MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

[MrBenn]

Update Time!

[bigimg]http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj320/bpawley/mexico/Mexico10.jpg[/bigimg]

Here are the changes:

• I've taken on board most of the suggestions; I've opened up the mountains between San Luis and Tamaulipas to make that area not so linear.
• The mountains between Michoacan and Edo. Mex. have similarly been removed to open up the Central region a little more.
• I've removed the Baja +1 bonus, and bumped Noroeste back up to 4, although I could be persuaded to drop it back down to three as it feels like it should be 3.5!
  
• Graphically, I've made the central area more yellow, and to be honest I preferred it red. The Eagle on the Mexico flag is much more brown than yellow, but brown looked even worse (and too similar to the unplayable areas).
• I've taken off the texture from the land, and actually like the sleek modern look it gives the map.
• As for the port icons, I really don't want to switch to an anchor; the icon I've designed doubles up really nicely as an army circle, and (in my opinion) fits the map quite nicely.

[The Bison King]

Suggestion: Could you write/spell the region/bonus zone names in American? That foreign spelling is really confusing.

LOL you said American instead of English, I am tickled. but I disagree It's a map of Mexico it should be spell in "Mexican"

I love the changes, it's lookin real good.

[The Bison King]

However I suggest that you tighten up the mountains, it bothers me to see spaces, and the background color behind them.

[MrBenn]

I'll tidy up the mountains when I'm polishing the graphics - there are several little things like that I can see that bug me

Right now, I just want to iron out the gameplay...

[Evil DIMwit]

Much better.

Noroeste should be 3, particularly if the ports start neutral. Central region is still overvalued by a bit but with four borders it's within acceptable range, I think.

I like the colors on the minimap better than the colors on the map proper right now. No opinion about the texture, but the gradients on some of the regions weren't working before.

[natty dread]

Aww, you scrapped that small bonus? I liked that... oh well, I guess it's for the best for a map this size.

Noroeste -> 3 IMO.

[ender516]

Just to be clear, since the mountains need fixing, when looking at the territories of Norte alone, they form a ring of five, with each bordering just two others? (I know, some of them also border territories in Occidente and the Valle.)

[Evil DIMwit]

Just to be clear, since the mountains need fixing, when looking at the territories of Norte alone, they form a ring of five, with each bordering just two others? (I know, some of them also border territories in Occidente and the Valle.)

Hmm... Looking at it now, I'm not really sure what these mountains are supposed to be blocking off. They're not creating any vital chokepoint that wasn't there before, nor are they making it more or less difficult to defend a bonus. If you like them, no reason to drop them, I guess.
If you liked it better with mountains between San Luis and Tamaulipas, that's not a disaster either.

[ender516]

I have no comment on the gameplay value of those mountains. It's just that they have gaps, and there are bits of boundaries straddled by them, so I thought it should be clarified, gameplay-wise now, and eventually graphically. If they weren't there at all, I presume some of those territories would touch each other across the "ring" that I described.

[MrBenn]

I have no comment on the gameplay value of those mountains. It's just that they have gaps, and there are bits of boundaries straddled by them, so I thought it should be clarified, gameplay-wise now, and eventually graphically. If they weren't there at all, I presume some of those territories would touch each other across the "ring" that I described.

The gaps are only there because I've been a little bit lazy... the mountain ranges are intended to be impassable, even though thee may appear to be secret mountain passes at the moment. The gaps will be filled in due course

[ender516]

I have no comment on the gameplay value of those mountains. It's just that they have gaps, and there are bits of boundaries straddled by them, so I thought it should be clarified, gameplay-wise now, and eventually graphically. If they weren't there at all, I presume some of those territories would touch each other across the "ring" that I described.

The gaps are only there because I've been a little bit lazy... the mountain ranges are intended to be impassable, even though thee may appear to be secret mountain passes at the moment. The gaps will be filled in due course

I guessed as much, but thought it best to make sure the gameplay was nailed down before graphics were tweaked to depict it. I guess my question still stands: is it effectively a ring of territories?

[MrBenn]

Update Time!

[bigimg]http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj320/bpawley/mexico/Mexico10.jpg[/bigimg]

Here are the changes:

• I've taken on board most of the suggestions; I've opened up the mountains between San Luis and Tamaulipas to make that area not so linear.
• The mountains between Michoacan and Edo. Mex. have similarly been removed to open up the Central region a little more.
• I've removed the Baja +1 bonus, and bumped Noroeste back up to 4, although I could be persuaded to drop it back down to three as it feels like it should be 3.5!
  
