!

Website · by **Shatners Bassoon** on Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:39 am

khazalid wrote:it plays perfectly and it looks great. well done tish!

here here

by **fab-virgil** on Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:08 pm

Congrats! I'm on my second game on this map and enjoying it. Got stuffed first time out in a team game, doing better on my own this time out.

I like this one!!!

Fab-V

by **Seulessliathan** on Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:29 am

ahunda wrote:I just started my first game on this map, and it could easily become one of my favourites. Very nice graphics, and the many small bonuses should make for very good team games.

I however think, that 72 terrs is a real bad choice. It means 12 starting terrs in Trips & 18 in Dubs. Key word: 1st turn advantage.

As I said, the map could be real great for team games, but if it stays like that, I´ll probably have to stick to Quads.

i totally agree with that.

great map, having 71 start ter would make it perfect for all team games, reducing start advantage

by **Ace Rimmer** on Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:09 pm

Seulessliathan wrote:
ahunda wrote:I just started my first game on this map, and it could easily become one of my favourites. Very nice graphics, and the many small bonuses should make for very good team games.

I however think, that 72 terrs is a real bad choice. It means 12 starting terrs in Trips & 18 in Dubs. Key word: 1st turn advantage.

As I said, the map could be real great for team games, but if it stays like that, I´ll probably have to stick to Quads.

i totally agree with that.

great map, having 71 start ter would make it perfect for all team games, reducing start advantage

I agree with this. It's a beautiful map and plays well, but having that 12/18 terit count at the start really does give a starting advantage. However, I do NOT think that there should be any coded neutrals. I started with the Plateau bonus in an 8p dubs and it immediately put the focus on our team. I do not think that needs to be made a standard neutral territory. A coded neutral would also make it easier to hold the Northwest or Great Basin bonus (thanks James V for that observation).

With as many small bonuses as this board has, people are sometimes going to drop bonuses in 1v1. I don't think that we need to ruin the game for other game types to change that.

Jake

by **slowreactor** on Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:43 pm

Did I miss something? I don't remember Innu connecting to Nunaseak...

by **the.killing.44** on Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:23 pm

slowreactor wrote:Did I miss something? I don't remember Innu connecting to Nunaseak...

Not many do, so it's a nice "where did you come from?" spot.

by **Tisha** on Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:52 pm

the.killing.44 wrote:
slowreactor wrote:Did I miss something? I don't remember Innu connecting to Nunaseak...

Not many do, so it's a nice "where did you come from?" spot.

it's not obvious?

by **the.killing.44** on Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:53 pm

Tisha wrote:
the.killing.44 wrote:
slowreactor wrote:Did I miss something? I don't remember Innu connecting to Nunaseak...

Not many do, so it's a nice "where did you come from?" spot.

it's not obvious?

Not at first glance. Don't change it.

by **icehack** on Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:28 am

I think this is my new favourite map. Well done.

by **MrBenn** on Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:59 pm

There's some healthy discussion here, keep the feedback coming ;-)

by **stevelockley** on Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:27 pm

Hi,

I'm playing this map. It looks very good. I like the graphics and style.

One point though. In the game (5779908) I am running away with it,I had a deployment concentrared in the north and have been able to hold the Arctic and sub-arctic territories since turn 3 /4. I think that 13 armies for the two territories is a little high. Maybe the land should be divided into 3 regions, or the streangth relative to the rest of the map could be adjusted :?:

That said, my opponents spent most of their time fighting each other and left me to get on with it. Also, my dice / spoils have been exceptionally favourable, so this may be a lucky game for me.

I thought you might like to have my feedback. Please keep up the good work. The invention and creativity of the game designers / artists makes playing on this site a real pleasure

Steve Lockley

by **Tisha** on Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:44 pm

stevelockley wrote:Hi,

I'm playing this map. It looks very good. I like the graphics and style.

One point though. In the game (5779908) I am running away with it,I had a deployment concentrared in the north and have been able to hold the Arctic and sub-arctic territories since turn 3 /4. I think that 13 armies for the two territories is a little high. Maybe the land should be divided into 3 regions, or the streangth relative to the rest of the map could be adjusted

That said, my opponents spent most of their time fighting each other and left me to get on with it. Also, my dice / spoils have been exceptionally favourable, so this may be a lucky game for me.

I thought you might like to have my feedback. Please keep up the good work. The invention and creativity of the game designers / artists makes playing on this site a real pleasure

Steve Lockley

if they are idiots and fighting each other while you hold it, that isn't my maps fault...lol

green and blue are still fighting each other while you own half the board... :lol:

by **stevelockley** on Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:48 am

HI,

I was not blaming you, or the map. As you say, if they choose to fight each other, it is only their fault.

