Reconquista

[natty dread]

Congrats p&b

[porkenbeans]

Congrats p&b

[the.killing.44]

Ew good lord, where did these stamps come from.

Well done on getting the long-deserved stamp!

[porkenbeans]

Now lets get this ball rolling. The gameplay has been worked out pretty good, if you ask me. Those of you that are interested in that stuff, I invite you to speak up, and let Bast hear any concerns that you may have. In the meantime, I will take this time to hammer out 2 or 3 versions to put up for a vote.

[porkenbeans]

Well it seems that the GP hs no objections. So, how about a stamp, and kick this map on up to GRAPHICS. I am anxious to get back to work on this puppy.

[theBastard]

I thought about objectives, something as in Baltic Crusades, but which ones? it is impossible (historicaly) to unite any shields (kingdoms - evey same shields represents any kingdom or county) but Portugal must stay free, so only rest of Iberia (Spain) should be united. and the map is more about Reconquista as about unite Spain...

[natty dread]

I'd say you have the same problem here as in Baltic crusades... the bonuses are way too high.

Let's say you hold Reino di galicia... If you hold the land area and the castles/towns/cities in it, that's 5 territories with 2 borders to defend... However that small area will give you 11 troops in total. That's way too much.

The problem with bonuses being too high is that it makes the map too much based on dice and drop... whoever manages to first secure a bonus will gain a huge advantage right from the start.

Your autodeploy bonuses are a nice idea, but I'd suggest lowering them a lot. Say, +2 for castles, +1 for cities, and scrap the autodeploy for towns, make it a regular bonus for them with a +1 for each 2.

Then cut the rest of the bonuses in half and we'll tweak them from there.

[theBastard]

I´m o.k. with all your notices, natty.

why your name is light brown (?) now?

[natty dread]

Read the newsletter and you'll know

[porkenbeans]

Read the newsletter and you'll know

I read it, but I did NOT see this map listed under maps in production.

Congrats on the promotion.

[natty dread]

Read the newsletter and you'll know

I read it, but I did NOT see this map listed under maps in production.

Congrats on the promotion.

Obviously we can't fit the whole foundry-ful of maps in each issue... If I remember correctly Reconquista was featured in the previous issue. Or the one before... either way I think it'll be featured again soon

And thanks...

[yeti_c]

It's really hard to work out the gameplay on this map - cos it's so cluttered... I look for 5 minutes - get a headache and give up...

C.

Well it seems that the GP hs no objections. So, how about a stamp, and kick this map on up to GRAPHICS. I am anxious to get back to work on this puppy.

[theBastard]

at which map you looked yeti_c? I think this one is fine. and with this as base we should go...

Click image to enlarge.

[porkenbeans]

It's really hard to work out the gameplay on this map - cos it's so cluttered... I look for 5 minutes - get a headache and give up...

C.

Well it seems that the GP hs no objections. So, how about a stamp, and kick this map on up to GRAPHICS. I am anxious to get back to work on this puppy.

For the longest time I was intimidated to play Waterloo. It just seemed too complicated, and hurt my eyes a bit as well.
But then one day I was forced to play it in a turny. Well, I had to bore down and study the map in detail. To my surprise it was NOT really as complicated as I thought, and in fact was very easy to understand.

This map is much like Waterloo in some respects. It looks very complicated upon first glance, but after you study it, it becomes very clear if you just put your mind to it. This is certainly NOT a Doodle board, so it will require some serious study. I think that you will be able to figure it out rather quickly. It does look very intimidating, but it is NOT that complicated as you first think.

[theBastard]

It looks very complicated upon first glance, but after you study it, it becomes very clear if you just put your mind to it. This is certainly NOT a Doodle board, so it will require some serious study. I think that you will be able to figure it out rather quickly. It does look very intimidating, but it is NOT that complicated as you first think.

pork, you hit the naill

[MarshalNey]

I think this map needs some work, visually- and I mean that in a gameplay sense, b/c porkenbeans you do wonderful graphics work

The trouble here is that there is so very, very much that each territory figures into in terms of bonuses. Representing it all is creating a visual overload that makes gameplay critique very difficult.

