South America [Quenched]

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:00 pm

I'm not afraid to admit I'm being too stubborn.

Marv is right about quite a few of the things he suggested.

First here's what the map looks like with army numbers. Yes they're not all centered, it's just to show how it looks.
First here's what the map looks like with army numbers. Yes they're not all centered, it's just to show how it looks.
First here's what the map looks like with army numbers. Yes they're not all centered, it's just to show how it looks.

I think the army circles are fine. Now that you've seen them with numbers on them, what do you think?

I will post up a few versions later with different colours for the ocean. I will also try cutting down the height and placing the title in the top right. It will require a MUCH smaller type for the title at present, but we'll see how it looks and there's also plenty of space to increase the width so the title size might be able to stay and put proper legend names as well. I will also give options for different fonts (of the title), but frankly I like this one quite a bit, so unless there's overwhelming support against the one I currently have, I'm inclined to keep the present one.

I'll come back later, hopefully later tonight with some postings.

I hope everyone will also start discussing/commenting on the gameplay suggestions that Marv and I have posted!!!
I hope everyone will also start discussing/commenting on the gameplay suggestions that Marv and I have posted!!!
I hope everyone will also start discussing/commenting on the gameplay suggestions that Marv and I have posted!!!
I hope everyone will also start discussing/commenting on the gameplay suggestions that Marv and I have posted!!!
I hope everyone will also start discussing/commenting on the gameplay suggestions that Marv and I have posted!!!
I hope everyone will also start discussing/commenting on the gameplay suggestions that Marv and I have posted!!!

militant · Post by **militant** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:12 pm

The numbers in santa cruz and Fernando de noronha are not in there army circles

Kaplowitz · Post by **Kaplowitz** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:16 pm

I think that the army circles are too dark. I can hardly see the blue numbers

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:24 pm

First, let me say every time I see your repetition of your various phrases...they always make me smile.

As for playability...

2- We could make the Pampas conti a traditional 4 territories and 2 borders for a bonus of 2. We just need remove the border between Buenos Aires and Chubut, giving to Cordoba some of Buenos Aires lands. The question is, should we?

This is something to consider. On one hand, I like the idea of getting rid of the border, and knocking it down, as sometimes it's nice to have more than one 'extra small contintents'. But on the other hand, does it make expansion from Patagonia too easy?

3- Andes. I feel the lack of a gigantic continent in a map with so many continents. I would like an area with more territories. And in the Andes we can do it without many graphical problems, and keeping still a good space for all the names. Of course, we can add some more routes, like Santiago to Potosi. Opinions? (In fact, I think Andes would need at least 1 more territory...)

There are always advantages and disadvantages in regards to a 'No Man's Land' continent. Such continents are a good battlefield area, but since Andes (if I think I understand you correctly) is not located centrally on the map...I'm not sure it would be beneficial...as there is the Amazon.

4- If someone was liking the Panama due to playability... a corner territory to jail an opponent and prevent his elimination in assassin or escalating games... We could have the same effect adding the Galapagos islands, to the west of Ecuador. Ed disliked the idea due to map size.

I don't think I'd go adding Panama or the Galapgos. There is currently one 'Jail Territory' as you call it...Fernando. And if you play the Andes area properly, you can create a nice stronghold around a particular country.

5- Bonuses. Ed was misunderstood. I was suggesting simply some diferent bonuses: Andes could be 3 like it is now; B. Highlands 4 (even why its the possible expansion from Caatinga); Amazon, possibly 6, although it is currently the biggest conti and also a no man land. Any opinions about bonuses?

3 for Andes would be something to consider, as I think it's a particularly strong continent in its current state (but if you go adding a route to Potosi via Santiago...then that's a different discussion). You could knock Amazon down, but I don't what that would really do...

====
Just a few thoughts...feels like the old days, Marv!

--Andy

militant · Post by **militant** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:27 pm

also this territory has no name

unless i am mistaken and am not seeing something

Kaplowitz · Post by **Kaplowitz** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:30 pm

yeah, the old map has it. I think he was just checking out the n=army numbers.

