Moderator: Cartographers






- Personally I don't think the movement into Asher is really reduced. Players are still only 1 tert away from that region, it's just once they take Rimmon they get a bonus. This makes for a strategy decision of moving more guys into Asher or leaving a large number to protect the bonus. The bonus, as pointed out, can then be attacked by the War Zone, which makes it pretty hard to hold, but so are the Swords and Sling Shots. Which is why Zebulun can not be more than those weapons. I would like to keep it the way it is, unless there is strong opposition or we get into Beta play and there is negative feedback.Zebulon -- something doesn't sit right with me that 1 territory can yield a +2 bonus. I also don't like that it is the only way to get into Asher from the Warzone because of the river. So you have the tough decision of either keeping the starting neutral low to allow easy access into Asher but making it too easy to take, or keeping the neutral high to make it harder to take, but then reducing movement into Asher. What do you think?
- I lowered Benjamin to a +1, but with the addition of the bridge from Jerusalem, it can now be attacked by 4 terts. I think it should prob go up to +2 instead. Thoughts?Benjamin at +3 is way too high. This should be a +1 at most, maybe a +2 if you remove the impassable between Jerusalem and the Warzone. And a starting neutral will need to be placed here.
- Are making the capitals starting neutral a must? Personally I think leaving them as possible starting positions brings them into play more. If they all start neutral I don't think anyone would purposefully take them to achieve the bonus, but rather would take them only to move around the map if need be. Instead, would it be better to make it a rather low bonus, something like +1 for 4?The capital bonus also has me a little worried as well. They will all need to start as neutral to prevent bonus dropping, which takes care of the starting neutral issue for the smaller continents. How strongly do you feel about leaving that bonus in? Are you ok with reducing it somewhat (maybe +2 for 4 or something like that)?


I tried using some of the same colors from TW-Fla, but I need 11 colors which makes it a little challenging. It's not an area I know much about so I basically just used colors from this site http://www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/colortable.asp, and played around with them a bit to try to get them to be different under the color blind filters. I don't know what cords are, which might be part of the problem. Any help is greatly appreciated. One color that I will still use for this map is the War Zone Color to keep them consistent across maps.koontz1973 wrote:Seamus, found this on the web one day
and though you might like to look at the colours for your map. This is what I took the colours from for Vertex and Austrum so they work for the colour blind people really well.
As for the glows, some seem stronger than others, did you use colours from all over the spectrum or keep the colours within the same cords?

