New York 1695 v15

[iancanton]

Recolored One King Street

i can see the troop count clearly now!

prepare for the possibility of being asked by someone to show the battery auto-deploy bonuses in the inset map.

is it easy to change the layout so that the playable area is on the left? battery c will be an obvious stacking spot in multi-player games and we don't want troop counts to fall off the visible area.

when u do the small map, the inset might have to be narrower, with some of the legend going above or below the current visible area, so that it all fits within 630 x 600. this does not need to be done yet, as u don't want be doing every change twice, although it's a good idea to do a rough draft soon of the small map image to ensure that it's not impossible.

the boats in the harbour are at a strange angle, almost upside-down. are u able to rotate them?

impassable walls are dotted lines and passable walls are solid lines, when they surely ought to be the other way round. an alternative is for all walls to be solid, but with opening doors like on an architect's plan. will the doors be visible enough compared with the arrows, which are at least clear?

the v5 update qualifies the map to be [moved] to the main foundry workshop.



onward and upward!


ian.

[Minister X]

Recolored One King Street

i can see the troop count clearly now!

prepare for the possibility of being asked by someone to show the battery auto-deploy bonuses in the inset map.
There's plenty of room near the top edge to add: "Batteries A, B and C autodeploy 1" maybe even with three arrows so the reference to Bat. C is clear. But you know what? Bat. C isn't really a fort like Bats A and B. Upon close examination it's more like a miniature "block" of buildings. I suggest I get rid of it entirely. I can give the King St. label and army number more room (see below).

is it easy to change the layout so that the playable area is on the left? battery c will be an obvious stacking spot in multi-player games and we don't want troop counts to fall off the visible area.
It wouldn't be very hard to change. The King St. army #'s are even closer to the edge but I can switch their position with street name. I checked very carefully and there would be room for those numbers to get to x99999 without even touching the border. Isn't that enough? And if I remove Bat. C as suggested above there will be no problem with this at all.

when u do the small map, the inset might have to be narrower, with some of the legend going above or below the current visible area, so that it all fits within 630 x 600. this does not need to be done yet, as u don't want be doing every change twice, although it's a good idea to do a rough draft soon of the small map image to ensure that it's not impossible. Will do. Good advice.

the boats in the harbour are at a strange angle, almost upside-down. are u able to rotate them? LOL. That's how they were on the original map. I thought it odd, too. I can rotate them.

impassable walls are dotted lines and passable walls are solid lines, when they surely ought to be the other way round. an alternative is for all walls to be solid, but with opening doors like on an architect's plan. will the doors be visible enough compared with the arrows, which are at least clear?
Open-door graphics might be possible everywhere but the narrow section of King Street. I don't think they'll be understandable/visible there. And I toyed with making some elsewhere. It's possible where there's room but they look weird because they're out of scale and they clutter the streets up. The streets are already cluttered with labels. I'd prefer a different solution. I certainly understand your issue about dotted and solid lines. Let's approach this with a blank slate. The bonus areas are essentially "city blocks" on the base map. Here's a blow-up of an unmodified bit of that base map:



I find this difficult to interpret. For instance, that "block" on the left, is it two building with an alley in between and does each have an inner courtyard with gardens or something? Or are there 50 or so buildings (all those little squareish bits)? And what did the mapmaker mean to display with all those dots in the insides of the blocks? Roofs? Open space? I think it must be open space. He made all those little squarish bits about the same size and shape, which can't be accurate. Let's assume some are residental units, some commercial. Now I checked, and the population of the area I've depicted in 1695 was about 4,000. And I estimate there are about 1500 of those little squares on the map. The math works out and common sense also would dictate that what we're seeing here are city blocks comprised of scores of individual buildings; the mapmaker has taken liberties to make things look simpler and more organized. Chances are that big unitary blocks like Three and Four King St. were actually warrens, strewn with alleys.

So... how to divide one of these artificial blocks up into terts? Maybe dotted lines around the outside and solid ones inside would make sense, since the perimeters of these blocks are comprised of scores of individual buildings. But solid lines inside blocks and dotted ones defining them might look weird. Let me experiment with colored lines and dashed lines and whatever else I can think of and make a visual suggestion. I'm sure we can come up with something that A) looks decent, B) isn't too illogical, and 3) makes things fairly easy for players.

the v5 update qualifies the map to be [moved] to the main foundry workshop.