• Graphically, I've made the central area more yellow, and to be honest I preferred it red. The Eagle on the Mexico flag is much more brown than yellow, but brown looked even worse (and too similar to the unplayable areas).
• I've taken off the texture from the land, and actually like the sleek modern look it gives the map.
• As for the port icons, I really don't want to switch to an anchor; the icon I've designed doubles up really nicely as an army circle, and (in my opinion) fits the map quite nicely.

I have no comment on the gameplay value of those mountains. It's just that they have gaps, and there are bits of boundaries straddled by them, so I thought it should be clarified, gameplay-wise now, and eventually graphically. If they weren't there at all, I presume some of those territories would touch each other across the "ring" that I described.

The gaps are only there because I've been a little bit lazy... the mountain ranges are intended to be impassable, even though thee may appear to be secret mountain passes at the moment. The gaps will be filled in due course

I guessed as much, but thought it best to make sure the gameplay was nailed down before graphics were tweaked to depict it. I guess my question still stands: is it effectively a ring of territories?

Yes, it's essentially a ring...

[MrBenn]

Having a look at it a little more, I'm trying to weigh up whether to add the mountains back between San Luis/Tamaulipas, or to leave it without them...

Any thoughts?

[The Bison King]

Having a look at it a little more, I'm trying to weigh up whether to add the mountains back between San Luis/Tamaulipas, or to leave it without them...

I'd say put them back, I think 2 linear paths is more interesting that a donut.

[Industrial Helix]

I'd say put them back in. With the mountains there, the port becomes more important.

[jefjef]

Have you considered making Federal District it's own bonus? Like Valletta is in Malta?

You could reduce Valle De Anahuac to 5 and have FD as a 1. Looks like this maps game play would benefit from doing that. Really put some importance in the center, initiate combat there and give it the small bonus it needs.

[MrBenn]

Have you considered making Federal District it's own bonus? Like Valletta is in Malta?

You could reduce Valle De Anahuac to 5 and have FD as a 1. Looks like this maps game play would benefit from doing that. Really put some importance in the center, initiate combat there and give it the small bonus it needs.

I quite like that idea.... any other thoughts?

[jefjef]

Have you considered making Federal District it's own bonus? Like Valletta is in Malta?

You could reduce Valle De Anahuac to 5 and have FD as a 1. Looks like this maps game play would benefit from doing that. Really put some importance in the center, initiate combat there and give it the small bonus it needs.

I quite like that idea.... any other thoughts?

I wouldn't do it as an auto deploy though.

You could even look at giving it port bombardment capability. Talk about an important/powerful tert!

The center would be a war zone. You just couldn't disregard/ignore it.

[The Bison King]

You could even look at giving it port bombardment capability. Talk about an important/powerful tert!

Bombard, but not conquer? that could be cool actually.

[MrBenn]

Having had a play around, I've changed my mind about a +1 for DF; While I'm happy to try and bring the central region into play a little bit more, I'd rather not unbalance things by having an extra neutral start forced on the map, or giving an unfair advantage to whoever gets the lucky drop.

[MrBenn]

Which brings me to my next update...
[bigimg]http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj320/bpawley/mexico/Mexico11.jpg[/bigimg]

I've played around with the colour scheme a little bit, and am happy with it the way it was originally (with some minor tweaks to the paler central regions).
The mountains have been redrawn, and I'm actually quite happy with them, which makes a change for me - I've also filled in the gaps so it's much more obvious where the impassables actually are.

The only obvious thing I can see that I still need to finalise is the minimap... unless anybody else can tell me otherwise?

[Evil DIMwit]

Down the home stretch for this lap. Time for a sticky.

[natty dread]

Still not using the bigimg tags?

I don't see any obvious gameplay problems, I think it could be time to move this to graphics.

However I must say I still don't like the port icons. They don't fit the style of the rest of the map IMHO.

I like the new mountains though.

[Evil DIMwit]

However I must say I still don't like the port icons. They don't fit the style of the rest of the map IMHO.

I like them. I think they fit the style, and I think they're pretty original compared to all the other port icons out there.

[jefjef]

Having had a play around, I've changed my mind about a +1 for DF; While I'm happy to try and bring the central region into play a little bit more, I'd rather not unbalance things by having an extra neutral start forced on the map, or giving an unfair advantage to whoever gets the lucky drop.

Dropping Valletta in Malta is absolutely in no way a win. You could redraw DF to where 3 additional terts connect to it.

As it is just kinda makes that entire bonus region an undesirable place to be and unattractive to operate in and imo this map really could use a tiny bonus.