Conquer Club

Washington
Oregon
California
Nevada

Montana
North Dakota
Idaho
Wyoming
South Dakota
Utah
Colorado
Nebraska
Kansas

North Carolina
Tennessee
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
South Carolina
Florida

Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
New York
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Pennsylvania
New Jersey

edbeard wrote:sorry for this graphically/visual comment but I believe I've earned the right to make one


on Rockies I mixed up Nebraska and Montana. I realize switching any of the colours there wouldn't make sense. They are balanced correctly. My suggestion for a fix is a pain-in-the-ass type of fix. Increase the size of the legend boxes making what is inside them more clear. Perhaps just making them longer so there's more blank space between the State names and the bonus number. This would of course have to occur on all the maps. Yikes. Maybe different colours would be better.

pamoa wrote:I think you need to reorder some state bonus list in order to get your Gp stamp.
It's part of gameplay finding which zone get which bonus.

And again it's not that I'm liking being a pain in your a..
But for a non-American not familiar with all those states, your bonus legend choice as a list make it very difficult to sort out.
And keep on going with this incredible work you are making

WidowMakers wrote:Version 5 New England

iancanton wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:Version 5 New England

1) the first is rhode island, which has only two territories. as mentioned, u like to have the occasional two-territory continent and this does little harm to the great lakes map. new england is a lot smaller - the normal initial deployment being only 3 armies - and i feel that the +1 bonus for rhode island, in those games where player 1 has it from the drop is enough to make player 2's position untenable. for this reason, i'd like rhode island to have a third territory. if, however, u do insist that the number of games in which this happens is too small to matter, then i shan't twist ur arm.

2) the second is the new york and syracuse bottleneck. if u hold these two territories, then u can control a good sector of the map with just two border territories. it's not necessarily a problem, just something to mull over - this can even lead to some interesting strategies, with the north-east player seeking the small bonuses, while the south-west player tries to cut off pennsylvania and new jersey for the killer blow. maybe the balance is tilted marginally in the north-east's favour, though it could perhaps be redressed by removing a penn city (for an easier bonus) if rhode island is increased in size.

ian.

1) I am not 100% stuck on what I have now but I want a good reason to change them
2) They need to be related to the state. Animal, resource, historical icon, etc
3) They need to be able to scale to a small size.
4) I am not going to change for the sake of change. I tried my best and I would say 80% (at least) of the icons fit the state already. But I will listen to all suggestions

the upper part of the grape in California is a bit strange
is it a bison in Oklahoma
I'm not sure about the New-York's liberty statue mass production, maybe something about wall street

even if it is not the most productive industry nowadays

WidowMakers wrote:How about that GP stamp.

iancanton wrote:

edbeard wrote:West: Worries me.

1. Three continents basically the same size and have the same bonuses (currently) but drastically differently situations.

a. Washington - 6 terr but only 1 border. I don't think this is worth 3 when you compare it to Nevada and Oregon. I'd go with 2 but the 1 border thing worries me

b. Oregon / Nevada: basically the same. Oregon borders all 3 states but you can hold both it and Wash. Nevada allows you to get the highway 80 bonus in addition to nevada very easily. these bonuses seem fine.

2. Washington only having 1 border. I don't really like it. Might be good to put a road from Pendleton to Kennewick. Then you can keep Oregon at 3 with the 2 borders and increase washington to 4.

edbeard wrote:WEST: I think it'd be better to add the extra border between Wash and Oregon and make 80 go to San Fran.

good analysis, edbeard. i agree with ur original feeling that the washington bonus is a +2 and not a +3. being connected to only one other state makes it the most desirable starting position by far. with the extra connection to washington, oregon (which is the only state that can be attacked directly by all others) becomes even more difficult to hold, possibly more so than even california, and is worthy of a +4 bonus. the state capitals will usually be ignored, since +3 isn't so hot; the +1 for holding three will sometimes be taken, but a +4 or even +5 bonus is needed for anyone even to think about taking the fourth capital, since splitting up ur forces like this can often prove to be fatal on a small map - big risk deserves big reward.