Cool!

onward and upward!


ian.

[Minister X]

Let's see if this potential solution seems like I'm on the right track:



Changes: colored lines for passable and impassable borders; darkened black outside border where neither green or brown was appropriate; left army numbers off for now; changed the three autodeployed tert labels, edited/removed text as appropriate; didn't yet turn those ships right side up.

I'd say that this change has some advantages and disadvantages. Green for "go" is logical. Brown (red would look garish and what about red-green color blindness?) for "no-go" is understandable. Removing those rather ugly arrows is a plus. But overall the color scheme is, if not ruined, at least made somewhat less pleasing. That can perhaps be ameliorated by tinkering with the line colors. I didn't bother with such experiments yet because I want to see if the general idea is accepted.

The green/brown thing can be made even clearer if I add a legend/explanation in the now-available space near the lower right corner (or maybe in the brown area up top). Easy: two lines shown and "passable as normal" and "impassable".

I am more than ever of a mind to eliminate Battery C. It's inaccurate, it's anomalous, it's in the way, and it creates labeling and army number problems. OUT DAMN SPOT!

I think the Fort and Battery labels should go back inside the inset. Autodeploy info can go back into the long text or maybe up top as a bit of explanatory text instead of as now shown.

And now we come to a subject I've been reluctant to raise. Should the fort and batteries be able to bombard anything? If so, what? It hardly makes sense for them to bombard their own city. It would make a tiny touch more sense for them to bombard each other. I don't believe this map needs any more special rules but I admit that having structures that must obviously house cannon and not having any bombardment rules is a bit... disappointing. Any thoughts? Might we perhaps wait until play-test to decide?

NOTE: the bonus spreadsheet cannot be used to calculate perfect bonus amounts on this map since it doesn't anticipate terts within a bonus region being only indirectly accessible to one another. Bonuses will have to be assigned based on intuition and play-test. THE BONUS VALUES I'VE SHOWN ARE ENTIRELY TENTATIVE.

[Minister X]

Bad news. I just ran a color-blindness test and this latest map fails for both Red-Blind/Protanopia and Green-Blind/Deuteranopia. Together they afflict 2.4% of males. So ignore what I've said above regarding colors, I'll have to find a different combination.

Note: the color-blindness test website referenced in the guidelines for mapmakers seems to be nonfunctional. I used https://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/ - very easy, very quick.

[Minister X]

This revision combines a few real changes and a test of "passable doors".

• At Four B'Way and Three King St. small terts have been combined to allow more room for army numbers and the letters. It would have been impossible to downsize them successfully for the smaller map.

• Battery C is gone! (oops - forgot to erase it from the inset)

• Changed to better anchor icons.

• Battery and Fort text labels and autodeploy info altered/moved. Do I need little lines leading from "Batteries A and B each autodeploy one" to the two battery terts or is it obvious enough?

• Bombardment rules added. Please consider this as tentative and subject to play-test.

MOST IMPORTANT: instead of using colored lines, almost none of which would pass the colorblindness tests, I present two possible alternatives on this one map. East of Broad Street I've left the borders as is and added "doors" consisting of symbols usually used for bridges. West of Broad Street I've darkened the tert borders and used black dots to indicate the sides of openings or doors. I prefer the dots because they take up less space and don't create as cluttered a look, but I'd really appreciate some feedback. Which of these two methods is preferable? Is even the preferable one acceptable? If not, any ideas?

The main block of text still talks about colored lines; I'll fix that once we decide on doors.

NOTE:I've messed around with the tert borders so much they've gotten rather raggedy. Once all necessary dependent decisions have been made (doors, colors, whatever) I'll redo them entirely.

[Minister X]

I'm really hoping to get some feedback on the "MOST IMPORTANT" paragraph in my last post. I can't progress until I do.

