Dark Continent (Colonial Africa) [Quenched]

[The Bison King]

It's been a while since the last upload and I apologize. There really isn't even that much difference in this post. Morocco is now a french controlled territory.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[TaCktiX]

I suppose the parentheses still don't work for the bonuses. Short of making a bigger minimap or a table equating region to a bigger minimap I'm not sure what'll fix it, though you have a good portion of the top right of the map to mess with. Likewise, several territory names are hard to see due to the watercolor. Perhaps a white outer glow or something similar?

Other nitpicks:
- The minimap doesn't show Morocco's addition to French colonial control.
- Eq. Africa (from disputed regions) appears to have changed names to Congo on the map.
- Your mountains are three different colors for whatever reason. It's a little jarring considering they're only raw impassables with a color palette that doesn't support the different colors (though the Alps being white makes perfect sense).
- Guinnea-Bissau (well, that bit of legend in general) could use some glow to pull it out of the sea.
- Changing the assault directions to "...Atlantic and Indian Navies, but they revert back to 5 neutral when held on your next turn." would be A: better grammar, and B: standard killer neutral descriptor.

[The Bison King]

I suppose the parentheses still don't work for the bonuses. Short of making a bigger minimap or a table equating region to a bigger minimap I'm not sure what'll fix it, though you have a good portion of the top right of the map to mess with. Likewise, several territory names are hard to see due to the watercolor. Perhaps a white outer glow or something similar?

Other nitpicks:
- The minimap doesn't show Morocco's addition to French colonial control.
- Eq. Africa (from disputed regions) appears to have changed names to Congo on the map.
- Your mountains are three different colors for whatever reason. It's a little jarring considering they're only raw impassables with a color palette that doesn't support the different colors (though the Alps being white makes perfect sense).
- Guinnea-Bissau (well, that bit of legend in general) could use some glow to pull it out of the sea.
- Changing the assault directions to "...Atlantic and Indian Navies, but they revert back to 5 neutral when held on your next turn." would be A: better grammar, and B: standard killer neutral descriptor.

did I miss something? was this moved to graphics when I wasn't looking?

I do agree with pretty much everything you have said here. As follows:

- The minimap doesn't show Morocco's addition to French colonial control.

you're right, a mistake

- Eq. Africa (from disputed regions) appears to have changed names to Congo on the map.

Another mistake.

- Your mountains are three different colors for whatever reason. It's a little jarring considering they're only raw impassables with a color palette that doesn't support the different colors (though the Alps being white makes perfect sense).

Yes they will be re-done later. The yellowish ones are supposed to be sand dunes... I'll make them look better later...

- Guinnea-Bissau (well, that bit of legend in general) could use some glow to pull it out of the sea.

fair enough.

- Changing the assault directions to "...Atlantic and Indian Navies, but they revert back to 5 neutral when held on your next turn." would be A: better grammar, and B: standard killer neutral descriptor.

Again you are correct.

but these are all graphic concerns. Am I to assume everyone's happy with the gameplay? There's still a few things I'd like to fine tune, bonus values for one. I also have a different idea on how to do the naval territories. I'll do a post tomorrow with the idea. I may stick with what I have but I'd at least like to show you what I have in mind.

[TaCktiX]

No, they are gameplay clarification issues (except the mountains, that's graphics). If the gameplay as portrayed by the graphics is hard to understand, the gameplay is not done. Sure it's graphical changes, but clarity is a requirement to getting the gameplay stamp.

[The Bison King]

... ok well I didn't get a chance to work on it today. The idea is that I would strip the naval territories entirely. Instead European powers would be able to 1 way assault any of the 1 territory bonuses like Ivory coast, or Gold coast.

Another thought would be that those territories could assault the corresponding European power. Ivory Coast, for example, could be 1 way assaulted by Ottoman, Britain, Belgium ect... but could only assault France itself. Of course the trick with that is that I would need to add at least one of these territories for each power.

[Victor Sullivan]

... ok well I didn't get a chance to work on it today. The idea is that I would strip the naval territories entirely. Instead European powers would be able to 1 way assault any of the 1 territory bonuses like Ivory coast, or Gold coast.

Another thought would be that those territories could assault the corresponding European power. Ivory Coast, for example, could be 1 way assaulted by Ottoman, Britain, Belgium ect... but could only assault France itself. Of course the trick with that is that I would need to add at least one of these territories for each power.

Meh, I like the navies. The concept you've brought up doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, while the navies at least make some sense. Consider making the navies auto-decays instead of killer neutrals (you lose some ships to the treacherous water, instead of a tsunami or hurricane knocking them out in a turn). Maybe auto-decay of 2 or 3?

[MarshalNey]

Personally, I dislike the navies for the simple fact that they mimic the function of the naval superiority in that other map about European imperialism. Same function for a map of the same theme knocks the uniqueness of this map way down in my mind. The only real difference is that there's two instead of one.

A decay instead of a killer neutral would only be superficially different, as they both still try to penalize players for using the route.

