koontz1973 wrote:I will look at putting in some settlements like the mountains and forests, but will not make them part of the game play. That will bring the life you are looking for.
Yeah, I like the sound of that.
--Andy
Moderator: Cartographers
koontz1973 wrote:I will look at putting in some settlements like the mountains and forests, but will not make them part of the game play. That will bring the life you are looking for.
by sannemanrobinson on Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:17 am
I'm still missing something in both maps, call it a theme or something to relate to. Are there inhabitants on these islands? Some villages and roads like on the Oasis map could show this.
generalhead wrote:On the Austrum map Is your troops +1 legend a different color or opacity than the rest of the legends?
BisdeCapri wrote:Beautiful !
nolefan5311 wrote:We'll go ahead and get this one moved on up to the the MFW. Congrats koontz...
generalhead wrote:I think your winning conditions and your decay are worded good. The only thing that is confusing is the min-3. Do you need to have that in there?
DoomYoshi wrote:Can we have more interesting names for the territories than OT1 etc. These have the potential to be really rich maps, but that is holding me back from accepting them as the successor to AoR.
koontz1973 wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:Can we have more interesting names for the territories than OT1 etc. These have the potential to be really rich maps, but that is holding me back from accepting them as the successor to AoR.
Adding Latin names as we speak. These where always place holders to see if any interest was to be found. Also, it made the bonus regions easier to find and understand as I do not want to colour the land more than glows.
AndyDufresne wrote:Looking good so far, I'll have to give these maps a better look over soon.
--Andy
nolefan5311 wrote:I agree, these look great.
koontz, if they're not already there (I haven't checked) can you post an image in the first post of which regions start neutral and what they start as?
Also, some of the text in the corner circles are a little hard to read. I really like the font, but it's hard to read for me. Also, for Austrem, I think the winning condition needs to be changed since its tough to tell which ships are Exploratorum (only the ones in the upper right sea?), and which ones aren't.
DoomYoshi wrote:Misc. Thoughts
Vertex:
15 territories is too many for a victory condition. An 8-player No Spoils would never finish.
Austrum
Baird sucks too much to be a starting point. Also, having killer starting positions is an extremely controversial decision... I figured we would no longer do that after the "Dust Bowl Dust Up".
Both:
The positions don't correlate to each other very well. In Vertex Rho and Cos are adjacent, but in Austrum, they are quite seperate. I was assuming this is too poles of the same world, is this not the case?
koontz1973 wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:Misc. Thoughts
Vertex:
15 territories is too many for a victory condition. An 8-player No Spoils would never finish.
It would then just end up being a normal game of elimination. I can understand that the 15 might be high for 8 player no spoils, but 8 player esc game, the first round of spoils go to 25 and that might make it to low.
If someone has victory conditon, there is a decent chance that another player can hit any one of the 15 terts though. Needs more input from others I guess, I rarely if ever go for victory conditions.Austrum
Baird sucks too much to be a starting point. Also, having killer starting positions is an extremely controversial decision... I figured we would no longer do that after the "Dust Bowl Dust Up".
Hayes is in the same position as Baird. But the starting positions for the ships is not a crucial one to stay in the game. They are just part of the normal deploy. But as the winning condition is to hold Meridiem and 5 ships, I wanted all players to start with at least one in all games. In a two player game, each player will get 16 territs over all. (2 ships, 6 from the middle and 8 going around the outside). I would consider only having one or two in the middle given out as the positions. Then I can balance the game better for the ships. So Baird and Hayes would get a territ close to Meridiem whilst the others further out. As for the decays being starting positions, Dust bowl should be sorted now as a new xml was written and I have decays as positions in Rorke's Drift so I do understand some players feelings toward this.
I mean that Baird sucks, because it only connects to a single land territory, and that territory is a decay. Hayes connects to 2 land territories, one of which is not a decay. The man-in-the-middle element doesn't help either.Both:
The positions don't correlate to each other very well. In Vertex Rho and Cos are adjacent, but in Austrum, they are quite seperate. I was assuming this is too poles of the same world, is this not the case?
Both have latin names. It gives a other world feel whilst grounding the maps in reality. I used lakes and rivers as place names became to recognisable. Will make sure to go around and remove any name that is duplicated.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users