New York 1695 v15

[iancanton]

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.

the small map is nearly there regarding troop counts. in places such as three king street, u'll need to swap some of the region names with their troop counts, so that the latter don't run into their neighbours if extreme stacking occurs.

to help u to plan the layout, a 1-digit troop count is centred between the p and the first 3, while a 2-digit count is positioned on the p and first 3; for counts of 3 or more digits, the position of the first two digits matches the p and first 3, with subsequent digits being added to the right.

is it my imagination or are the building walls less sharp than initially? do thinner walls work or do they not combine well with the gateposts?

was broad way two words, compared with the modern broadway? is there a reason u called the sections broad way (n), for example, which looks more cumbersome than broad way n? i'm not a fan of broad street being divided into n. broad street and s. broad street, which is inconsistent with the treatment of broad way; not only is the punctuation different, but it implies two different streets and not two sections of the same street.

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.

during one turn, i believe u can attack broad way (s) followed by broad way (c), which are both killer neutrals and therefore don't count, then fort to the anchor. u do lose 5 or 6 troops along the way, so u have to be convinced that it's worth it! however, i admit that i haven't personally tried adjacent forting across consecutive killer neutrals. the only map i can recall that has consecutive killer neutrals is salem's switch, where the roads are k1 killer neutrals, but u can attack within the same block without using the roads.

ian.

[Minister X]

the small map is nearly there regarding troop counts. in places such as three king street, u'll need to swap some of the region names with their troop counts, so that the latter don't run into their neighbours if extreme stacking occurs.

I'll work on this.

is it my imagination or are the building walls less sharp than initially? do thinner walls work or do they not combine well with the gateposts?

On my screen I see jaggies on the old thick walls, none on the thinner new ones. If it weren't for those jaggies I see I'd have a hard time choosing between the two; it's a matter of taste, I suppose. But look closely at those thick lines - don't you see rough edges?

was broad way two words, compared with the modern broadway? is there a reason u called the sections broad way (n), for example, which looks more cumbersome than broad way n? i'm not a fan of broad street being divided into n. broad street and s. broad street, which is inconsistent with the treatment of broad way; not only is the punctuation different, but it implies two different streets and not two sections of the same street.

I was surprised to see on the old map that "Broad Way" was two words. I adopted that old style. I'll change the names to N. Broad Way, C. Broad Way and S. Broad Way unless someone can come up with something better. I'd also be willing to use the modern "Broadway", though I think the old form lends some interest to the map. Just like me upon first exposure to this, folks will think, "Huh. That's interesting. I wonder when and why it changed to one word." And BTW two words makes some sense. "Way" is akin to "street" or "road".

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.

during one turn, i believe u can attack broad way (s) followed by broad way (c), which are both killer neutrals and therefore don't count, then fort to the anchor. u do lose 5 or 6 troops along the way, so u have to be convinced that it's worth it! however, i admit that i haven't personally tried adjacent forting across consecutive killer neutrals. the only map i can recall that has consecutive killer neutrals is salem's switch, where the roads are k1 killer neutrals, but u can attack within the same block without using the roads.

I'm confused. With adjacent reinforcement can you nevertheless fort across more than one tert if they are killer neutrals? (Just as you can attack across more than one with trench rules if they are killer neutrals?) If so, that further removes the difficulty of playing this map with those rules, but as Donelladan said, not all maps work well with all rules.

[ZaBeast]

I'm confused. With adjacent reinforcement can you nevertheless fort across more than one tert if they are killer neutrals? (Just as you can attack across more than one with trench rules if they are killer neutrals?) If so, that further removes the difficulty of playing this map with those rules, but as Donelladan said, not all maps work well with all rules.

If you need to take those killer neutrals, then yes because the stack will move along. You can't bypass forting rules because they are killer neutrals though, so you couldn't fort directly from a building tert from another building tert

[Minister X]

Changes:

• I carefully went through every letter and army number, repositioning most at least a little. It really helped learning how they expand rightward from the current letter position. Unless I've overlooked any all should now be expandable to letter plus four digits without covering up anything essential such as a letter or gatepost or street name. A few on the small map may half-cover a gatepost.

• Changed the three "Broad Way" street names. I think the abbreviations "No.", "So." and "Mid." are the most intuitive and clear.

• Repositioned a few street names just a touch. Repositioned one anchor.

LARGE AND SMALL V10:

[iancanton]

is it my imagination or are the building walls less sharp than initially? do thinner walls work or do they not combine well with the gateposts?