Here's what I mean:

-- Each territory has three symbols that represent characteristics which figure into bonuses, namely:
religion- Muslim or Catholic icon
settlement type- castle, town or city icon
allegiance- one of 14 different different shield icons

-- Settlement bonuses are the simplest; they use a straightforward autodeploy scheme

-- Religion bonuses work off of a table that looks for heterogenous icons of the same color

-- Allegiance bonuses are multi-layered (superbonus scheme) as follows:
(a) bonus for each shield pair
(b) bonus for holding all shields of one type
(c) bonus for holding all shields of two types that make up a region


In other words, each territory can potentially contribute to five different bonuses (settlement, religion, and allegiance bonuses a, b and c above). That is a lot to show on just one territory, and a lot for a player to keep in his or her head.

When I look at the bonus structure, I'm reminded a lot of a poker hand (and the Poker Club map, of course), except that playing cards use 2 symbols- suit and number- while this map uses 3 symbols- settlement, religion and allegiance. Admittedly one of this map's symbols doesn't combine for bonuses (settlement), so if one takes that out, one is looking at a poker hand scheme.

So, continuing with the Poker comparison, this map uses 6 different religion symbols (3 colors and two icons) and 14 different shields.

Poker playing cards use 4 different suit symbols (clubs, spades, hearts and diamonds) and 13 different numbers.

While the Reconquista scheme is a little more complex- 6/14 as compared to 4/13- it shouldn't be that much worse than say, the Poker Club map (which incidentally also doesn't give a territory bonus). However, visually Poker Club is fine, but Reconquista isn't yet.

My question, then, is why?

I'll think about it... I'm hoping that this approach bears fruit.

[natty dread]

I'd suggest just scrapping that whole religion bonus. It just makes the gameplay way too complicated without really adding anything of value... plus it will be hard to create any kind of balance with that many overlapping bonus schemes.

[MarshalNey]

It's really hard to work out the gameplay on this map - cos it's so cluttered... I look for 5 minutes - get a headache and give up...

C.

Well it seems that the GP hs no objections. So, how about a stamp, and kick this map on up to GRAPHICS. I am anxious to get back to work on this puppy.

For the longest time I was intimidated to play Waterloo. It just seemed too complicated, and hurt my eyes a bit as well.
But then one day I was forced to play it in a turny. Well, I had to bore down and study the map in detail. To my surprise it was NOT really as complicated as I thought, and in fact was very easy to understand.

This map is much like Waterloo in some respects. It looks very complicated upon first glance, but after you study it, it becomes very clear if you just put your mind to it. This is certainly NOT a Doodle board, so it will require some serious study. I think that you will be able to figure it out rather quickly. It does look very intimidating, but it is NOT that complicated as you first think.

Your statement has some merit- complex gameplay doesn't always equal bad gameplay. Waterloo is popular enough to demonstrate that. Furthermore, "figuring out" a complex map will always take more than 5 seconds of study.

However, this doesn't give the whole picture.

Waterloo, for instance, does have a few issues that aren't explained in the legend- the most notorious is the fact that troops cannot attack out of cannons. The possibility is vaguely implied in the legend, but I distinctly recall having to experiement the first time that I played the map in order to confirm it. Also, the abbreviations in Waterloo and the territory types of Farm and Village are also hazy.

No, this isn't a critique of Waterloo- I do like the map. My point is simply that the map could be better, and that I know of a few players who tried it and swore it off because of these "holes" in the legend.

So, what about Reconquista?

Well, there's a fair amount of cleanup that could improve the clarity of the legend, such as:

1) "The standard +3 bonus does not apply" This is a biggy. It shouldn't be sideways and squished in a corner. Players are almost guaranteed to miss it. Furthermore, I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that not only do players not get their base +3, but that territory count contributes nothing period? If this is correct, then it's better not to mention "+3" at all. Simply say something like, "There is no bonus for the number of territories held," or, "Territories bonus does not apply," etc.

