RjBeals wrote:Yeti_C - that's great news! So far it looks like everyone is okay with mibi's suggestion. I'll update this map in a few more days, and we'll work towards that with a fair bonus structure.
And I'm glad you understand that XML.. if/when this gets to final forge, would you be willing to help with the XML - your name would go on the bottom right of the map
That's what I'm here for...
No probs - You knock up the easy bits (territories, co-ords) - I'll fill in the blanks (Continents)!!
new proposal sounds like it works a lot like irradiated territories in USApocalypse - perhaps you could ask the cartographer how that was coded? i dig it coz i love that map
had i been wise, i would have seen that her simplicity cost her a fortune
Coleman wrote:No wait... I thought that was in response to pointing out what was possible.
yeti_c wrote:
RjBeals wrote:Yeti_C - that's great news! So far it looks like everyone is okay with mibi's suggestion. I'll update this map in a few more days, and we'll work towards that with a fair bonus structure.
And I'm glad you understand that XML.. if/when this gets to final forge, would you be willing to help with the XML - your name would go on the bottom right of the map
That's what I'm here for...
No probs - You knock up the easy bits (territories, co-ords) - I'll fill in the blanks (Continents)!!
Extended thick state borders a little bit beyond edge of dotted borders.
Changed Amarillo to Waco
Changed Eastern Plains to Craig
Changed Western Slope to San Luis Valley
Changed Lubbok to El Paso
Centered a few army circles
spinwizard wrote:I can't see any problems with this...mabe the state names abit more transpaent?
Tried it, but didn't like it. Since there's really nothing behind them, it just made them look lighter, which didn't look right.
Optimus Prime wrote:As far as Oklahoma is concerned, the place you have Tulsa is actually probably closer to where Bartlesville is. Either one would work though.
Yeah I checked maps.google and you're right - but I would prefer to leave Tulsa since it is a more widely recognized city. Thanks
I need advise or suggestions on how to word the bonus / negative bonus structure so it is not at all confusing to people who visit this map for the first time. I'm also concerned that someone may be unlucky enough to get their drops in a majority of drought regions, therefore starting them out in the hole.. I don't want any neutrals to start. There's gotta be a way to get around this.... Thanks.
I like the desautrated one. What about making logan a drought region, Im not sure of the historical aspect, but it would balance out NM a bit since its the only state with only one drought region... seems to be a strong hold there.
I guess I could. New Mexico really wasn't included in the dust bowl except for the very northeast tip. But it would balance out the game. Then I would have 13 drought regions. Should I take 1 away from somewhere to keep it 12?
"Careful, drought areas drain your reinforcements (-1) per area. Each non-drought area you occupy offsets one drought area (capped at +0)"
not sure about the "capped at 0" part.
I like the less saturated map - at least for the drought region. Because the states are now a bit too close in color to non-states (remember the color blind - they need distinct changes). Maybe give the states a wee bit of red background tint?
Good, but still a little confusing I think? But.. your first sentence is kinda interesting. Drought areas drain your reinforcements (-1). We could go that route and say forget the offset, no matter how many drougt areas you hold, at the start of each turn, 1 army is taken off each region, either until you are down to 1, or until it becomes a neutral 1?
"Careful, drought areas drain your reinforcements (-1 per area). Each occupied non-drought area offsets a drought area"
OR
"Careful, drought areas drain your reinforcements (-1 per area). Occupying non-drought areas stops this drain (1 per area until no armies are drained)"
OR
"Careful, drought areas drain your reinforcements (-1 per area). Occupying non-drought areas stops this drain (1 per area until only 1 army drained)"
I like the less saturated map - at least for the drought region. Because the states are now a bit too close in color to non-states (remember the color blind - they need distinct changes). Maybe give the states a wee bit of red background tint?
I think having only 1 drought area in New Mexico is fine. We have plenty of other bottleneck terrs on other maps. And it's not like that's its only defense point.
yeti_c wrote:My major problem is the straight lines with the drought areas...
Droughts don't stop because there's a state line?!
C.
This is true... but does it mean that much that I should attempt to change? Or are you just voicing your thoughts. I take it you really mean up North next to North Platte.. should I round off the the drought area into the "non-territory" area so it's not a hard vertical line?
RjBeals wrote:I guess I could. New Mexico really wasn't included in the dust bowl except for the very northeast tip. But it would balance out the game. Then I would have 13 drought regions. Should I take 1 away from somewhere to keep it 12?
you dont have to or anything. I would leave it at 13 drought regions. The more the merrier in my opinion as it would make the drought more of a factor.
Just to make sure I understand this, RJ, the 'Attacks' the legend states you can only make attacks in the Dust Bowl regions...which is across the dotted/dashed line, correct?
If so, I'd consider adding a representation of dotted/dashed lines to that little message, to make it more clear.
AndyDufresne wrote: I'd consider adding a representation of dotted/dashed lines to that little message, to make it more clear.
I was waiting for Andy to show up in my thread. Yes you are correct, and I did plan on clarifying a little better than it is now. I can add a dotted line to the legend to keep it clear.
And it's not "only make attacks in the Dust Bowl regions" it's only make attacks across states. You can attack territories within the states all you want.
I've been watching the development. I never imagined we'd have a Dust Bowl map, but it is surprising me, and I like it.
Always nice to increase the wide variety of maps we offer. Keep up the good work, RJ. (I also noticed you have a general 'softer' emphasis (in terms of tone and color) for your maps...or at least this and Italy. I like it. )
AndyDufresne wrote:. (I also noticed you have a general 'softer' emphasis (in terms of tone and color) for your maps...or at least this and Italy. I like it. )
--Andy
Yes it's what I prefer - I'm glad you also like it. I prefer straightforward game play and maps. In fact i thought about scrapping the negative bonus because I thought it might be too confusing for the normal cc'er. But i think if we can come up with the right description in the legend, it should be pretty clear.
I'm also thinking about starting positions. and what if I play a 4 player game. Each player is deployed on 9 territories (36 total on map). What if like 5 or 6 of mine were the drought. I would start out in the hole already.
I really don't want neutrals starting. I may have to go with the straight negative bonus for number of drought areas owned.