I like the map, both its style and appearance and the way the rivers and mountains mean that you have to plan your attacks very carefully. A couple of times I found that I was trapped by rivers, unable to press home an attack. It makes you plan your deployment of reinforcements carefully and to take care all through thecombat phases.

I felt that the Arctic / Sub-Arctic block was very stong, and once taken relatively easy to hold onto. I thought it was worth passing those comments on. I know that the goal of the Arctic territories encouraged me to be more agressive than usual in my style of play and the steady supply of re-inforcments then kept me ahead of the rest of the players.

I hope you find my comments constructive not destructive. I know from my own job, feedback from beta test users is useful. I admit a lucky deployment, and opponents that did not look beyond their immediate location were the main reasons for my winning, but felt you might like the impressions of an outside player.

Keep up the good work, we need to have a variety of challenging maps to keep the game vibrant. I hope to play First Nations again out of bera.

Thank you,

Steve Lockley

by **Tisha** on Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:18 am

is there any way in xml to have a random territory start neutral?

by **ender516** on Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:53 am

Tisha wrote:is there any way in xml to have a random territory start neutral?

Only by having the right number of territories, I think. The only territories that become neutral randomly are those left over after dividing the non-start positions among the players (and of course the one-third share that go to neutral in a 1v1 game). So, a map with a prime number of territories will always have some neutrals. As long as the number of territories is not divisible by 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8, then there will always be some neutrals, no matter how many players there are.

by **Tisha** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:05 am

What would be the one neutral then? because I see nothing I would like to make a permanent neutral..

by **natty dread** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:35 am

Tisha wrote:What would be the one neutral then?

Of course the best territory of the map, so no one gets it

by **ender516** on Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:56 pm

Tisha wrote:What would be the one neutral then? because I see nothing I would like to make a permanent neutral..

I can only suggest what I said before, here: make Nimiipuu the one neutral. Then, there is no first turn advantage and, perhaps less importantly, no chance of getting the Plateau bonus on the drop.

by **MrBenn** on Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:25 am

If you're going to force a single neutral, if you wanted to, you could reduce it to a neutral 2 rather than a neutral 3.

by **Tisha** on Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:59 am

ender516 wrote:
Tisha wrote:What would be the one neutral then? because I see nothing I would like to make a permanent neutral..

I can only suggest what I said before, here: make Nimiipuu the one neutral. Then, there is no first turn advantage and, perhaps less importantly, no chance of getting the Plateau bonus on the drop.

Nimiipuu would just make it easier for certain other bonuses to be held

might be different if I make it a two

by **ender516** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:00 am

Tisha wrote:
ender516 wrote:
Tisha wrote:What would be the one neutral then? because I see nothing I would like to make a permanent neutral..

I can only suggest what I said before, here: make Nimiipuu the one neutral. Then, there is no first turn advantage and, perhaps less importantly, no chance of getting the Plateau bonus on the drop.

Nimiipuu would just make it easier for certain other bonuses to be held

might be different if I make it a two

Heck, if the point is to prevent the first turn advantage and the Plateau bonus on the drop, you could make it a one! That way, it affords only minimal protection to any other bonus, but still does all that stuff you want from a neutral.

by **pirateXbrian** on Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:54 am

Love it and don't change much please =D>

Only thing I would add is some "Canoe/Warship" routes, can be a little tricky making your way from top of the map to bottom......maybe in some of the hard to hold territories you can add "warrior societies/states" that where known for their war skills/chiefs and add like another bonus if you hold all 3 you get bonus...but keeping in mind there should be easier and harder ones to hold....and getting an easy one does not increase your winning chances that much as exaggerated by others...I think thats one of the best features of the map, lots of territories, bonuses, and options for victory! As for the north, well maybe change the names, but what could be done really....Inuk is Inuk right? Think you did an awesome job. But for peep who can't see the map...clickable maps works, never have a issue there, you can clearly see the divisions between territories....and if you don't use the scripts....like i had to at first....any new map seemed hard to follow (unless very basic) until i played the map a couple times....But if there is some way of changing (no real suggestion, lol) the way the intial troops get disbursed, that woiuld be good to; sometimes they just don't get disbursed evenly on team/multi player games.

All-in-all its great and don't tweak much as you can't satisfy everyone :-$

by **hiddendragon** on Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:10 pm

I love this map, don't change it Tisha. Remember when players wanted to rearrange it earlier with names and all, myself included, but you stuck to your guns and made a great map. I would hope we get it out of beta soon so I can begin using it for clan wars

PS, I haven't always won because of niimipu./salish bonus area