While waiting, I played a game on the Iceland map. My opponent started with complete ownership of a 4-tert region that gave him a bonus of three and he got the first move. The game was over before it even started. Now you win some and you lose some, and that's to be expected. But this game was boring and pointless. As a result, when it comes to setting the starting positions on this NYC map, I'd like to do everything possible to make unfair drops impossible. It's already been noted that all streets and the Harbor will start neutral 2. In addition I believe the Fort and the Batteries should start neutral 3. That much is probably not controversial. But in addition I think that at least one tert in every bonus block should start neutral 3. There are 51 such terts in the 12 bonus areas. If one each starts neutral that leaves 39 terts available for initial deployment out of a total of 64 terts on the entire map. That would result in this:

2 players: 19 terts each - 1 extra neutral
3 players: 13 terts each - no extra neutrals
4 players: 9 terts each - 3 extra neutrals
5 players: 7 terts each - 4 extra neutrals
6 players: 6 terts each - 3 extra
7 players: 5 terts each - 4 extra
8 players: 4 terts each - 7 extra
9 players: 4 terts each - 3 extra
10 players: 3 terts each - 9 extra
11 players: 3 terts each - 6 extra
12 players: 3 terts each - 3 extra

Is that workable? Any complaints?

[HitRed]

Pearl Harbor starts with too few neutrals. Talk about an unbalanced start. Ouch!

[iancanton]

Do I need little lines leading from "Batteries A and B each autodeploy one" to the two battery terts or is it obvious enough?

to avoid using lines, u can label them as Battery A and Battery B instead of just A and B.

Bombardment rules added. Please consider this as tentative and subject to play-test.

Batteries can bombard, and be bombarded by, The Fort is less cumbersome than Batteries can bombard The Fort and it can bombard Batteries.

East of Broad Street I've left the borders as is and added "doors" consisting of symbols usually used for bridges. West of Broad Street I've darkened the tert borders and used black dots to indicate the sides of openings or doors. I prefer the dots because they take up less space and don't create as cluttered a look, but I'd really appreciate some feedback.

the dots look much neater and can represent stylised gateposts.

But in addition I think that at least one tert in every bonus block should start neutral 3.

placing starting neutrals in the 6-region blocks is not desirable because the latter will tend to end up with random neutrals anyway in a 2-player game.

ian.

[Minister X]

• Made all doors into "gateposts" using dots. (I like this - the overall effect is cleaner and the rule is nicely obvious.)
• Altered main text block to reflect that change.
• Altered text regarding batteries; moved names back to inset where they belong along with all other names.
• Removed Battery C from the inset.
• Cleaned up The Harbor - much neater now and ships are right side up.



Subject to additional comments/requests I think only two main tasks remain: 1) redo all those borders that have gotten blotchly from many manipulations; it may be possible to employ thinner borders and smaller gatepost dots, 2) make the smaller map.

Regarding the smaller map... This originally started 900 pixels wide but when Ian reminded me of standard sizes I reduced it to 800. The standard small map is 600 pixels wide. As a test I've made a quick 600-pixel-wide version with army numbers replaced so they are life-sized despite the map reduction. I've put these army numbers in the most awkward spots as a test. Let's see how everything looks...



It should work. Army numbers will overlay more border lines and some text will have to be enlarged (and possibly edited) but even at 600 I believe I can make it readable and playable. I may have to put ugly white blobs under the army numbers It won't be pretty but I think players expect some loss of esthetic appeal when they choose to play off the smaller map. I know I do. That said, if I could go a bit larger than 600 it would sure help. Ian: how about 680? 640?

[Minister X]

• Replaced all border/boundary lines with nice clean neat ones. They are thinner than before but easily visible.
• Made all connections into dotted "gateposts". They are smaller than before and I believe that's an improvement.
• Made new street-to-street boundaries and altered main text to explain them clearly.
• Replaced and updated the inset - it now no longer shows any borders, which were unnecessary there.
• Added shading to inset so all edges more or less match in appearance.
• Altered the location of several borders and in the process removed a few gateposts previously shown. (See below.)
• Combined terts B and C in Two B'Way. C was too small.




Should The Docks "A" have two gateposts or just one? A question like this can be asked about many terts. To date, street and tert border locations have determined the location and number of gateposts more than any insightful guesses about what would best support good gameplay. We could guess and argue about these questions but I suspect it would be best to wait until playtest starts before seriously tackling the issue.

