First Nations of South America!

by **natty dread** on Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:27 pm

I would agree with that

by **Tisha** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:09 pm

here are the bridges I had in mind.. somewhat

by **natty dread** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:10 pm

Ooo, nice bridges.

by **the.killing.44** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:55 pm

Ehh, you can do better. They're too 2D. I love nobodies's, personally.

by **Tisha** on Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:07 am

I'd like them flat ish, as it's suppose to be water color painting on paper n such

by **Incandenza** on Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:16 am

I tend to agree with Tisha and prefer her bridges, they're subtler and fit in better with the prevailing aesthetic and time period...

Visually the map is stunning, you've developed a really wonderful look for these Nations maps. The only gameplay thing that really jumps out at me is that the meso-america bonus might be a touch high, might be better as a +2 (especially since the harder-to-hold central andes bonus is a +2).

by **AndyDufresne** on Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:30 am

Right, I can see what Incandenza is saying about the Meso-america bonus. It could probably go either way---I assume the current lean towards 3 reflects a desire for bonus diversity on the map (I.E. you have a bunch of two's already, and most likely didn't want to add another 2?). In addition to that, the map already seems to lean towards the higher bonus value (Chilean, Central Andes, Eastern Forest) so Meso-America probably has enough precedent for 3. But it is still something to consider, as Incandenza points out, because of it's starting position relative to other bonus zones.

As for the bridges---I like the style, though the color stands out. When you compare their "solidness" to the rest of the map (that is more mottled...the landscape, the mountains, the oceans) they look a little out of place. I'm not sure you can add the mottled effect to the bridges, since they are so small, but I'd like see if something can be done to bring them a little closer in feel to the mountains especially due to their dichotomy (but the landscape/ocean as well).

--Andy

by **the.killing.44** on Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:45 am

Fair enough, that's a valid argument ( :-^

certain other mappers). I still don't think they stand out enough on the map, though. Dark but translucent outer glow?

by **Tisha** on Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:39 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:As for the bridges---I like the style, though the color stands out.

--Andy

the.killing.44 wrote: I still don't think they stand out enough on the map, though.

oh, but the.killing.44 is only 14 so his post don't count? O:)

by **AndyDufresne** on Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:02 pm

I think there is a difference between the color standing out vs the bridges standing out. Just so you know.

--Andy

by **Incandenza** on Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:16 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:Right, I can see what Incandenza is saying about the Meso-america bonus. It could probably go either way---I assume the current lean towards 3 reflects a desire for bonus diversity on the map (I.E. you have a bunch of two's already, and most likely didn't want to add another 2?). In addition to that, the map already seems to lean towards the higher bonus value (Chilean, Central Andes, Eastern Forest) so Meso-America probably has enough precedent for 3. But it is still something to consider, as Incandenza points out, because of it's starting position relative to other bonus zones.

The north does appear to be the best place to start (if I can get M-A early enough, then I can snag Northern Andes and all of a sudden have a 9-terit 3-border +5), and by knocking the M-A bonus down a notch, it'll take some of the teeth out of it. I totally get Andy's point about bonus diversity, I'm just not sure that's a good enough reason to potentially unbalance the map. It's not a deal-breaker, just another idea for the stewpot.

Tisha wrote:oh, but the.killing.44 is only 14 so his post don't count?

by **the.killing.44** on Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:19 pm

Tisha wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:As for the bridges---I like the style, though the color stands out.

--Andy

the.killing.44 wrote: I still don't think they stand out enough on the map, though.

oh, but the.killing.44 is only 14 so his post don't count?

Haha

Yeah, what Andy said

by **Industrial Helix** on Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:31 pm

I think the bridges are a step in the right direction... but something is missing with them. Perhaps they're too flat? Maybe if you approached them from a 3/4 view rather than straight above.

by **thenobodies80** on Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:46 am

Incandenza wrote:The north does appear to be the best place to start (if I can get M-A early enough, then I can snag Northern Andes and all of a sudden have a 9-terit 3-border +5), and by knocking the M-A bonus down a notch, it'll take some of the teeth out of it.