On my screen I see jaggies on the old thick walls, none on the thinner new ones. If it weren't for those jaggies I see I'd have a hard time choosing between the two; it's a matter of taste, I suppose. But look closely at those thick lines - don't you see rough edges?

i do. by thinner walls, i meant the non-jaggedy v5 ones. v8 looks horrible and v10 is decent.

I'm confused. With adjacent reinforcement can you nevertheless fort across more than one tert if they are killer neutrals? (Just as you can attack across more than one with trench rules if they are killer neutrals?) If so, that further removes the difficulty of playing this map with those rules, but as Donelladan said, not all maps work well with all rules.

If you need to take those killer neutrals, then yes because the stack will move along. You can't bypass forting rules because they are killer neutrals though, so you couldn't fort directly from a building tert from another building tert

ZaBeast explains things very well: under the adjacent forts setting, u can fort to another building after attacking a street first and advancing the attacking troops to the street, but not if u don't attack anything.

have u tried using slightly different shades of tan for each street, rather than brown borders? it's simply because lines on this map tend to be impassable.

ian.

[Minister X]

is it my imagination or are the building walls less sharp than initially? do thinner walls work or do they not combine well with the gateposts?

On my screen I see jaggies on the old thick walls, none on the thinner new ones. If it weren't for those jaggies I see I'd have a hard time choosing between the two; it's a matter of taste, I suppose. But look closely at those thick lines - don't you see rough edges?

i do. by thinner walls, i meant the non-jaggedy v5 ones. v8 looks horrible and v10 is decent.

You're right about v5 - those lines look great. (And about v8.) I opened the v5 .PSD to try to figure out why. Those lines are 2 pixels wide whereas v10's are 3. Also, the lines in v5 are at 63% opacity. I'll see what I can do to get v11 looking more like v5.

have u tried using slightly different shades of tan for each street, rather than brown borders? it's simply because lines on this map tend to be impassable.

I just experimented with this. Unfortunately, the color differences would have to be dramatic for them to be sufficiently visible, and that results in rainbow-colored streets that look absolutely awful. And that's before I've even run a test for colorblindness, which would probably require even greater distinction between colors. Let me suggest two possibilities for v11: either different street borders (maybe even some sort of "street sign" icon?) and/or more of an explanation in the text, though I already say "Brown street borders are normal...".

...So I continued experimenting and I think I've found something better: lines of burnt orange square dots. They look good and are quite visible. There's room below "The Harbor" to insert a sample and an explanation. v11 coming soon to a screen near you!

[HitRed]

Cobblestones?

[Minister X]

[Minister X]

v11 changes:

• All black border lines replaced.
• Street borders changed and explanation added lower right.
• The underlying base map had lines that obscured the gap between gateposts - these were erased.
• Some bonus text in the inset moved a touch. Fixed where the base map and various overlays didn't match 100%. Other such tiny fixes.



I chose dotted squares for the street borders because dots seem more porous than solid lines, emphasizing that players can freely pass through them. In three places around Three and Five King St. I made the dots appear as a sideways stack of two instead of a line crossing the street. This is because the streets there are too narrow for even just two dots to fit. One dot alone is too easy for a player to overlook. I realize this is not ideal. Using solid lines would solve this but then the implication of porosity is lost. Any opinions or ideas about this?

[HitRed]

One King street has walls off the walls.

At first look the orange squares look confusing, are they a path or an obstetrical? They also seriously distract from the map art. The orange doesn't seem 1695. Can you do a few streets with different tan or a cobblestone effect? Or use the doorways but in the streets?

[Minister X]

...use the doorways but in the streets?

Brilliant! Except many streets (alleys) are too narrow to accommodate gateposts. I'd have to practically start from scratch and reduce the size of about six blocks of buildings so as to widen streets sufficiently. This is not impossible but it would be a LOT of work. I'd have to alter the base map and color overlays, redraw ALL lines, and shift half the names and numbers. I'm willing to do it, but not as a mere, "Hey, let's try this and see how it looks..." sort of deal. Sorry, but we're talking about maybe five hours of work. So I've prepared a rough-and-ready facsimile of what gateposts in streets would look like and I ask for final buy-in to this look before I prepare v12. I realize that's asking a lot, but I'm begging you to have some pity on this poor cartographer. Besides, I don't think it's too hard of a call. This is THE solution. Some of these gateposts are too cramped but when I do it for real I'll fix that. At this point please just look at the overall effect, consider how much simpler it will be to explain borders to players, and give some consideration to possible alternatives. So far none of them have been halfway as good as this.

