USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

[natty dread]

Ok, about the interstate bonuses... do you realistically expect any of those to ever be held?

The smallest of them has 7 consecutive regions in a line, with each region a border. The only situation I can see someone holding them is in the late end-game with only 2-3 players left, where each player may hold several state-groups... and even in that case it most likely will be a side-effect of holding the states, I don't see anyone really going for them for themselves...

[isaiah40]

Ok, about the interstate bonuses... do you realistically expect any of those to ever be held?

Realistic, no. Is there a possibility, yes.

Ideas on them. I could bump them up a bit more to make them a tad more desirable, or I could say +2 for every 3 cities on an interstate.

[natty dread]

I could bump them up a bit more to make them a tad more desirable, or I could say +2 for every 3 cities on an interstate.

You could bump them up to a 100 each, but they still wouldn't be any more feasible to hold... When the smallest one is 7 regions in a line, and you know strings of regions in a straight line with each region being a border are the hardest type of bonuses to hold on any map - you lose one region in between, and your supply chain is cut, you can't fort from one side to the other until you retake it...

I'm not sure what exactly would be a good solution for them, but I'm kinda thinking you could make them into sort of collection bonuses, like "+x for y regions along the same interstate".

[isaiah40]

Think +2 for every 3 is good?

[natty dread]

Think +2 for every 3 is good?

I kinda think it should be dependent on the interstate... so that if some interstate makes a certain area too strong it could be reduced, and vice versa...

But generally I think something like that is fine, or maybe +3 for 4 or +4 for 5...

[isaiah40]

That could be worked out. Like for instance Interstate 5 (west coast) could be +1 for every 2. The longer interstates would probably go a tad higher, like Interstate 10 could be +3 for every 5 since it goes through 3 bonus regions.

[Victor Sullivan]

I agree, the +X for Y route is better, however I think we need to be careful that those bonuses remain secondary to the state bonuses, if that makes sense. I would try to keep the minimum amount of regions required to achieve a bonus along an interstate around 4-5.

-Sully

[isaiah40]

V18

- Finished connecting New England
- Removed Cherry Hill from New Jersey
- Reduced New Jersey bonus to +1
- Reduced New England bonus to +23

[bigimg]http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6601/megausav18small.png[/bigimg]

[Victor Sullivan]

V18

- Finished connecting New England
- Removed Cherry Hill from New Jersey
- Reduced New Jersey bonus to +1
- Reduced New England bonus to +23

Kid-Tested, Sully-Approved.

-Sully

[The Bison King]

WHOA! What is Dayton doing on Ohio instead of Cincinnati??? That doesn't make a shred of sense. You should change that, Cincinnati is WAY bigger than Dayton.

[isaiah40]

WHOA! What is Dayton doing on Ohio instead of Cincinnati??? That doesn't make a shred of sense. You should change that, Cincinnati is WAY bigger than Dayton.

True, but Dayton is there because I needed a city where I70 & I75 cross, and Dayton fit the bill perfectly. S Dayton will stay.

[Gillipig]

WHOA! What is Dayton doing on Ohio instead of Cincinnati??? That doesn't make a shred of sense. You should change that, Cincinnati is WAY bigger than Dayton.

True, but Dayton is there because I needed a city where I70 & I75 cross, and Dayton fit the bill perfectly. S Dayton will stay.

I think in this case the graphical correctness is not as important as having well known cities on the map. I'd rather conquer Cincinnati than Dayton !

[ask me2]

This looks great! Can't wait to play it!

[isaiah40]

I think in this case the graphical correctness is not as important as having well known cities on the map. I'd rather conquer Cincinnati than Dayton !

But Dayton is well known!!! How could anyone forget that the Wright Brothers lived there, built the first airplane, owned and operated an airplane factory and ran the world's first flight school. Dayton also had the first military airfield, the first emergency parachute jump, and WACO's dominance of civilian aircraft production between the World Wars.