I know that it probably won't help, especially at this stage, but what strikes me about New World, Eastern and this map is that none of them address the reason that the imperialists made the ventures in the first place, which was resources; conquest was just sort of a means to a more efficient gathering and proprietary labelling of those resources- be it slaves, gold, ivory, rubber, or other scarce materials. I read a book called "King Leopold's Ghost" about the Belgian administration of the Congo and it was all about finding rubber, enslaving natives to 'milk' the rubber and making profit off of having exclusive access to said rubber. Ironically, Leopold was seen as a humanitarian for his "efforts" in Africa due to his skillful propaganda- it took decades for any of his admirers to actually visit the place and expose the Belgian Congo as a giant slave factory for producing rubber.

Anyway, the overall balance of the map as it stands seems fine. I just get a strong vibe of the Eastern Hemisphere map right now, and the Navies are the most glaring similarity.

-- Marshal Ney

[The Bison King]

Meh, I like the navies. The concept you've brought up doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, while the navies at least make some sense. Consider making the navies auto-decays instead of killer neutrals (you lose some ships to the treacherous water, instead of a tsunami or hurricane knocking them out in a turn). Maybe auto-decay of 2 or 3?
Image

The biggest credit to the navies is that they do make sense. However the other system I've thought of might make things a little more even in terms of who has access to what. Concerning the auto decay vs. Killer I don't see much of a point in changing it. if it's -2 or -3 no ones going to leave anything on there anyway.

Personally, I dislike the navies for the simple fact that they mimic the function of the naval superiority in that other map about European imperialism. Same function for a map of the same theme knocks the uniqueness of this map way down in my mind. The only real difference is that there's two instead of one.

Personal I don't see that as a discredit. It worked for that map and it can work for this map. This is a similar map in theme and to my mind that's exactly why it does make sense.

A decay instead of a killer neutral would only be superficially different, as they both still try to penalize players for using the route.

agreed, it really makes little difference.

Concerning the resourced based stuff, it's interesting but it's not a direction I'm interested in.

Anyway, the overall balance of the map as it stands seems fine. I just get a strong vibe of the Eastern Hemisphere map right now, and the Navies are the most glaring similarity.

good, I will do a version with out the navies, the only problem that I need to resolve in doing so is finding a spot to add a colony for Belgium and Ottoman.

[The Bison King]

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Ok spent the majority of my morning working on this. Take some time to drink it in, read the legend, see how you feel about this as compared to the naval territories. I think he legend is clear on how it works but for reference those single region bonuses with the glow around them (listed in the bottom left) can be assaulted by any European Power. They can also assault back to their corresponding power. They are +1 with the corresponding power.

[TaCktiX]

Your legend has been afflicted by Typoes!

Landing Territories: +1 with the corrEsponding European power. They can be 1 way assAUlted by any European power and can attack their corrEsponding power.

And why can't we use a symbol instead of a text list for which territories are which? Text lists are a near-guarantee of confusion.

[The Bison King]

Your legend has been afflicted by Typoes!

Landing Territories: +1 with the corrEsponding European power. They can be 1 way assAUlted by any European power and can attack their corrEsponding power.

And why can't we use a symbol instead of a text list for which territories are which? Text lists are a near-guarantee of confusion.

Yes typos are abbuond, and you're probably right that a symbol would be less confusing. Personally I don't really like symbols but I can see where it would clean up the legend and make things easier to follow. That being said, this is a rather big change in the fundamental gameplay that you didn't comment on. What is your opinion of the actual change and not just the superficial elements that came with it?

[TaCktiX]

I'm an adherent in the No Problem Don't Mention ethos a little bit too much it seems. I see nothing wrong with it at all, and since in function it's almost identical to the former fleets (and more directly connected to New World's mechanic) it shouldn't be crazily messed up.

[The Bison King]

I'm an adherent in the No Problem Don't Mention ethos a little bit too much it seems. I see nothing wrong with it at all, and since in function it's almost identical to the former fleets (and more directly connected to New World's mechanic) it shouldn't be crazily messed up.

ah more of a "light touch" then. ok, well good. Yeah I think over all it should work pretty well, there are only 2 things that are a little bit weird.

One is that the Ottomans don't have a landing territory. Essentially all this means is that there is no direct link to "Ottoman" from Africa. This shouldn't be too weird since the empire is pretty close but still... The thing is that they really lost most of their African claims at this point. I might be able to justify adding an Ottoman territory between Lybia and France. It's not exactly historically accurate but it will make Gameplay a little more fair.

The other thing is that Britain has 3 landing spots. That is simultaneously an advantage and a disadvantage (since it offers more +1 bonuses but also more routes back to the homeland) so technically it should even out. There's a couple solutions. 1 is that I make Zululand a regular territory in the South Africa bonus. It makes sense but I like having a route from Europe to the extreme south of the map. Also I can turn British Somalia (or the hilariously labeled "B.S.") into French occupied Djibouti. I could do either of these independently or in tandem.

...

Or option 3 which might make the most sense. Make Zululand a regular territory & make B.S. an Ottoman Landing point. This would give each European power exactly 1 Landing point. The only thing about that is that I lose a European connection to The South of Africa (unless I just wipe Gold Coast as a territory all together) and it'll take some wonky backwards thinking to Justify making B.S. a Ottoman territory (which I am ok with for the sake of fair gameplay.)