That said, there is a bit of a problem. Streets don't have walls with gateposts in them like buildings do. Not like this. This solves all previous problems but creates that new one. Gateposts will no longer "mean" quite what they meant before. That's why I've made the "street gateposts" brown. I tried black. It made the "streets don't have walls with gateposts in them like buildings do" problem worse. Brown is an improvement. It differentiates what's in the streets from what's on the buildings, at least a little. We can play with colors on this rough-and-ready sampler if necessary. In fact we can play with their color until v100, but converting everything I mentioned means that I must ask for buy-in to the gatepost idea before changing the real map.

[HitRed]

I like the wood look more. Instantly easy to understand.

The real solution is shading the streets slightly different. Maybe one section of street with a 20% dot brown overlay. Another with a 33% oblong slight gray overlay. You get the point. This goes back to the cobblestone streets idea.

Your doing great.

HitRed

[Minister X]

I'm not sure what you mean by the "wood look". Perhaps you can refer to a version number?

Here's one we can call v11c (brown gateposts being v11b).



I ran it through the colorblindness tests at https://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/. It fails many of them. I could try all sorts of combinations of subtle color differences but I suspect nothing will pass until colors are stark and bold, which would ruin the look of the map. Even just these slight differences in tone make the map seem more confusing to me. With the blocks of buildings all being colored the streets must be plain and consistent. Otherwise what had been easy to read becomes a crazy quilt.

I'm afraid it has to be lines of one sort or another, thick or thin, dotted or solid, colored or black or gray, with or without gateposts or something similar. I've tried several gate and fence icons. They end up too small and won't work.

[iancanton]

...use the doorways but in the streets?

Brilliant! Except many streets (alleys) are too narrow to accommodate gateposts. I'd have to practically start from scratch and reduce the size of about six blocks of buildings so as to widen streets sufficiently.

for clarity of street movement, v11b is the best so far. if the gates go diagonally across the narrow alleys, to give each half-barrier enough length to be clearly visible, then do u still need to move buildings?

the multicoloured pastel quilt of v11c doesn't fit the dangerous nature of the streets. to represent different street sections, try either three shades of tan or the same colour on all roads with three different textures, such as plain, cobblestone pattern and dots.

ian.

[Minister X]

for clarity of street movement, v11b is the best so far. if the gates go diagonally across the narrow alleys, to give each half-barrier enough length to be clearly visible, then do u still need to move buildings?

I'm guessing that you didn't realize that 11b already has widened streets. In any case I agree it's the best so far. And if I'm going to widen streets for real, I can widen them enough that diagonal gateposts won't be needed.

the multicoloured pastel quilt of v11c doesn't fit the dangerous nature of the streets. to represent different street sections, try either three shades of tan or the same colour on all roads with three different textures, such as plain, cobblestone pattern and dots.

I've tried these solutions on my own and can post samples of them as I did above for slightly different shades/hues on the streets. But trust me - they don't work and you'll realize that as soon as you see the mock-ups. The island consists of two essential elements, streets and blocks of buildings. Only one of these elements can display any significant variation in color, tone or texture. When both elements vary you have a mess. Having the streets be uniform is what allows the buildings to vary in the abnormal manner they do.

I'll widen the streets and post v12 soon.

[HitRed]

The area North of New York appears to have a texture. How did you do that?

[Minister X]

Selected the area, filled it with a texture, reduced transparency to 16%. I did the same thing with the streets but with even more transparency.

[Minister X]

• Map enlarged to 840 by 664 to help create room for street gateposts
• Building block shapes altered for same reason
• As a result, one tert removed (from Three King St.) There are now 62.
• As a result, tert shapes altered in places and thus gatepost locations altered
• Likewise, all borders and gateposts redone
• Gatepost between Mid Broad Way and S. Broad St. removed - they should not connect.
• Explanatory text altered appropriately. "All borders are impassable except through gateposts that look like this:"
• A bit of new texture was applied to the streets - more than before but not by much



I employed three-digit army numbers to ensure I had an excess of room. In two places along the west side of Broad Way they extend across borders but that's okay. Ditto on Whitehall Street. The colors of army numbers were manipulated by me to make it easier for me to find ones I needed to move around. They do not match "real" army number colors. Those were used previously and it was determined they were quite readable against the pastel backgrounds.

Whoops! I missed a gatepost for The Yards B.

I believe these gateposts are fine. The dots are four pixels wide. I looked at five - way, way too big. I could enlarge them to 4.5 pixels (effectively) by enlarging that layer by 100%, using 9-pixel dots, then reducing that layer by 50%. It might work but I'm worried they might become jaggy or misshapen. I'll try it.

