War of the Triple Alliance

[Ruben Cassar]

The mountains are looking a bit weird oak.

[oaktown]

The mountains are looking a bit weird oak.

ugh, always the mountains!

[seamusk]

I think what I may end up doing is flipping the regions so that instead of having North and South Amazons I have Upper and Lower Amazons. This actually makes more sense geographically, and it means Upper is four territories (RIo Mad, Alto, Barra, Branca) with two borders, just as it is now, and lower is an easier to hold six territories with three borders.

This makes sense to me. Rio Mad has 3 points of contact so and that removes the bottleneck bonus. And yes, I like how it is now watershed based.

[oaktown]

here it is with the regions shifted... the mountains I'll deal with later. I'll simplify the mountain issue, though someday I intend to get this type of mountain right.

And for the record, that's three updates on one page.

[bigimg]http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r76/ron_parodi/alliance05.jpg[/bigimg]

[dittoeevee8888]

I dislike the mountains as well. They kind of look odd compared to the rest of the colours on the map. As well, they don't look like mountains to me. On the topic of mountains, I don't like how it kind of continues downward near Puelches while the actual game territory kind of cuts off before the mountians end.

I can't read the text under "brasil sudeste", as well.

[seamusk]

I dislike the mountains as well. They kind of look odd compared to the rest of the colours on the map. As well, they don't look like mountains to me. On the topic of mountains, I don't like how it kind of continues downward near Puelches while the actual game territory kind of cuts off before the mountians end.

I can't read the text under "brasil sudeste", as well.

I posted in the wrong thread.... too many tabs...

[ZeakCytho]

The mountains look more like ropes than mountains

I feel like the sea color could use a hint of blue. Don't make it fully blue colored, but just add a tiny bit. Also, I'd move the latitude/longitude line layer under the South America continent layer but over the ocean, so you can see them over the ocean but they don't distract from the actual playable map.

[AndyDufresne]

I understand the idea was born out of the Brazil REVAMP, but the northern areas just feel too out of touch with the hot contention of the south. I'd rather see a more closer look at that south, as it looks like a hot bed of action and fun. (Hm, a hot bed of action and fun? What am I writing about?!)


--Andy

[Qwert]

by ZeakCytho on Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:30 am

The mountains look more like ropes than mountains

I feel like the sea color could use a hint of blue. Don't make it fully blue colored, but just add a tiny bit. Also, I'd move the latitude/longitude line layer under the South America continent layer but over the ocean, so you can see them over the ocean but they don't distract from the actual playable map.

i dont see any water colour
Any way,do you have in plan to put Army circle on map?

[oaktown]

[bigimg]http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r76/ron_parodi/alliance06.jpg[/bigimg]

Mountains: went back to what I know best. I will perfect the other style of mountain on the Easten Hemisphere map. I will.

I'm not ignoring you, Andy, just thinking about what will happen if we cut the Amazon regions.

Any way,do you have in plan to put Army circle on map?

First let's see if this map ever makes it out of Ideas.

[AndyDufresne]

No worries, I didn't think you were ignorning me! I know you wouldn't dare.

I like the addition of the History. But the inclusion of the bonuses at the bottom of it almost makes it seem too long and...well...unfriendly to read, you know?

Solution? Get rid of some of the northern territories of course! More space for history.

Anyways, I'll wander back in and comment again soon.


--Andy

[dittoeevee8888]

I like these mountains a lot better.

Also, in the box where you were describing the war, you spelt treaty wrong.

[oaktown]

[bigimg]http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r76/ron_parodi/alliance07.jpg[/bigimg]

Alright, I'm starting a poll.

The above image cuts out the north of brazil, as Andy suggested, and represents only the areas which would have seen some action during this war. It does NOT reflect what the map wold ultimately look like in terms of size of regions and number of territories - I'd probably have to add a region, and add territories to the other to bring it up to the size I'd like to make this.

Pros: it is more historically accurate, and I can make Paraguay and Uruguay bigger.

I'm probably going to make this change, I just feel better hearing you all tell me to do so.

[oaktown]

[bigimg]http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r76/ron_parodi/alliance08.jpg[/bigimg]

This gives a better sense of what the reduced area map would look like... I'm up to 51 territories, and I'll add one more based on feedback. Personally I think either will make a decent map, this is just a bit more true to history, and it allows room for more terriories in tiny uruguay and paraguay.

[ZeakCytho]

I voted option 1, but the urge to vote option 3 was incredible...I can't believe I didn't!

[yeti_c]

Where's the image for number 3?

C.

[oaktown]

Where's the image for number 3?

Oh, sorry, here it is...

[oaktown]

[bigimg]http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r76/ron_parodi/alliance09.jpg[/bigimg]
OK, smaller geographical region it is. Changes to this version:

I've got this to 52 territories, which works for me just fine. Right now the starts look like this:
8 players: 6 terits, 4 neut
7 players: 7 starts, 3 neut
6 players: 8 terits, 4 neut
5 players: 10 starts, 2 neut
4 players: 13 starts, 0 neut
2/3 players: 17 starts, 1 neut.

I put the rivers in the right place around Paraguay... had to look more closely at the map. It's better this way, as it creates a nice protective barrier around Paraguay.

Added a territory to Paraguay. They started this war, so they should be more important on the map. Historically it's nice to give them a larger bonus as well.

[oaktown]

Poll results... since nobody is posting in this thread anyway.

What geographical region should be represented in this map?

Option 1: show only those regions actually affected by the war you are representing. 12; 70%

Option 2: show all of Brazil. 5; 29%

Option 3: I never take these poll seriously and always choose the smart-ass answer. 0, No votes

[Kaplowitz]

I missed the poll, but i vote 1.

[AndyDufresne]

Option 3: I never take these poll seriously and always choose the smart-ass answer. 0, No votes

I'm surprised this received zero votes. There really must be no one looking at the map... (Kidding of course. )

I like the look of the map, and I am always a fan of Standard game play. Keep up the work.


--Andy

[gimil]

[ADV. IDEA]

Oak youve become the map machine lately.

[TaCktiX]

Um. It says Treay of the Triple Alliance in the map description. Small typo.

[mibi]

I think the bonus legend should have some basic color designation.

[oaktown]

[bigimg]http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r76/ron_parodi/alliance10.jpg[/bigimg]

Nothing exciting with this one... added army circles, moved some borders to fit them. May need a bit more space in Paraguay for the small map circles, but the rest of the map works fine as far as territory size.

bonuses: I've added Goyaz to the legend, which I somehow overlooked when I cut the map down. It's the same size as Paraguay, but historically it's not as important so I'm thinking I'd like to leave it as a +2. Plus, if somebody wants to go for that region they'll be relatively unmolested as more early action will probably take place in the south.

legend: I'll come up with a way to indicate color... preferably not with a minimap. I would like to do the entire legend up right, but let's get this out of Ideas first, shall we?