Enigma wrote:i also think ohio should be 3 and not 4. the extra territory doesnt seem to deserve an extra army.
I agree with this, I think your formula is too heavily weighted towards number of territories that can attack. Having 6 territories that can attack you does not mean you will face 6 attacks. Giving it 66% as much as actual territories is not comparable to the effect it has on taking and holding a region in a real game. Ohio only barely got a score of 3.58, I think if the 6 attacking territories wasn't pushing that score up so much it would round down to 3.
Also, why is 4 Lakes only worth +2? For holding 4 out of 5, I think it should be +3.
while the minimap is convenient, it's also redundant to have both legends up there. The mini map's only serves a purpose for those who are colorblind and geographically challenged. Im not even sure why it was added to begin with, I guess i will have to read up on this thread.
mibi- Some people prefer the mini-map legend over the text legend. I am one of them and others have supported it as well. I understand that you don't like it but that fact doesn't make it a bad idea.
You think the minimap is for the geographically challenged? I'd say the opposite! Your main complaint about the minimap was that people wouldn't know the names of the continents (if they didn't know geography of course) and they would only refer to areas by color. Of course if you know the geography that problem wouldn't occur so your statement is backward.
As I said before, the minimap is a much simpler way to achieve the same system of identifying bonuses. It takes up less space (less clutter!) is quicker and easier to understand than text, and it gives you a good view of how the bonuses of all the areas come together.
I do agree that both legends are not needed because its a redundant system. However I would greatly prefer to see the minimap stay and the text disappear.
Perhaps to solve the problem of people not knowing the state names the minimap could have the names and bonuses for each area. I think that would be a better compromise between the two systems and it would be the best of both worlds.
I also agree with the notion that the current lake borders are not clear. I would love to see the lakes 'receased' a bit in the map so the only visible borders are at the ports. It will make the map more intuitive and less confusing for most people. Basically you would just be adding an impassible shadow around each lake except where they border port territories.
sully800 wrote:Perhaps to solve the problem of people not knowing the state names the minimap could have the names and bonuses for each area. I think that would be a better compromise between the two systems and it would be the best of both worlds.
Samus wrote:Also, why is 4 Lakes only worth +2? For holding 4 out of 5, I think it should be +3.
im not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing- but notice that the main reason to hold the lakes is to defend your continents by majorly reducing your borders. this means that though it might be hard to randomly hold 4 lakes, it adds a huge strategic benefit if you are also holding michigan, for example, which already has a bonus of 6. this benefit might make up for the smaller bonuses for simply the lakes.
Do you need an excuse to have a war? I mean, who for? Can't you just say "You got lots of cash and land, but I've got a big sword, so divy up right now, chop chop."
Terry Pratchet
i love the legend, both parts. the directions at the bottom of the map need a shadow to be made consistent with the legend. or the shadow removed from the top.
and as there are 2 sentences of direction at the bottom, i think bullets or a slight space or something to differentiate them would be beneficial.
Do you need an excuse to have a war? I mean, who for? Can't you just say "You got lots of cash and land, but I've got a big sword, so divy up right now, chop chop."
Terry Pratchet
I glanced over the thread to see if this had been mentioned yet, but I'm out of time and I missed a couple of pages, so tell me if this is old ground.
The bridges have a really artificial look... sort of like cartoons grafted onto the rest of the map. I would recommend getting rid of them, but I think they serve an important purpose. Can you improve the graphic to give it a feel more appropriate to the map?
I know I have not paid enough attention to this thread and I might be posting something that has already been discussed but I have a real problem with the colour schemes of the various continents.
I just cannot make out the different territories that form part of the continents. Can you make the outer border colours thicker to help me differentiate between a continent and another or perhaps colour the inside of the territories with their respective colours?
Harrisburg should change. The actual city is right where you have some mountains. That area is probably better as Wilkes-Barre (I think that's the right spelling. Not entirely sure. I'll get back to you on that).
Samus wrote:Also, why is 4 Lakes only worth +2? For holding 4 out of 5, I think it should be +3.
im not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing- but notice that the main reason to hold the lakes is to defend your continents by majorly reducing your borders. this means that though it might be hard to randomly hold 4 lakes, it adds a huge strategic benefit if you are also holding michigan, for example, which already has a bonus of 6. this benefit might make up for the smaller bonuses for simply the lakes.
This is actually not true, it only LOOKS that way because it isn't clear yet that lakes cannot attack land in most places. Once the lake/land borders are made more clear, I think you will see that in every case, taking a lake either moves 1 border outward, keeping it the same numbers, or actually increases borders.