What's next? When Ian specifies a size I'll make a smaller map. Other than that, I'm not sure what might be needed, though I'll of course remain open to suggestions for improvement.

[iancanton]

the standard small map size is 630 x 600.

ian.

[Minister X]

Small map -- 629x526 pixels.

It seems readable to me but there sure are a whole lot of army numbers squeezed into a small area. North Broad Street seems the worst. I forget how army numbers work when it's just one digit vs. more. If, when a single digit, it's where the right-most one now is, that would be bad. I could certainly just shift that whole # left a bit. In a pinch I could manipulate the buildings on either side (cut out a bit of each) to create a space for the street's #. Likewise, down on Whitehall Street I could extend that bit underneath the # out into the harbor some to make more room. There are several other places where #'s overlap border lines, such as Three King Street A. If necessary I can manipulate borders in all these places as needed. Alternatively, for this small map I can place white rectangles under every army #. I suspect that would look awful but it's an option. Another option would be to allow me more than 630 pixels in width. With 700 to work with I could probably improve matters significantly.

As I have no idea which of these alternatives might fit in best with the priorities of the CC cartographic philosophy I will defer completely to Ian.

[iancanton]

is it feasible to expand slightly the playing area, with the inset made narrower and shifted south-south-east and some of the text being moved to below one whitehall? there are potentially 74 pixels below the current map that aren't being used.

ian.

[Minister X]

I'll give it a try...

v9c Small



Doing as Ian suggested I was able to make the main map 8% larger, allowing more space for army numbers. There are still a few spots where they are problematic: Two B'Way A, N. Broad Street, and Three King St. A and E. But overall it's certainly better. Now I could make the inset map smaller and enlarge the main map a bit more but the improvement will be minor. The overall will improve but those trouble spots will still be troublesome.

[Donelladan]

Just want to drop by and say I think this map look awesome. Love the graphics, and love the idea as described in the first post. Hope you go forward with it.

[Minister X]

Thanks! It's my intention to pull the map along as far as possible.

[thirdplanet]

wow, this map looks incredible. can't wait to play it

[Minister X]

wow, this map looks incredible. can't wait to play it

I'm thrilled you like the looks, and I also can't wait to have an opportunity to play this map, but look beyond the mere appearance. (I think everyone likes that fort!) Consider the VERY ODD street and border rules -- all streets are killer neutrals and most terts only border a street -- and how that will affect play. For instance, just look at Two B'Way: to reinforce from "A" to it's neighbor "B" you'll have to conquer two streets that turn. On most maps, once you've advanced a few terts, you'll have terts in your rear you can garrison with just one troop. That will be almost impossible here. Consider later in a game, when folks are getting, say, a dozen troops per turn. To get from one corner of the map to another will require only blowing through three streets garrisoned with two neutrals; which means almost no holding anywhere will be safe!

UNDER THE CURRENT RULES THIS IS GOING TO BE ONE WEIRD MAP.

BTW, that makes me want to consider that unusual XML capability that would allow us to up the killer neutrals as the game progresses. For instance, we might want them all to increase by one every four turns, so that by turn 9 they revert to four neutral, not just two neutral. Or maybe every five or more turns. This map will have to be extensively play-tested. I suspect there will be very few short games played under the current rules.

And I want to prepare all the admirers of this map for the possibility that the first few test plays may reveal this map to be too unworkable as is, and that all those gateposts will have to disappear and all borders become normal ones. With all streets still being killer neutrals it will still be an odd map, but much less odd.

In short, try to picture a game under the current rules. What would you do turn one? What sort of strategy might work on this map? Imagine it with no spoils or with escalating ones. Imagine it in fog! You'd hardly see a thing since so few starting terts border another. Again: this is a very weird map! Curb your enthusiasm and expectations until it proves out.

[Minister X]

Also note: under the current rules this map will be unplayable with Trench or with adjacent reinforcement. Can we deal with that?