[$nakeface]

Or option 3 which might make the most sense. Make Zululand a regular territory & make B.S. an Ottoman Landing point. This would give each European power exactly 1 Landing point. The only thing about that is that I lose a European connection to The South of Africa (unless I just wipe Gold Coast as a territory all together) and it'll take some wonky backwards thinking to Justify making B.S. a Ottoman territory (which I am ok with for the sake of fair gameplay.)

i think this might work well with zululand remaining the british landing point. since britain has so much why not just leave them with 2 landing points? and then since france has a lot maybe you could make s. madagascar a landing point to even out the connections in the south or something.

[The Bison King]

Click image to enlarge.

Here's the latest suggested version -Zululand being a Landing territory. I also added a little Icon to represent landing regions.

I'm having some thoughts where I'm starting to think the Naval territories were actually better and more natural for the over all gameplay. So what I'm going to do is get this how I like it and hold a poll to resolve this once and for all. Any objections?

[MarshalNey]

I've thought about it and I vastly prefer the current landing points over the navies. While the landing points will invite comparsions to the New World map and the navies will invite comparisons to Eastern Hempishere, this map has much more in common with the latter map than the former.

If you have an idea for a third option that is neither Navy nor Landing Point, that would be the most welcome. But otherwise, I think the neutral choke-point gameplay scheme for maps has been done a lot lately and this map will offer nothing new along those lines if it is implemented that way.

Anyway, feel free to make any poll you like, but remember that here in this part of the Foundry we don't get the wide attention of players like it would in, say, Beta testing. So the results may not be terribly illuminating.

-- Marshal Ney

[The Bison King]

Yes I believe that I too have come to the same conclusion. I think the landing territory system just makes more sense and gives players more options. The #1 advantage it has is a way of getting back to Europe if you are booted out of your homeland. Which I think will be integral. I don't think I will put up a poll for this one because my mind is pretty much made up. There's still a few things I want to change and add but the gameplay is getting pretty close to how I want it. I'll upload a new version soon, hopefully this weekend or before.

[The Bison King]

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Yay a new upload!

Changes

-Mountains added to the west of the South Africa Bonus
-South African bonus dropped to +2(3)
-Zululand removed from South African bonus & re-instated as a landing territory

[Victor Sullivan]

I think one thing that is certainly on the agenda is bonus area nomenclature! I'm worried as to if the names will be able to fit on the mini map or elsewhere...

-Sully

[The Bison King]

I think one thing that is certainly on the agenda is bonus area nomenclature! I'm worried as to if the names will be able to fit on the mini map or elsewhere...

-Sully

Yeah, I know what you mean. The thing that I was thinking though is... well I mean do they really need names? I mean as long as people know how much they're worth that's the only really important thing, right? I mean don't get me wrong I'd like to include them and I'm going to try and find a way, but if it can't be done is it really detrimental to the playability of the map?

[Victor Sullivan]

I think one thing that is certainly on the agenda is bonus area nomenclature! I'm worried as to if the names will be able to fit on the mini map or elsewhere...

-Sully

Yeah, I know what you mean. The thing that I was thinking though is... well I mean do they really need names? I mean as long as people know how much they're worth that's the only really important thing, right? I mean don't get me wrong I'd like to include them and I'm going to try and find a way, but if it can't be done is it really detrimental to the playability of the map?

Well, think of looking through the game log and having no idea what the +3 bonus so-and-so received was for... And also, it just makes things neat and yay.

-Sully

[The Bison King]

I think one thing that is certainly on the agenda is bonus area nomenclature! I'm worried as to if the names will be able to fit on the mini map or elsewhere...

-Sully

Yeah, I know what you mean. The thing that I was thinking though is... well I mean do they really need names? I mean as long as people know how much they're worth that's the only really important thing, right? I mean don't get me wrong I'd like to include them and I'm going to try and find a way, but if it can't be done is it really detrimental to the playability of the map?

Well, think of looking through the game log and having no idea what the +3 bonus so-and-so received was for... And also, it just makes things neat and yay.

-Sully

Yeah... I guess you're right. It's gonna be tricky but it can be done.

[The Bison King]

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Ok I've tried to fit in the Bonus names best I could on the mini map. Also I made all landing territories that are adjacent to bonuses of the same colony a darkened shade so that there should be no confusion.




(oh and I noticed I left off the little etchy edges. That's not cause I'm getting rid of that, it's an effect I add before exporting I just forgot this time)

[Victor Sullivan]

Not sure I'm a fan of them squished in the minimap, but they're bonus names, so I can't complain (until Graphics ). I assume those were names used around the time you're depicting?

Also, one thing you could try with the etched effect is use it on the inside of each bonus area. It would especially help make Leopoldville look separate from Belgian Congo without having to change its color.

-Sully

[The Bison King]

Not sure I'm a fan of them squished in the minimap

How else would you suggest I show them?

Also, one thing you could try with the etched effect is use it on the inside of each bonus area. It would especially help make Leopoldville look separate from Belgian Congo without having to change its color.

It will have the etched effect.