WidowMakers wrote:Now that GP is 99% done (fingers crossed) let start talking about colors, icons and background images for each region.

xmaveric wrote:Please don't make the same mistake that the Great Lakes map had in Indiana... the northernmost city should be South Bend, not Goshen. Goshen has 29k people... South Bend has 105k. South Bend is the largest city in North Central Indiana.

iancanton wrote:approval from the tournament folks about it being the only one of this set of 6 that has an auto-deploy, though no-one has raised any objections so far

MrBenn wrote:The legend order on Great Lakes confuses the hell out of me.... Would it be easier to move the title down, and add an extra column to the legend so that you lay it out in the same order as on the map?

I'd agree with edbeards earlier comment about the icons being easier to see - expanding the legend boxes where possible would be the simplest fix. I also think that a little more colour variation would help immensely, especially for people (like me) who don't have the first clue about American geography...

pamoa wrote:First thing you have to check is the icon position. Wherever it is possible at least 1 icon should be fully visible either in territories and in legend frame.

WidowMakers wrote: ... I am open to making the legend boxes wider but only if it is 100% necessary. What icons are hard to see and maybe we can just pick a different icon.

1) have in each legend box at least one icon fully visible
2) the same for each territory

WidowMakers wrote:Thanks for the comments

1) I don't really want to move the title down. i want to keep all of them in the upper corners. I could move it to the left move the other legend pieces over to the right. Then there would be more room to move around the boxes.

2) I am open to making the legend boxes wider but only if it is 100% necessary. What icons are hard to see and maybe we can just pick a different icon.

3) As far as colors go, I wanted to keep them as close to the USA map as possible. This is the reason i added the icons. To differentiate them. If we decide that multiple different colors are needed then we can do that but I think the maps lose something. Do you have any specific suggestions on colors and on which maps you have issue?

Thanks
WM

WidowMakers wrote:Version 5 SOUTHWEST

MrBenn wrote:1. Actually, I just realised that you could shift the map to the top and put the legend at the bottom.... would that work?
Not really. I want to keep the title at the top for all of the maps.

3. Colour-wise, I think you can still fit the maps within their colour scheme, but there is room for a wider variation of greens that could be used on SouthWest (for example). I don't have any problems with using a single colour for each map, I was just wondering if there could be a slightly wider variation in the saturation/hue. Alternatively the icons could be given a splash of colour?
That is what I have already done more or less. The reason th eicons are not brighter or more visible is that the map starts to look really bad. They are already busy maps and really brigth or contrasty icons make it worse.

I know it's a borderline graphics discussion, but I think that points 2/3 almost go hand-in-hand with getting a "quick visual link between legend and territory." I'll have a look in a bit more depth and make some suggestions later tonight.

Mr_Adams wrote:just move the Kingman down 5 or 6 pixels and rename it to Bullhead.

edbeard wrote:South Dakota, North Dakota, New Mexico, and Washington are ones that 'bother' me. I can hardly see any of the symbol. Perhaps a new symbol or a different colour of the symbol would make them more prominent but in almost all the other legend boxes, you can see the symbol in between the State name and Bonus number. On those you cannot.

Furthermore, quite a few of your symbols are hardly distinguishable or very faint to put it another way. Oregon for one. Most of the 'West' ones actually. Just look at the ones on the Southeast. Those pop out. Quite a few on other maps do not. I think the Rockies has this problem. Obviously the yellow vs blue has a large impact.

The Southwest is o k but you might say that I can distinguish Oklahoma from the others but I couldn't say what the shape is.


And, Massachusetts doesn't have a symbol on the legend. Any possibility of making the Statue of Liberty symbols larger (on the state itself)?


I think you get the idea?

1) Fill colors for states
2) Keep as true to the original USA map color pallet

1) Most fitting Icon per state
2) Icon that looks ok at very small size
3) Color and opacity
4) Potential requirement of increasing the width of legend boxes to fit icons.