SFR Yugoslavia [Quenched]

[natty dread]

What, of course I didn't move capitals... no one can move capitals...

I just moved the borders around them

[natty dread]

Look I made some palettes!

[bigimg]http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4572/yugo7b.png[/bigimg]

[bigimg]http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/3117/yugo7a.png[/bigimg]

[sannemanrobinson]

The second colour pallet fits the theme nicely with a little dark undertone. Croatia only becomes a little hard to distinguish with the colour gradient and army circles.

The capitals are not CC capitals anymore. Maybe name them city's? Also a tower from an old wall could fit instead of the stars.

[natty dread]

The capitals are not CC capitals anymore.

There's no such thing as "CC capitals"... ie. "Capital" is not a reserved CC term so it can be used as the mapmaker wants.

Also a tower from an old wall could fit instead of the stars.

Stars are common symbols for capitals on maps. Anyway I'll look more into this in graphics.

Anyway I tend to agree about the colours. The second palette does fit the style, but I wonder if it's a bit too drab... perhaps if I swap Slovenia with Montenegro, to give a more even spread of saturation...

[natty dread]

[bigimg]http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/3117/yugo7a.png[/bigimg]

[Victor Sullivan]

I must say, I like all of the changes made thus far. That being said, I'm still not sold on the capitals concept, though I like the idea of each player starting with one.

-Sully

[natty dread]

Ok I added a bridge to dubrovnik. Decided it's best to connect it to rest of Croatia.

[bigimg]http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/3117/yugo7a.png[/bigimg]

[isaiah40]

You don't need that bridge there because you have the ports making the connection. Or did you forget about them in your old age?

[natty dread]

Ports only connect to Adriatic sea.

[isaiah40]

Ports only connect to Adriatic sea.

Yea but you can go from port to Adriatic Sea to port right? Or am I missing something?

[natty dread]

Yes, or you can go through Herzegovina, or halfway around the map. The point is, now there's a direct connection.

[isaiah40]

BTW where's my red dot?

You don't get a red dot! It's against Section 4, paragraph 3.1 of the Game Play Rules and Guidelines

No dots shall be given to anyone whose name is natty.

[natty dread]

Oh, you're moving me straight to graphics then?

[isaiah40]

Well Section 3.2 says the same thing but for graphics, Section 3.3 is for Final Forge. Now Section 3.4 says that

No person with the name of natty shall have any map quenched, unless he/she counts to 3. That is 3, not 2, not 4, but 3 shall thou count to. Then shall he/she gets his/her map quenched!

[natty dread]

I have a gameplay issue that needs solving.

Currently, the way the map is designed, there's 8 capitals - each player starts with 1 capital (4 troops in each), the leftover capitals start neutral, and the other 36 territories start with a random drop.

This should make for a good gameplay. The only problem is Kosovo - having only 2 territories, it's likely to get it on the drop. Actually, the odds of getting it in a 2 or 3 player game are 1 in 24. With more players it's even lower... so the question is, is a 1 in 24 chance of dropping a +1 bonus an issue?

The only way to prevent anyone from dropping with the Kosovo bonus is to make South Kosovo neutral. But this would mess up the drops, since there would now be 35 territories starting with a random drop - so in a 2 or 3 player game, each player would get 1 capital and 11 other territories - meaning everyone would start with 12. To counter this, there's only two options: add one territory somewhere (I can't think of where) or, make 4 territories neutral (maybe 1 in each of the 2-3 territory bonuses?)

So... adding 4 neutrals, or a 1/24 chance (in 2-3 player games) of dropping a +1 bonus?

I don't really like the idea of adding that many neutrals, since they tend to make bonuses less attractive in 1v1 and team games. I would prefer just having the map start as it is, but is that 1 in 24 chance too high? Of course, unless the player who drops the bonus also starts first, the other player(s) would still have a good chance to break it, so it's more like a 1/48 chance in a 2-player game to get a really good 1st round advantage.

But then again, 1v1 is a really drop-dependent gametype anyway, and as long as most games are fair on it, I don't see that small chance as a huge issue.

So, feedback about this would be welcome.

[natty dread]

I could add in Albania as a territory and connect it with Titograd & Polog...

[Victor Sullivan]

My first thought was to edit the starting positions, but that wouldn't really solve the issue, unless you had the max at 1... I think adding in Albania would be a good solution. You could include it as an Adriatic port and 0 bonus, since it's not part of Yugoslavia.

-Sully

[isaiah40]

My first thought was to code the 2 and 3 territory bonuses with one territory starting as neutral. Then when I reread your idea of adding in Albania as a non-bonus territory, and coding the one territory in the 2 territory bonus, I thought that this would be the best way to go. It would make easier for everyone I think.

[natty dread]

Alright, albania it is.

[natty dread]

I'm not really sure about this after all... not sure if it fits the map:

[bigimg]http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/6158/yugo8.png[/bigimg]

[Victor Sullivan]

I see what you mean... Though gameplay-wise I like it.

Is there a way we could split a territory or something?

-Sully

[natty dread]

Well, the only place I can think of is Vojvodina, where I could split Banat in two. But I'm not sure if I want to make it a 4-territory bonus...

[Victor Sullivan]

Well, the only place I can think of is Vojvodina, where I could split Banat in two. But I'm not sure if I want to make it a 4-territory bonus...

Seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially compared to Slovenia and Macedonia.

-Sully

[natty dread]

Ok how's this

[bigimg]http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/1559/yugo9.png[/bigimg]

[Victor Sullivan]

Looks fine to me.

-Sully