2) Settlement bonus legend. Things can often be simplified by taking out common traits and stating them once. In this case, all of the settlement types autodeploy troops, so just put that at the top as "Autodeploy(ed) Bonuses" Then, list the type and the numerical bonus (in a larger font size please).
Example-
Autodeploys
(castle symbol) (city symbol) (town symbol)
Castle, +4 City, +3 Town, +2

3) Shield legend. Some grammar issues mostly. Change the top line to "+1 for each Shield pair of the same type" (or some variant on that).
Second line could read, "Hold all Shields of the same type for the bonus listed below." (or some variant thereof)
As for the superbonus, it's very sneakily listed off to the side right now. I'd put it on a line above or below the box, and say "+X for holding both"
Finally, I've no clue as to whether a larger bonus replaces a smaller bonus or if they are cumulative. For instance, if I hold all 4 shields of one type, do I get +2 for holding two shield pairs, in addition to the kingdom bonus?

4) Religion legend. There are a lot of superfulous words here.
For the symbols, it doesn't need to be specified that they are 'religious icons'. Simply say Christian (or Catholic) and Moorish (or Islamic). That might save some space for the future.
Also, change the instruction to, "Hold icons of the same color for the bonus listed below." (or some variant on that)
Then, there's the table.

"The same religious" and "Other religious" should be separated onto two different lines, it starts to look like each word applies crosswise to the numbers. Again, we don't have to specify religion (everyone knows Christianity and Islam are religions). Just say "Same type" (or icon) and "Other type" (or icon) and put them above the numbers, instead of beside the numbers.

[MarshalNey]

I'd suggest just scrapping that whole religion bonus. It just makes the gameplay way too complicated without really adding anything of value... plus it will be hard to create any kind of balance with that many overlapping bonus schemes.

From a gameplay standpoint, that would make some sense, but thematically it's problematic.

Historically, the roots of the Reconquista rest in religion. Religion was the unifying force that brought the Christian kingdoms together to defeat the Moors, according to Spanish legend. The Reconquista story became a part of Catholic Spain's culture, a story of the inevitable triumph of the Church militant.

I'm not saying that the map couldn't work without the religion gameplay, or a simplified version. I'm just saying that religion deserves some mention on a map called Reconquista.

[natty dread]

Well, some simplification of the bonus system is needed. I mean, currently, you can hold pretty much any combination of territories and get some bonus out of it...

[porkenbeans]

MN,
I hear ya, and agree with most everything that you said about the legend. English is not Bast's first language, so we will need to help with tightening it up a bit. On my next version I was thinking about trying a different font for the map. If you would be willing to do an overhaul on the legend, and Bast approves it, I will include it on the next version.

[theBastard]

The trouble here is that there is so very, very much that each territory figures into in terms of bonuses. Representing it all is creating a visual overload that makes gameplay critique very difficult.

Here's what I mean:

-- Each territory has three symbols that represent characteristics which figure into bonuses, namely:
religion- Muslim or Catholic icon
settlement type- castle, town or city icon
allegiance- one of 14 different different shield icons

-- Settlement bonuses are the simplest; they use a straightforward autodeploy scheme

-- Religion bonuses work off of a table that looks for heterogenous icons of the same color

-- Allegiance bonuses are multi-layered (superbonus scheme) as follows:
(a) bonus for each shield pair
(b) bonus for holding all shields of one type
(c) bonus for holding all shields of two types that make up a region

my idea was to do map with more bonus possibilities. I personaly do not like maps only with regional bonuses (without any combination or some extra things).

I think settlement bonuses are simple and player do not must much think about this. he/she must only remember that settlements get him/her auto-deploy units.

about religion bonuses, hm yes this one need any edit. but the religious was very important (this was what united christians) and here the religious icons also representing that Portugal conquered south-west part, Castila-Leon south-central part and Aragon south-east part of Iberia.

shield bonuses are builded on historic accuracy. do not forgot that christian kingoms/counties did not fought only against muslims, but also between them.
mybe we should kick off multiple regional (shield) bonuses...?

