Holy Roman Empire 1648

[pamoa]

new features: title, legends, hinterpommern army, minimap color (white), bridges color.
Question: with or without army circle?
[bigimg]http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm126/pamoa_ch/HRE1648v28a.jpg[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm126/pamoa_ch/HRE1648v28b.jpg[/bigimg]

[fireedud]

I like without better, but you have to test with other colors.

[grayhawke]

I like without better, but you have to test with other colors.

I agree - looks much better without.

[AndyDufresne]

Consider altering the white in the mini map...to more of a cream. I can see you are using general standard colors for the mini map, the white just looks oddly out of place.

the western region bonus is going to throw somebody off since it's not contiguous. The trouble as I see it is that the color of that region is such a neutral color that when you look at the mini-map you don't immediately put those territories together. Somebody who isn't using BoB will take Burgund and Frankreich and expect a bonus on their next turn. I see why it's a neutral color - they're all frontier/border territories - but something needs to be draw attention to the netherlands and denmark in the small map.

And I am in agreement with Oaktown.


--Andy

[pamoa]

Consider altering the white in the mini map...to more of a cream. I can see you are using general standard colors for the mini map, the white just looks oddly out of place.

the western region bonus is going to throw somebody off since it's not contiguous. The trouble as I see it is that the color of that region is such a neutral color that when you look at the mini-map you don't immediately put those territories together. Somebody who isn't using BoB will take Burgund and Frankreich and expect a bonus on their next turn. I see why it's a neutral color - they're all frontier/border territories - but something needs to be draw attention to the netherlands and denmark in the small map.

And I am in agreement with Oaktown.
--Andy

I don't get what you mean. I just put it in bright white for that purpose, drawing attention to netherlands and danmark

[grayhawke]

Consider altering the white in the mini map...to more of a cream. I can see you are using general standard colors for the mini map, the white just looks oddly out of place.

the western region bonus is going to throw somebody off since it's not contiguous. The trouble as I see it is that the color of that region is such a neutral color that when you look at the mini-map you don't immediately put those territories together. Somebody who isn't using BoB will take Burgund and Frankreich and expect a bonus on their next turn. I see why it's a neutral color - they're all frontier/border territories - but something needs to be draw attention to the netherlands and denmark in the small map.

And I am in agreement with Oaktown.


--Andy

Is this arrangement any better?

[AndyDufresne]

Yes, and I'd still alter the bright white to a slightly softer cream, especially with the additions you made.


--Andy

[grayhawke]

Yes, and I'd still alter the bright white to a slightly softer cream, especially with the additions you made.


--Andy

I.m certain that pamoa can do a much better job with the graphics than I, but perhaps these colours are more suitable?

[pamoa]

v29 new features: minimap, armies

[bigimg]http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm126/pamoa_ch/HRE1648v29.jpg[/bigimg]
Gameplay stamp?

[grayhawke]

Just a minor point, but I think the "Victory Condition" text might look better if it became a heading in the same style as "Influence bonuses" (where I feel the "b" should be "B").

[pamoa]

Just a minor point, but I think the "Victory Condition" text might look better if it became a heading in the same style as "Influence bonuses" (where I feel the "b" should be "B").

I don't think it will be possible, it would be too long. But I can try to put it all in capital letter and bold like "HOLD ALL GUN" if it fits in.
Ok for the "B"

[grayhawke]

Just a minor point, but I think the "Victory Condition" text might look better if it became a heading in the same style as "Influence bonuses" (where I feel the "b" should be "B").

I don't think it will be possible, it would be too long. But I can try to put it all in capital letter and bold like "HOLD ALL GUN" if it fits in.
Ok for the "B"

All capitals might work, but if "Victory Condiion" is too long perhaps "For Victory" might work as a heading? or maybe the simpler "To Win"?

[oaktown]

Inset map is better in terms of showing how that region is connected... to make it look better what if you were to put the "3" where it says "four territ?"

The victory condition still looks like an afterthought under the bonuses. Make the victory condition more obvious and you get your game stamp.

[t-o-m]

i would prefer a non-purple sea.
Perhaps more blue?

[pamoa]

Inset map is better in terms of showing how that region is connected... to make it look better what if you were to put the "3" where it says "four territ?"
The victory condition still looks like an afterthought under the bonuses. Make the victory condition more obvious and you get your game stamp.

