Dust Bowl [Quenched]

[Optimus Prime]

That is by far one of the easiest to read small maps we've had in a long time. I love it.

[RjBeals]

That is by far one of the easiest to read small maps we've had in a long time. I love it.

Thanks Prime..
I'm working on the xml now. Any other minor graphical adjustments can still be made if anyone cares to comment.

[Gilligan]

I was just about to ask why Texas is a +6, then I noticed the drought areas are a -1, making Texas a +3?

[rgbubba]

I like the map, keep it going!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHECK OUT MY MAP "the Texan War"

[RjBeals]

I was just about to ask why Texas is a +6, then I noticed the drought areas are a -1, making Texas a +3?

Well it's still a +6. You have 6 armies to place at the beginning of your turn. You don't have to put them on the drought areas, or even in Texas. However, your 3 drought areas will each lose 1 army.

[Telvannia]

just a small thing. 'no mans land' should that not be 'no man's land'?

but my actual concern is that NML borders two non-drought regions from two different continents, i thought this was a bit odd seeings as NML is the only one that does, a way to fix this would be to add an impassible border between NML and woodward?

[RjBeals]

just a small thing. 'no mans land' should that not be 'no man's land'?

but my actual concern is that NML borders two non-drought regions from two different continents, i thought this was a bit odd seeings as NML is the only one that does, a way to fix this would be to add an impassible border between NML and woodward?

'no man's land' is correct and will fix the spelling. But why are the borders a concern? I could easily extend Oklahoma's border up so it's impassible. But just not sure why?

[Telvannia]

But why are the borders a concern? I could easily extend Oklahoma's border up so it's impassible. But just not sure why?

it is not a problem. I mentioned it because you might have not wanted that to happen (the fact it was the only one made me think that) and just missed that one when checking.

[RjBeals]

I think the way it is makes Texas that much harder to keep - a good thing. Texas bonus may even need a boost up to +7.

[Telvannia]

I think the way it is makes Texas that much harder to keep - a good thing. Texas bonus may even need a boost up to +7.

a bonus of 7 being able to be defended by 2 territories, decay or no decay is not a good idea in my eyes. Unless i hold it

[RjBeals]

I think the way it is makes Texas that much harder to keep - a good thing. Texas bonus may even need a boost up to +7.

a bonus of 7 being able to be defended by 2 territories, decay or no decay is not a good idea in my eyes. Unless i hold it

3 Territory's. All 3 drought regions needed to defend texas.

[Telvannia]

I think the way it is makes Texas that much harder to keep - a good thing. Texas bonus may even need a boost up to +7.

a bonus of 7 being able to be defended by 2 territories, decay or no decay is not a good idea in my eyes. Unless i hold it

3 Territory's. All 3 drought regions needed to defend texas.

for some reason i forgot that the drought region was part of the continent

but i still think 7 might be a bit high...

[Coleman]

I like +7.

[WidowMakers]

How do the drought areas lower to 1 army?

I know there will be a territory bonus of -1 in each drought territory but what happens when the territory has only 1 army at the beginning of the turn?

1-1=0=turn to neutral.

Or am I missing something?

WM

[AndyDufresne]

I think it was mentioned that a territory can't decay beyond 1. So if 1 army remains, the decay kind of becomes a moot point. At least I recall reading that somewhere in this thread I think...


--Andy

[yeti_c]

I think it was mentioned that a territory can't decay beyond 1. So if 1 army remains, the decay kind of becomes a moot point. At least I recall reading that somewhere in this thread I think...


--Andy

That's correct Andy - I had confirmation of this from teh almight Lack.

C.

[RjBeals]

New Version
Replaced the text State name bonus with a graphical representation. Also added some slight color to each of the states to make them stand out a bit more. Not too much though - in fact you man not even notice unless you look at both previous version next to this most recent version.


Previous Version

[Coleman]

I like the new better. Removes any random confusion about the drought areas being part of the states they are in.

[I GOT SERVED]

Oklahoma and New Mexico seem too bright compared to the rest of the map.

[RjBeals]

Oklahoma and New Mexico seem too bright compared to the rest of the map.

I did that on purpose, so the states would contrast more. I tried to keep very muted colors, so it wouldn't take away from the "dust" feel. If we think it's too bright than, I can change.

In order to have dark, we must have light

[Rictus]

I like the graphical way of displaying the state bonuses...

[RjBeals]

Thanks Rictus.

[MrBenn]

I think the legend looks good; and is an original way of showing the state bonuses.

The drought region in it doesn't quite look right though, imo... I think that it either needs to be a shade or two darker darker, or you could give the border the same style as on the map??

[Coleman]

If you notice the thick borders are impassible, so that's why they aren't the same inside the drought region, the drought region is the only way to move around between states.

[MrBenn]

I meant the border to the drought area part of the legend...

The map is fine