[Minister X]

Even if gateposts were eliminated and borders became porous this would still be unplayable with trench or adjacent reinforcement. You'd not be able to get from one bonus block to another so long as streets are killer neutrals. The problem is solved if streets instead become decay zones "troops remaining in streets at the end of your turn are reduced by two (but never to less than one)" -- using the XML decay trick. Trench and adjacent then become costly but not impossible. This also allows ownership of streets, which alters the strategies considerably.

Have I got all this correct? Am I overlooking anything?

[ZaBeast]

You can hit as many killer neutrals as you want in trench games, but any troops advanced on non-killer neutrals won't be able to attack anymore for the turn. You're right about the adjacents forts, but I don't think it would make the game unplayable. If you have a stack you want to fort somewhere you'd have to hit the road and advance it, then fort it out (which is also what would happen on a non-adjacent game). The only difference being that this couldn't happen if you take the street in question with another stack. Then you'd have to wait at least one more turn.

[i-andrei]

You can hit as many killer neutrals as you want in trench games, but any troops advanced on non-killer neutrals won't be able to attack anymore for the turn. You're right about the adjacents forts, but I don't think it would make the game unplayable. If you have a stack you want to fort somewhere you'd have to hit the road and advance it, then fort it out (which is also what would happen on a non-adjacent game). The only difference being that this couldn't happen if you take the street in question with another stack. Then you'd have to wait at least one more turn.

You are wrong here. You can attack a killer neutral, advance on it and are allowed to attack from it in the same turn.

[Donelladan]

You can hit as many killer neutrals as you want in trench games, but any troops advanced on non-killer neutrals won't be able to attack anymore for the turn. You're right about the adjacents forts, but I don't think it would make the game unplayable. If you have a stack you want to fort somewhere you'd have to hit the road and advance it, then fort it out (which is also what would happen on a non-adjacent game). The only difference being that this couldn't happen if you take the street in question with another stack. Then you'd have to wait at least one more turn.

You are wrong here. You can attack a killer neutral, advance on it and are allowed to attack from it in the same turn.

That's what he meant.

@Minister X, here are the rules, in case that was unclear :

Special Gameplay: Trench Warfare

With trench warfare you can only assault from regions held continuously since the start of your turn. If you conquer a region (or re-conquer a region) you cannot assault further from that region during the same turn. The one exception being 'killer neutrals' (explained on the Gameplay Notes page) from which you may continue assaulting. The game no longer involves steamrolling across the board. Instead you gradually advance your front!

Therefore also a great map for trench. Maps with killer neutral are usually even better suited for trench imho.

[Minister X]

Me trench-stoopid. (A malady akin to trench-foot-in-mouth.)

That's great news. But adjacent reinforcement is still a problem. Remember that many terts belonging to the same bonus block are separated by two streets. You'd never be able to reinforce from Two B'Way "A" to Two B'Way "B", for instance. That doesn't make the game impossible to play but it certainly imposes a grave limit on what can be done. To make that reinforcement you'd have to first cross Broad Way (s) to One B'Way "D" then next turn cross S. Broad Street to Three B'Way "A" then on a third turn you could cross Broad Way (c) to your destination.

I suspect that making streets -2 decay zones will play better all around. It makes games have more "phases" like opening, mid-game and end-game in chess. The first few turns you'll just want to build up troops. Then once you've got enough you can risk crossing a street and taking a second tert in a building. So far that's no different than if the streets were killer neutrals. In mid-game you'd have enough troops to be willing to risk having to leave some in streets, and later yet you'd actively seek to own streets despite the decay.

The problem with decay zones is trench. Unlike killer neutrals you'd HAVE to suffer the decay to get anywhere, which means an even slower start. But that's not a fatal flaw. As Ian noted above, the Feudal games have very slow starts but are very popular.

Perhaps if we use -2 decay the streets could start neutral 1 instead of neutral 2??

In any case, these issues can be decided during playtest. I'm just glad I was wrong about Trench rules!

[Donelladan]

Many maps are not nicely playable in adjacent.
For example feudal epic and feudal war, really difficult to get your troops out mid games, especially if it's adjacent trench.
Don't worry that one setting isn't suited for your map.
Fyi, I'd rather they stay killer neutral, makes it much more interesting imho. But ofc we should test that.