The issue here is that I can place a stack on Rimmon, have the same number of borders to defend as I did holding Asher, and have my bonus doubled from +2 (for Asher) to +4. I think it would be safer to reduce it to a +1, and if Beta testing shows it should be more, than you can increase it at that time. And in addition, it's a capital, so that potential bonus is going to come into play.Seamus76 wrote:- Personally I don't think the movement into Asher is really reduced. Players are still only 1 tert away from that region, it's just once they take Rimmon they get a bonus. This makes for a strategy decision of moving more guys into Asher or leaving a large number to protect the bonus. The bonus, as pointed out, can then be attacked by the War Zone, which makes it pretty hard to hold, but so are the Swords and Sling Shots. Which is why Zebulun can not be more than those weapons. I would like to keep it the way it is, unless there is strong opposition or we get into Beta play and there is negative feedback.Zebulon -- something doesn't sit right with me that 1 territory can yield a +2 bonus. I also don't like that it is the only way to get into Asher from the Warzone because of the river. So you have the tough decision of either keeping the starting neutral low to allow easy access into Asher but making it too easy to take, or keeping the neutral high to make it harder to take, but then reducing movement into Asher. What do you think?
I still think it should remain a +1. We'll see what ian thinks though.Seamus76 wrote:- I lowered Benjamin to a +1, but with the addition of the bridge from Jerusalem, it can now be attacked by 4 terts. I think it should prob go up to +2 instead. Thoughts?Benjamin at +3 is way too high. This should be a +1 at most, maybe a +2 if you remove the impassable between Jerusalem and the Warzone. And a starting neutral will need to be placed here.
This is a good solution, but you will have to figure it out so that the likelihood of dropping a bonus is less than 2.5%. I suggest that all capitals that are in continents which need a starting neutral placed there anyway to prevent the continent bonus being dropped (Asher, Rimmon, Bethshan, Beth Shemesh, Gibeon) start off as neutral 3's, and all other capitals start as neutrals 2's.Seamus76 wrote: - Adjusted the Capital Bonus from +2 for 3 to +2 for 4- Are making the capitals starting neutral a must? Personally I think leaving them as possible starting positions brings them into play more. If they all start neutral I don't think anyone would purposefully take them to achieve the bonus, but rather would take them only to move around the map if need be. Instead, would it be better to make it a rather low bonus, something like +1 for 4?The capital bonus also has me a little worried as well. They will all need to start as neutral to prevent bonus dropping, which takes care of the starting neutral issue for the smaller continents. How strongly do you feel about leaving that bonus in? Are you ok with reducing it somewhat (maybe +2 for 4 or something like that)?
Ok, I think I can live with it being +1, since it is a little different than Muccosukee in TW-Fla, which was originally only attacked by 2 terts but I changed to 3 during beta. I wouldn't ever want to add a bridge from the war zone into Asher, which would defeat the purpose of the river altogether.nolefan5311 wrote:The issue here is that I can place a stack on Rimmon, have the same number of borders to defend as I did holding Asher, and have my bonus doubled from +2 (for Asher) to +4. I think it would be safer to reduce it to a +1, and if Beta testing shows it should be more, than you can increase it at that time. And in addition, it's a capital, so that potential bonus is going to come into play.Seamus76 wrote:- Personally I don't think the movement into Asher is really reduced. Players are still only 1 tert away from that region, it's just once they take Rimmon they get a bonus. This makes for a strategy decision of moving more guys into Asher or leaving a large number to protect the bonus. The bonus, as pointed out, can then be attacked by the War Zone, which makes it pretty hard to hold, but so are the Swords and Sling Shots. Which is why Zebulun can not be more than those weapons. I would like to keep it the way it is, unless there is strong opposition or we get into Beta play and there is negative feedback.Zebulon -- something doesn't sit right with me that 1 territory can yield a +2 bonus. I also don't like that it is the only way to get into Asher from the Warzone because of the river. So you have the tough decision of either keeping the starting neutral low to allow easy access into Asher but making it too easy to take, or keeping the neutral high to make it harder to take, but then reducing movement into Asher. What do you think?
Sounds good. My vote is +2, but hopefully we'll hear back soon.nolefan5311 wrote:I still think it should remain a +1. We'll see what ian thinks though.Seamus76 wrote:- I lowered Benjamin to a +1, but with the addition of the bridge from Jerusalem, it can now be attacked by 4 terts. I think it should prob go up to +2 instead. Thoughts?Benjamin at +3 is way too high. This should be a +1 at most, maybe a +2 if you remove the impassable between Jerusalem and the Warzone. And a starting neutral will need to be placed here.
So you're still saying that all of them should be neutral, which I would like to avoid somehow. Even if only three of them were in the pot for distribution that might mean one player would get 1 or 2 and try for the bonus. I still think even if 8 of the 13 were neutral 2 players wouldn't be inclined to go for them. There are plenty of maps where larger bonuses are dropped and games are lost in the first round (England for example, or Pearl Harbor, [which I know is supposed to be part of the theme, etc.]). Also, how is the 2.5% calculated so I can play around with the numbers to possibly come up with a solution? Thanks for the feedback.nolefan5311 wrote:This is a good solution, but you will have to figure it out so that the likelihood of dropping a bonus is less than 2.5%. I suggest that all capitals that are in continents which need a starting neutral placed there anyway to prevent the continent bonus being dropped (Asher, Rimmon, Bethshan, Beth Shemesh, Gibeon) start off as neutral 3's, and all other capitals start as neutrals 2's.Seamus76 wrote: - Adjusted the Capital Bonus from +2 for 3 to +2 for 4- Are making the capitals starting neutral a must? Personally I think leaving them as possible starting positions brings them into play more. If they all start neutral I don't think anyone would purposefully take them to achieve the bonus, but rather would take them only to move around the map if need be. Instead, would it be better to make it a rather low bonus, something like +1 for 4?The capital bonus also has me a little worried as well. They will all need to start as neutral to prevent bonus dropping, which takes care of the starting neutral issue for the smaller continents. How strongly do you feel about leaving that bonus in? Are you ok with reducing it somewhat (maybe +2 for 4 or something like that)?
Once you've determined the above, please post an image in the first post with all starting neutrals so we can determine the amount of territories distributed at the drop.