Agree with Incandenza.
The north is the best place to start and with a already written plot, take MA (+3), then take N Andes (+2) with 9 regions and 2 to defend, it seems too easy go to south and take also N Amazon for a +8 to defend only from 3 regions (aparai,jivaro,quito). If the player will take chimu, it will take the C Andes easily without leaving the time to the others to do anything to stop him.
Give only +2 will not cause major changes but ,at least, it gives some time to the other players to do something to prevent this strategy.

by **WidowMakers** on Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:07 pm

Looks great. With all of this talk about colorblind in other maps I figured I would go ahead and look at this one.

There seem to be many of the colors that blend to much. I don't know how the NA map fixed this issue.

I also think the bridges need more. I know you are going for a painted look but right now they look like flat stickers that do not fit. Maybe give them more perspective (smaller at top wider at bottom). I like cairns idea of Indiana Jones style. I just think the current ones look too big and exact to fit the theme. Especially for the time period.

WM

by **Hatchman** on Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:32 pm

Industrial Helix wrote:I think the bridges are a step in the right direction... but something is missing with them. Perhaps they're too flat? Maybe if you approached them from a 3/4 view rather than straight above.

Yeah they need more "dimension", but the style is right-on.

by **Ogrecrusher** on Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:51 am

There's been a lot of talk about the North becoming too strong too easily. Here's my suggestion, add Trinidad, Curacao and maybe Jamaica to make a sea route through the Carribean to Central America, making an island bonus too. Maybe you don't have the territories to do this, but I thought I'd say it!

by **jefjef** on Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:42 pm

A connection Arawak to Palenque would open the north a little and eliminate the bottle neck.

Also why not just go with the canoes? It is the sister map of N Amer. And works.

by **natty dread** on Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:12 am

Is it possible to make eastern forest a bit greener? It's a bit hard to distinguish from southern amazon.

by **MrBenn** on Sun Nov 15, 2009 6:16 pm

Tisha wrote:42 or 48 territories? someone decide for me..

Personally I'd go for more.... If you could sneak it up to 53, then you'd have a better amount for 8 player games, with no "unfairness" with a player starting with 12/15/18 terrs...

by **Tisha** on Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:48 pm

WidowMakers wrote:Looks great. With all of this talk about colorblind in other maps I figured I would go ahead and look at this one.

There seem to be many of the colors that blend to much. I don't know how the NA map fixed this issue.

WM

which colors blend to much?

by **the.killing.44** on Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:59 pm

Tisha wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:Looks great. With all of this talk about colorblind in other maps I figured I would go ahead and look at this one.

There seem to be many of the colors that blend to much. I don't know how the NA map fixed this issue.

WM

which colors blend to much?

From that image, I see two bonus groups. All to the northeast of the mountains; all to the southwest.

by **Tisha** on Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:06 pm

the.killing.44 wrote:
Tisha wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:Looks great. With all of this talk about colorblind in other maps I figured I would go ahead and look at this one.

There seem to be many of the colors that blend to much. I don't know how the NA map fixed this issue.

WM

which colors blend to much?

From that image, I see two bonus groups. All to the northeast of the mountains; all to the southwest.

how can you say Southern Forest is the same as N. Amazon.. how can you not see the difference in color between Kuna and Choco?
](*,)

edit: even if I squint really tight, I can still make out 8 different regions...

Ogrecrusher wrote:There's been a lot of talk about the North becoming too strong too easily. Here's my suggestion, add Trinidad, Curacao and maybe Jamaica to make a sea route through the Carribean to Central America, making an island bonus too. Maybe you don't have the territories to do this, but I thought I'd say it!

I don't think there is room to go north.. the map is as tall as it can be right now. I'll check it out..

by **Incandenza** on Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:05 pm

Tisha wrote:which colors blend to much?

Central and South Andes seem to be the main perpetrators... otherwise it seems doable...

by **the.killing.44** on Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:09 pm

Okay fair enough, N. Amazon is distinguishable. I see Meso-America & N. Andes as one; N. Amazon as its own; S. Amazon, E. Forest, and S. Forest as another; Patagonia as its own; Chilean & S. Andes together; and C. Andes as its own—barely.

First Nations of South America!

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATED 10/21

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATED 10/21

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATED 10/21

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATED 10/21

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATED 10/21

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATED 10/21

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Re: First Nations of South America.. new bridges 11/07

Who is online