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:40 pm

Hey, Andy! Good old times, heh? I think I could return to my foundry's bad guy position... some of the recent maps quenched / final forge have a poor playability... although I thought I had teached you foundry guys enough :wink:

Of course not all the numbers are centered, this was previously mentioned. And the no named territory is being called La Paz, although I dont know where is its name.

AndyDufresne wrote:
2- We could make the Pampas conti a traditional 4 territories and 2 borders for a bonus of 2. We just need remove the border between Buenos Aires and Chubut, giving to Cordoba some of Buenos Aires lands. The question is, should we?

This is something to consider. On one hand, I like the idea of getting rid of the border, and knocking it down, as sometimes it's nice to have more than one 'extra small contintents'. But on the other hand, does it make expansion from Patagonia too easy?

Lol, in fact, I think Pampas will be conquered first, and then expand to Patagonia, huh? Anyway, I wouldnt expect an easy expansion there, once there are 3 small continents near each other. Plus, if we cut that border and reduce Pampas bonus to 2, we will have Pampas + Patagonia as 9 territories and 4 borders to a bonus of 5, which is fine, isnt it?

AndyDufresne wrote:
3- Andes. I feel the lack of a gigantic continent in a map with so many continents. I would like an area with more territories. And in the Andes we can do it without many graphical problems, and keeping still a good space for all the names. Of course, we can add some more routes, like Santiago to Potosi. Opinions? (In fact, I think Andes would need at least 1 more territory...)

There are always advantages and disadvantages in regards to a 'No Man's Land' continent. Such continents are a good battlefield area, but since Andes (if I think I understand you correctly) is not located centrally on the map...I'm not sure it would be beneficial...as there is the Amazon.

Ok, really, its not in a good position for a great continent. How about add a territory to Amazon then, splitting Acre?

AndyDufresne wrote:
4- If someone was liking the Panama due to playability... a corner territory to jail an opponent and prevent his elimination in assassin or escalating games... We could have the same effect adding the Galapagos islands, to the west of Ecuador. Ed disliked the idea due to map size.

I don't think I'd go adding Panama or the Galapgos. There is currently one 'Jail Territory' as you call it...Fernando. And if you play the Andes area properly, you can create a nice stronghold around a particular country.

Im not suggesting Panama, lol. Just Galapagos. If you consider territories with 2 borders, there are several other, even out of the Andes. But still something to discuss, because the jail with half of the guards is not as safe as the usual jail. :wink:

AndyDufresne wrote:
5- Bonuses. Ed was misunderstood. I was suggesting simply some diferent bonuses: Andes could be 3 like it is now; B. Highlands 4 (even why its the possible expansion from Caatinga); Amazon, possibly 6, although it is currently the biggest conti and also a no man land. Any opinions about bonuses?

3 for Andes would be something to consider, as I think it's a particularly strong continent in its current state (but if you go adding a route to Potosi via Santiago...then that's a different discussion). You could knock Amazon down, but I don't what that would really do...

Yep, the Andes are strong. The option would be keep the bonus and split Santiago in 2 territories.

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:19 pm

The problem I have with adding just one more territory is that we currently have 44 territories. Adding only one more will bring the total to 45, which as I have learned is not the best number for 1v1 games. Also, probably 3 player games. I feel that it increases the bonus of being able to go first by quite a substantial margin. There is the option of adding territories to Andes as well to offset this (though I think the idea of adding another territory to Amazon was doing it instead of adding one to Andes), but I quite like the numbers as we have them currently.

yes La Paz name isn't there. I removed it while doing the river borders.

I will decrease the opacity of the army circles slightly in the next update as well.

Changing the water route to hit F de N instead of Ceara might be a good idea. I think no matter what, some of the ocean routes will have to be covered slightly by territory labels if we want placement to be improved. I'll put an example of this up to see how it looks.

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:59 pm

the bleu armys are nearly impossible to read, please make the army shads some brighter

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:26 pm

OK. I highly appreciate your comments. I have greater appreciation when you read what I have to say as well!
OK. I highly appreciate your comments. I have greater appreciation when you read what I have to say as well!
OK. I highly appreciate your comments. I have greater appreciation when you read what I have to say as well!

OK. I highly appreciate your comments. I have greater appreciation when you read what I have to say as well!