I'd suggest just scrapping that whole religion bonus. It just makes the gameplay way too complicated without really adding anything of value... plus it will be hard to create any kind of balance with that many overlapping bonus schemes.

yes, as I wrote upper the religious bonuses need any change.

1) "The standard +3 bonus does not apply" This is a biggy. It shouldn't be sideways and squished in a corner. Players are almost guaranteed to miss it. Furthermore, I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that not only do players not get their base +3, but that territory count contributes nothing period? If this is correct, then it's better not to mention "+3" at all. Simply say something like, "There is no bonus for the number of territories held," or, "Territories bonus does not apply," etc.

agreed.

2) Settlement bonus legend. Things can often be simplified by taking out common traits and stating them once. In this case, all of the settlement types autodeploy troops, so just put that at the top as "Autodeploy(ed) Bonuses" Then, list the type and the numerical bonus (in a larger font size please).
Example-
Autodeploys
(castle symbol) (city symbol) (town symbol)
Castle, +4 City, +3 Town, +2

again agreed.

3) Shield legend. Some grammar issues mostly. Change the top line to "+1 for each Shield pair of the same type" (or some variant on that).
Second line could read, "Hold all Shields of the same type for the bonus listed below." (or some variant thereof)
As for the superbonus, it's very sneakily listed off to the side right now. I'd put it on a line above or below the box, and say "+X for holding both"
Finally, I've no clue as to whether a larger bonus replaces a smaller bonus or if they are cumulative. For instance, if I hold all 4 shields of one type, do I get +2 for holding two shield pairs, in addition to the kingdom bonus?

as I said upper, we can maybe kick off superbonuses (what is not historic accuracy). the problem is that there are much things (bonuses) to explain in legends and there is not enough place in legends (hope only with my bad english ).

yes, the idea is that larger bonus replace everytime smaller bonus. they are not cumulative! this should looks also complicated, but I think it is logic.

here I must stop for a minute. as natty said the regional/shield bonuses are too high, so he want to cut them at half. than bonus for holding two the same shields are out. why? because now small regions have bonus +2, when we will cut these to +1 it means +1 for hold three the same shields. again complications...

4) Religion legend. There are a lot of superfulous words here.
For the symbols, it doesn't need to be specified that they are 'religious icons'. Simply say Christian (or Catholic) and Moorish (or Islamic). That might save some space for the future.
Also, change the instruction to, "Hold icons of the same color for the bonus listed below." (or some variant on that)
Then, there's the table.

agreed

"The same religious" and "Other religious" should be separated onto two different lines, it starts to look like each word applies crosswise to the numbers. Again, we don't have to specify religion (everyone knows Christianity and Islam are religions). Just say "Same type" (or icon) and "Other type" (or icon) and put them above the numbers, instead of beside the numbers.

o.k.

MN,
I hear ya, and agree with most everything that you said about the legend. English is not Bast's first language, so we will need to help with tightening it up a bit. On my next version I was thinking about trying a different font for the map. If you would be willing to do an overhaul on the legend, and Bast approves it, I will include it on the next version.

english is my third language (when I look on my knowledge). pork, good luck with another font, I tried about 15 types. just please try to use any old type.

I will hear all yours notices about english guys.

again, please try to hold religious in map. the religious difference was problem during all medieval times (and damned not only at this time).

thanks for your help and feedbacks.

[porkenbeans]

Yes, I like the font that we have now, but there is some blurriness going on. I would like to make it more crisp. I will see if I have a font that is close to it. If not I will need to learn how to upload fonts to my photoshop. I tried once before but gave up because i just could not understand how to do it.

[theBastard]

pork, you do not need add fonts to photoshop. just download fonts from internet (if they will be RAR files, extract them by WinRAR) and add them to: computer/C/Windows/fonts.

[natty dread]

pork, you do not need add fonts to photoshop. just download fonts from internet (if they will be RAR files, extract them by WinRAR) and add them to: computer/C/Windows/fonts.

This is correct. After you do this, if you have photoshop open, you will probably have to restart photoshop to be able to use them (I'm not sure but that's how it works with my software).