You see, Dayton is well known!! Like I said Dayton will stay.

[lostatlimbo]

Looks good isaiah.

Just out of curiousity, why did you opt to leave out I-84? You have all the cities connected that it travels through (Portland, Pendleton, Twin Falls, SLC), but no interstate there.

[Gillipig]

I think in this case the graphical correctness is not as important as having well known cities on the map. I'd rather conquer Cincinnati than Dayton !

But Dayton is well known!!! How could anyone forget that the Wright Brothers lived there, built the first airplane, owned and operated an airplane factory and ran the world's first flight school. Dayton also had the first military airfield, the first emergency parachute jump, and WACO's dominance of civilian aircraft production between the World Wars.

You see, Dayton is well known!! Like I said Dayton will stay.

Okay, not a major issue ! Why is Texas green btw? I've never been to Texas but I can't imagine green would be the best colour to describe that area! Because of the heat I think red would be better for that region. And green would better describe the "D.C"-Detroit area!
Edit: It would also look better to have red between the two yellow regions and green between the two blue. It would be more of a natural way to transcend from one colour to the other.

[natty dread]

I think you need to make all the state colours lighter than the background. You still have a few that are darker or about the same lightness as it (OK, NE, MT, LA, OH, ME, NJ) and since you have a minimap anyway, I don't see any reason why each state would require an unique colour. It'd be much better to have them all be consistently lighter than the background.

[ask me2]

I think in this case the graphical correctness is not as important as having well known cities on the map. I'd rather conquer Cincinnati than Dayton !

But Dayton is well known!!! How could anyone forget that the Wright Brothers lived there, built the first airplane, owned and operated an airplane factory and ran the world's first flight school. Dayton also had the first military airfield, the first emergency parachute jump, and WACO's dominance of civilian aircraft production between the World Wars.

You see, Dayton is well known!! Like I said Dayton will stay.

Okay, not a major issue ! Why is Texas green btw? I've never been to Texas but I can't imagine green would be the best colour to describe that area! Because of the heat I think red would be better for that region. And green would better describe the "D.C"-Detroit area!
Edit: It would also look better to have red between the two yellow regions and green between the two blue. It would be more of a natural way to transcend from one colour to the other.

Red? Really? Texas isn't THAT hot. Maybe sand colored for the desert.

[The Bison King]

I think in this case the graphical correctness is not as important as having well known cities on the map. I'd rather conquer Cincinnati than Dayton !

But Dayton is well known!!! How could anyone forget that the Wright Brothers lived there, built the first airplane, owned and operated an airplane factory and ran the world's first flight school. Dayton also had the first military airfield, the first emergency parachute jump, and WACO's dominance of civilian aircraft production between the World Wars.

You see, Dayton is well known!! Like I said Dayton will stay.

True but nothing has happened there since then. That's fine though, I don't have a problem with Dayton Staying so long as you add Cincinnati. It just doesn't make sense considering the city has a bigger pop. than Cambridge and Dayton combined. plus it's one of the 3 big C's. Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland.

not to mention 5 tert's is a little light for a +4

On that not Michigan should probably be +5.

[isaiah40]

Nah, sorry, but I will not be adding Cincinnati, it will be way too crowded then.

[The Bison King]

Nah, sorry, but I will not be adding Cincinnati, it will be way too crowded then.

It really doesn't have to be. Just move Dayton up (closer to where it should be anway) and you'll be all Peachy Keen. I did this in like 3 minutes and I don't even have the source file.


If you still think that's too crowded get rid of Cambridge and scoot Columbus over to the right a bit. Notice how Cambridge doesn't make the below list (it doesn't even come close) It should be Akron or Youngstown anyway. I really don't think any one goes to or cares about Cambridge.