Awesome Job...I live in Michigan so I am very excited to see a map like this..I also fish the Great Lakes in Salmon Tournaments...again very excited.
My suggestions:
Kalamazoo is a good name but it might be better to call it a city that borders Lake Michigan and know for its value on the west side..I would suggest St. Joseph or Grand Haven
Or I would re configure the lines a bit and create a center territory and keep the name Lansing...as it it is the State Capital and it is dead center of the state between lake huron, Lake Erie and Lake Michigan.
Petoskey to Mackinac was a good change.
Another Idea is to add Mackinac Island off the NE shore of the Lower Penisula
Also, you could create different bonuses for securing the Lower and the upper penisulas of Michigan. It is a special feature of the State.
Where you have Grand Rapids...I would prefer Traverse City. Again, it is a City that borders the Lake and it better represents the map.
If you change none of these suggestions...You still have a very good map and I would not be offended but as you look to perfect ..those would be my suggestions.
Blind Date - name of my Boat that I use on the lakes.
Samus wrote:Also, why is 4 Lakes only worth +2? For holding 4 out of 5, I think it should be +3.
im not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing- but notice that the main reason to hold the lakes is to defend your continents by majorly reducing your borders. this means that though it might be hard to randomly hold 4 lakes, it adds a huge strategic benefit if you are also holding michigan, for example, which already has a bonus of 6. this benefit might make up for the smaller bonuses for simply the lakes.
This is actually not true, it only LOOKS that way because it isn't clear yet that lakes cannot attack land in most places. Once the lake/land borders are made more clear, I think you will see that in every case, taking a lake either moves 1 border outward, keeping it the same numbers, or actually increases borders.
apologies- you are correct. i forgot that only port territories could attack lakes, and visa versa.
Do you need an excuse to have a war? I mean, who for? Can't you just say "You got lots of cash and land, but I've got a big sword, so divy up right now, chop chop."
Terry Pratchet
Sorry I did not get back to everyone sooner. I like the ideas you all have presented. I will apply the name changes and they will be in the next update.
As far as I can see (or read i guess) the 2 main issue currently are the Bonus layout and the port territory issue. I will first start with the bonus layout.
Bonus layout. I started the first map with only perspective text and a little icon with the state/province and the bonus value. Too many people said it was hard to see what name went with what area. I am from Michigan so I needlessly ignored that issue. Sorry
I then made a smaller map and put in the bonuses. People liked this because it was easy-to-read. Other disliked it because of the character lost due to the name dropping.
I the made combined map with both. I feel this is the best way to represent the feel of the map (perspective text) while facilitating readability and compression (mini map). Does everyone else agree?
Please ignore colors for now. I can change them all day long. Once this issue has been resolved the colors of the map will be sorted out accordingly.
Port Territories. There have been several suggestion as to how the port territories (PTs) should be labeled.
1)The current one on the map has little anchors and the text at the bottom describing how those places work. (someone posted that the text actually has 2 sentences and I should add bullet points to each. I will if this idea passes.)
2)Make the borders of the lakes different (beveled,coastline, whatever) around the lakes where they cannot attack. I think this would really hurt the maps looks. Plus it would really need to be a drastic line to make sure players would see it. This is my least favorite idea.
3)Make docks to and from the PTs and the lakes. A simple little addition. The text could read (pic of dock) water to land/land to water attack route. it is simple and easy to understand. If there is no dock,NO ATTACK. But would that make the map to cluttered with bridges and docks? I don't know.
Well there are the issues I feel this map currently has. Please don't get angry if I forgot to write about something you wrote. There was a lot and I will try to get to everything. Once these two main issues are resolved minor graphical issues will be next.
Just in case anyone wants to look at how I did some of the things on the GL map. Here is the Photoshop CS2 file zipped.
Sorry the link died
I don't know if it is backwards compatible.
Last edited by WidowMakers on Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MR. Nate wrote:Widowmakers: All your picture links are broken.
I love the new avvy. Very intimidating.
Thanks.
For some reason my brother site is messed up. I will try to fix them. If I can't get them fixed I will need to relocate all of them and fix all of my posts. FUN FUN.
Here are the updates. I fixed most of the suggested names and recolored the different states/province to help distinguish. I was going to try a more solid border line but it was too harsh and interfered with the text.
I also removed the bridges and added arrows. At the size I needed to draw them, the bridges did not look good.