[HitRed]

That looks great!!! The gatepost are no longer wooden and brown in color? Anyway I like it!

[Minister X]

In one previous version just the street gateposts were brown. I think it's less confusing if they are all black. Players will more readily realize that all gates behave the same, plus it just looks better.

[HitRed]

Looks great!

[Minister X]

I forgot to mention, with v12, because I changed the number of terts and the conformation of some I also revised the bonus amounts. Because of the weird rules, no standard calculation of bonuses is possible so these are just guesses and final bonuses will have to rely on the results of playtesting.

[iancanton]

I was surprised to see on the old map that "Broad Way" was two words. I adopted that old style. I'll change the names to N. Broad Way, C. Broad Way and S. Broad Way unless someone can come up with something better.

in modern new york, a different direction before a street name implies either a different building numbering system, for example east 42nd street and west 42nd street, or a different street completely, for example east broadway and west broadway. on this map, the sections of both broad way and broad street keep the same building numbering system and are divided into sections only for our convenience, so i suggest that the directions are placed after the road name giving, for example, broad way c and broad street n. this also has the advantage that sections of the same street appear together in the drop-down boxes when playing a turn.

for gameplay purposes, the v12 gates in the street appear to be fully satisfactory.

Explanatory text altered appropriately. "All borders are impassable except through gateposts that look like this:"

change it to all black lines are impassable except through gates that look like this. borders are borders precisely because they're passable. what u've drawn is a gate, while gateposts are the black dots by themselves. a full stop is missing after the gate.

there are two full stops instead of one after instead of just two.

in the legend, to go is more precise than to get.

is streets revert to two clear enough, or is streets revert to neutral needed?

Because of the weird rules, no standard calculation of bonuses is possible so these are just guesses and final bonuses will have to rely on the results of playtesting.

while the bonuses certainly need testing, there are some that are already known to be too unattractive to play a major part in most games, for example three broad way and four king street are +5, whereas they make more sense at +8 and +7 respectively, especially when compared with the fort at +3 auto.

have u decided which regions will start neutral?

ian.

[Minister X]

I will implement all those changes and one or two additional ones. Notice how Broad Street (as I've positioned street borders) includes a significant hunk of east-west streets. I took a look at the original 1776 map. Those east-west streets are Church Street and Prince's Street. I will replace the two Broad Streets with these names. That solves all potential confusion between the two "broads" and adds some nicely atmospheric street names.

All streets will start neutral (plus The Harbor) as will The Fort and the two Batteries. The Docks B and Two B'Way B (the terts with anchors) should start neutral. And there are three bonus blocks that have but three terts each and we should avoid lucky drops. Thus one of the One Whitehall and one of the Five King St. should start neutral. At Four B'Way it's "B" that should start neutral. Beyond that I'm less sure. There are three blocks besides Two B'Way that have four terts. Should one each start neutral? I ran the spreadsheet for this using 45 as the number of starting terts (62 minus what I've declared neutral above). The chances of getting a bonus on a four-tert block on the drop are highest when there are three players: 2.75%. At five terts: 0.74%. Clearly we don't have to worry about five terts. What about four? That percentage must be multiplied by three (for the three blocks). Is one game in twelve with a lucky drop acceptable or not? Hmm. I'd say not

The next issue is The Yards. Two of its four terts lead directly to The Fort. If one is already to be made neutral to avoid lucky drops then I think we might as well make the two leading to The Fort neutral.

Regarding Broad Way and north/central/south: first let me say that the modern method of naming and numbering seems completely irrelevant to me. This map takes place in 1776. I'll bet the system has changed since then. Further, it sounds really weird to put the adjective after the noun. BUT having the streets appear together in the drop-down boxes makes a ton of sense, so I'll throw my objections aside. But by making me focus on this matter you made me realize that "Upper" and "Lower" would make more sense than "North" and "South". When New Yorkers refer to parts of a north-south avenue they invariably use upper/lower, not north/south. Also, they are called the Upper East Side and the Lower East Side, not the Northeast Side and the Southeast Side. So I'll switch to those and for the center section I think I'll use "Middle" because upper/middle/lower just sounds more correct to me than upper/central/lower.

Bonus amounts: I declare myself to be quite incompetent at guessing what they should be. I'd ask Ian and others to suggest amounts for all blocks. In the meantime, I'll make the two changes he suggests and bump the others up proportionately (?).

v13: all changes described above (except starting neutral army numbers don't yet match what I discussed) plus I bumped up the brightness and contrast on the main map while lowering levels on the inset. Let's see if it looks better.