Ohio populations:
1 Columbus 787,033
2 Cleveland 396,815
3 Cincinnati 296,943
4 Toledo 287,208
5 Akron 199,110
6 Dayton 141,527
7 Parma 81,601
8 Canton 73,007
9 Youngstown 66,982
10 Lorain 64,097

Or you could make Ohio bigger by pushing it's northern border up into lake erie more. It's not like it looks anything like the state anyway.

If you're going to do a mega map of the USA you should do it RIGHT. That means not omitting important/relevant cities because of artificial problems like lack of room, when you've made plenty of room for places that no ones ever even heard of, Kirksville, Dyer, Jonesboro, to name a few (no offense to those who might live there I'm sure they're lovely places). Especially when geographical size has no meaning in this map what so ever. If Main is the same size Massachusetts how can you claim that there isn't enough room? You've changed the size of states to accommodate your needs in every other scenario why not this one?

I'm sorry if I'm being irritating, but I feel like I have a completely valid point and that you've failed to come up with an actual reason why this can't happen. You shouldn't be looking for more excuses you should be looking for solutions. Just make room and add it in, this really should not be so hard to do.

[isaiah40]

While I agree on just about every point you've made in this thread, I will have to disagree on this:

If you're going to do a mega map of the USA you should do it RIGHT. That means not omitting important/relevant cities because of artificial problems like lack of room, when you've made plenty of room for places that no ones ever even heard of, Kirksville, Dyer, Jonesboro, to name a few (no offense to those who might live there I'm sure they're lovely places).

Look at the original map packs, and you will see most of the small out of the way towns represented. I changed some of the names for clarity sake (make it less cluttered). Have you ever been through Green River Utah? It's population is only around 933 (as of 2009) and is considered by many to be a hole in the wall.

If you're going to do a mega map of the USA you should do it RIGHT.

Since I am doing a Mega USA map, do you think that we should include both large cities as well as the smaller ones? Do you think that this will represent the USA in a broader light? I want small town USA represented here as well.

As for Cincinnati, I will still leave it out, because if I start to add more cities because you deem them as mandatory to have have them included, this map will be really cluttered, especially when you have all the numbers on it.

[natty dread]

Since it seems my comment was kind of buried under all this brouhaha about cities,

I think you need to make all the state colours lighter than the background. You still have a few that are darker or about the same lightness as it (OK, NE, MT, LA, OH, ME, NJ) and since you have a minimap anyway, I don't see any reason why each state would require an unique colour. It'd be much better to have them all be consistently lighter than the background.

[The Bison King]

While I agree on just about every point you've made in this thread, I will have to disagree on this:

If you're going to do a mega map of the USA you should do it RIGHT. That means not omitting important/relevant cities because of artificial problems like lack of room, when you've made plenty of room for places that no ones ever even heard of, Kirksville, Dyer, Jonesboro, to name a few (no offense to those who might live there I'm sure they're lovely places).

Look at the original map packs, and you will see most of the small out of the way towns represented. I changed some of the names for clarity sake (make it less cluttered). Have you ever been through Green River Utah? It's population is only around 933 (as of 2009) and is considered by many to be a hole in the wall.

If you're going to do a mega map of the USA you should do it RIGHT.

Since I am doing a Mega USA map, do you think that we should include both large cities as well as the smaller ones? Do you think that this will represent the USA in a broader light? I want small town USA represented here as well.

As for Cincinnati, I will still leave it out, because if I start to add more cities because you deem them as mandatory to have have them included, this map will be really cluttered, especially when you have all the numbers on it.

So basically you've picked cities for completely arbitrary reasons and you wont add Cincinnati because you don't care or feel like it.

[Gillipig]

Why is Texas green btw? I've never been to Texas but I can't imagine green would be the best colour to describe that area! Because of the heat I think red would be better for that region. And green would better describe the "D.C"-Detroit area!
Edit: It would also look better to have red between the two yellow regions and green between the two blue. It would be more of a natural way to transcend from one colour to the other.

I'd like to hear your take on the colour scheme.