Moving the "3" inthe inset as you say make it odd to me, it leaves the wetern europe region "empty". So if you think players can understand it, I'll stick to that version because I think it is graphically better.

You will see a new version of legend next map.

i would prefer a non-purple sea. Perhaps more blue?

I'll try something, although it's complicated because it's a multilayer color.

[pamoa]

v30 new features: legend, sea color

[bigimg]http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm126/pamoa_ch/HRE1648v30.jpg[/bigimg]

[grayhawke]

...
The victory condition still looks like an afterthought under the bonuses. Make the victory condition more obvious and you get your game stamp.

Is it obvious enough yet for the game stamp?

[whitestazn88]

15/40 territs are guns... if by guns you mean cannons and i'm not missing something.

don't you think thats a lot to be asking to hold for 1 turn? i'd rather just kill everyone

its 37.5 percent of the territs!!!!

[grayhawke]

15/40 territs are guns... if by guns you mean cannons and i'm not missing something.

don't you think thats a lot to be asking to hold for 1 turn? i'd rather just kill everyone

its 37.5 percent of the territs!!!!

If I'm not missing something doesn't just kill everyone imply hold all territs(ignoring neutrals)?
Isn't it easier to hold 37.5% than 100%?

[whitestazn88]

15/40 territs are guns... if by guns you mean cannons and i'm not missing something.

don't you think thats a lot to be asking to hold for 1 turn? i'd rather just kill everyone

its 37.5 percent of the territs!!!!

If I'm not missing something doesn't just kill everyone imply hold all territs(ignoring neutrals)?
Isn't it easier to hold 37.5% than 100%?

but in a 1v1 game, a lot of those could easily be neutrals.

i'm just looking at it from a mainly 1v1 perspective.

[ZeakCytho]

It's going to be near impossible for anyone to win by taking the objective. I mean, holding 15 territories for one turn? When every single one of them needs to be defended? The only way that could possibly happen is if every other player on the board is reduced to only a few armies, and the winning player has tons left. But by that time, who would bother to go for the objective? Just take out each weak player for their cards so you can get even more guys and end it faster. In a no cards game, I suppose it's slightly more feasible that someone would attempt to get the objective, but even then I hardly think that anyone would win by objective. Look at Das Schloss (the one uploaded, not the current version) - a bunch of games are in stalemates over a four-territory objective. Now imagine a 15-territory one. That's a bit less than 4 times the number of places that you have to defend.

I'd recommend just getting rid of the objective altogether. The influence bonuses are nice, but no one will ever go for the objective to win.

[AndyDufresne]

Regarding the Victory Condition...what if you altered the requirement to hold 2/3 of the guns? I.E. Then you would only need to hold 8 or 9...thus you could have a battle between at least two players attempting to hold the Victory Condition. It may just be better to get rid of the Objective, but the above is maybe one possibility.


--Andy

[pamoa]

I must admit the hold all for victory is more "decorative" than a real way to win the game. But, and their is a but, it was thought more for the concept coherence. I explain, as each set represent one of the pretenting power (family) to the trone, if you control all of them you are emperor and if you are emperor you won, logical no! It was also a way of giving a more important role to the family of gun feature in the gameplay, insisting on the fact you can maybe win the game by controling them all rather than "killing" all your oponents. But it's up to you as player to evaluate the best strategy to win. And it is not like "das Schloss" because here you can play it just like a straight forward map. So As it did not affect the gameplay but just add some complexity ( you still have to watch if any of your opponent is not holding them all) I would say it doesn't hurt anybody if it stays!

[grayhawke]

15/40 territs are guns... if by guns you mean cannons and i'm not missing something.

don't you think thats a lot to be asking to hold for 1 turn? i'd rather just kill everyone

its 37.5 percent of the territs!!!!

If I'm not missing something doesn't just kill everyone imply hold all territs(ignoring neutrals)?
Isn't it easier to hold 37.5% than 100%?

but in a 1v1 game, a lot of those could easily be neutrals.

i'm just looking at it from a mainly 1v1 perspective.

I thought I was missing something...

[gimil]

The "white" coloured continent im uphappy with. The colour dosnt sit well with the rest of the maps colour scheme. I feel it needs to be made a colours the same density of the far east continent so that it balances the scheme your using.