I won't bring it up again, other than to say I think you add some unnecessary complexity / confusion to a map with the current set-up.koontz1973 wrote: Hex grid - did not try very hard as I did not want it but it did not work.
Best of luck,
--Andy
Moderator: Cartographers
I won't bring it up again, other than to say I think you add some unnecessary complexity / confusion to a map with the current set-up.koontz1973 wrote: Hex grid - did not try very hard as I did not want it but it did not work.
Andy, never got a problem trying things out, if it makes a better map, then so be it. But let me explain why the current set up. When I first tried this idea out on paper, I tried hexes and normal territs. But when I looked into the idea for a maze style map, one of the things that came to me was that mazes tend to be in straight lines or curves.AndyDufresne wrote:I won't bring it up again, other than to say I think you add some unnecessary complexity / confusion to a map with the current set-up.koontz1973 wrote: Hex grid - did not try very hard as I did not want it but it did not work.
Best of luck,
--Andy



Never zip the lips Andy, not only will it hurt, but I want your comments. Will go and have another look at it for you.AndyDufresne wrote:I am not saying there aren't good reasons for squares!I just think your map would be better overall with the other look. But I'm zipping my lips now.
--Andy


What he said!!nolefan5311 wrote:Not a fan of that at all. I like the grid system.
Hm, I think misspoke earlier. Instead of hexagons, could you use 'squares' with rounded corners? That is more of what I meant, I just didn't explain it very well.koontz1973 wrote:Still not convinced that this is a better way to go and this is only a preliminary mock up.

Now that I can do quite happily. Now that Andy is on board, I will go ahead with this one as squares. Expect a proper update soonish.AndyDufresne wrote:Hm, I think misspoke earlier. Instead of hexagons, could you use 'squares' with rounded corners? That is more of what I meant, I just didn't explain it very well.koontz1973 wrote:Still not convinced that this is a better way to go and this is only a preliminary mock up.
Essentially, if you eliminate the corner aspect, you don't need to explain the movement, and you can do all the straight lines you want, and it doesn't look as cluttered as hexagons can look.
--Andy




Here I will have to disagree with you. You are right that they may never get used, but the purpose of them is to give players a choice. Do I go over the more neutrals of the dead warriors or take a quicker path and lose a man only to get him back with the easier bonus of the Minotaur. With the reinforcements set at 1 for 4, you are only going to get three for the first couple of goes. So do you really want to try your luck going 3 against 2 neutrals for two turns?DoomYoshi wrote:The traps are kind of pointless around the edges, they would need to be beside 1 territ, not 2 to be effective.


I'm sorry, I don't understand. It says 1 reinforcement for 4 territs. Does that mean it starts at 3 and when you get 4 territs, you are at 5?koontz1973 wrote:Because if you take the trap, you have 3 territs and as soon as the Pegasaus is taken, you are back to your 3 reinforcements (if you have taken the swords and food).