Changes:

1. Canvas. Shorter and Wider.

2. Army Circles. Lighter.

3. Legend. Since we have more space, I put all the full names out there.

4. North Ocean Route. Moved it down a bit.

5. Territory Titles. Moved Guyana, Suriname and Maranhao though I think I need to move Maranhao again probably a bit south and east.

Choices:

1. Title. Do you like A, B, or C?

2. Ocean Colour. Do you like A, B, or C?

A.

B.

C.

I know that the rivers don't blend/match the ocean colour on all versions. I know that the rivers don't blend/match the ocean colour on all versions.
I know that the rivers don't blend/match the ocean colour on all versions. I know that the rivers don't blend/match the ocean colour on all versions.
I know that the rivers don't blend/match the ocean colour on all versions. I know that the rivers don't blend/match the ocean colour on all versions.

1. Which Title you like best (if any)?
2. Which Ocean Colour do you think is best (if any)?

To Do/Comments/Questions:

1. I think people like or don't mind the snow caps so I'll place them on all the mountains.

2. The map looks really weird to me when I place yellow or orange in another spot. I don't think anyone thinks it's a huge deal so I'm going to leave them where they are.

3. There is no compass on there now. Do we need it? If so where would you place it?

4. This question mainly for Marvaddin and other South Americans. Is there any art that is relevant to all of South America that you think fits well onto the map?

I probably forgot something but that's all I can remember

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:27 pm

I wish there was more green in there.

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:07 pm

I like the ocean in the last choice..though I wouldn't even mind a littler lighter version! None of the titles (except for the first I suppose) seem to fit because of the style of font for territory names. I like the 3rd one, for example...but it doesn't mesh very well with the font for the territories.

--Andy

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:35 pm

edbeard...i prefer B for the title. it flows better with the font in the tert names, and creates a "gel" from a design perspective

as a personal preference, i'm still not happy with the font and colour you've chosen for signature, but if no-one else has issues with this, then i'll leave alone....i would like to see some other variants on this though.

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:40 pm

once we get the title chose I'll look at the sig fonts/colour

2 options for fonts to go with the 3rd title.

Notice that Suriname has the same font as the Amazon countries to show how it looks on water.

The other font is on the Brazilian Highlands continent

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:39 pm

imho...your script style font as in version B is better.

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:51 pm

cairnswk wrote:imho...your script style font as in version B is better.

noted. Just wanted to give another option

also, please refresh your browser and look at the above image again. I have put snow onto the rest of the mountain tops. Any comments?

mibi I'm trying to get more green on there, but I'm having trouble finding a colour that fits for the Andes. still playing around with the colours though

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:03 pm

edbeard wrote:
cairnswk wrote:imho...your script style font as in version B is better.

noted. Just wanted to give another option

also, please refresh your browser and look at the above image again. I have put snow onto the rest of the mountain tops. Any comments?

Mmmmmm i know the southern mountains would be snow capped most of the year round....but not sure about the northern ones....perhaps onl;y have a few snow caps in the north for the really high mountains.

Kaplowitz · Post by **Kaplowitz** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:29 pm

I like the first option. I think it looks better cause you have dark teritories, so why not a dark ocean?

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:39 pm

So, I wasn't planning on making my small map much smaller than this honestly because of spacing issues in the territories, and I'm wondering if it would be OK to have the large and small maps be the same size? I believe it fits the guidelines for both large and small. It's just a question mind you. I am currently redoing all the xml and sizing in the likely event that this is not a valid option. I just feel that it looks good at this size and I think it works quite well as both large and small.

militant · Post by **militant** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:37 pm

i think the option 3 is the best for the title font

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:30 pm

well, I'm inclined to just pick the choices I prefer for ocean colour and title font. I don't want to put up a poll for this. If you want to vote then just post in the thread. And, maybe give some other comments as well

Also, any response to my small map question above?

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:53 pm

I think we'd still like to have 'Two Versions'.

--Andy

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:08 pm

I like the rondonia font.

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:56 pm

there should be more green...

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:08 pm

well teal IS a shade of green kinda. I'm still playing around with it. But, hard to get a colour combo all around that looks good.