USA Map Pack [Quenched]

[edbeard]

As much as state identification is a necessary thing, I think the contrasting colors look straight awful. I'm certain there is a more appropriate and less cheesy solution to the ID problem.

I believe it was done as a temporary stopgap to let people talk about gameplay.

Version 3 South East
Fixes:
-Implemented edbeard's border suggestions. (Knoxville to Charlotte / Mississippi to Tennessee)

I'm not seeing the miss to tenn route...

[WidowMakers]

Version 3 South East
Fixes:
-Implemented edbeard's border suggestions. (Knoxville to Charlotte / Mississippi to Tennessee)

I'm not seeing the miss to tenn route...[/quote]Your right. I actually added a Tennessee/Alabama route instead.

So should I change it?
Delete Nashville to Birmingham and add Grenada to Memphis? [Miss 3 borders (bonus 3) / Alab 3 borders (bonus change to 3)]
Keep current map? [Miss 2 borders (change bonus to 2) / Alab 3 borders (bonus 4)]

[Gilligan]

If possible, Providence is more towards the center of Rhode Island. Geographically, of course, but graphically it might be a little smushed.

Warwick is also towards he center... If you want one there, I'd suggest Westerly.

[iancanton]

wm

since i'm wielding the gameplay stamp for this mammoth project, i'd better make some preliminary observations before it reaches the main foundry.

this is one of the best ideas for a map series to have been aired recently. the clamour for it to be finished shows that the demand is certainly there.

my main bone of contention at this point is the number of territories (36 and 48) on the southeast and great lakes maps. these are among the worst numbers for 1v1 on southeast and 2v2 on great lakes, since the first player needs to win only 1 territory to reduce his opponent's initial deployment by 25%.

i don't see any need to have the number of territories divisible by 8, since most games do not involve 8 players (an example is the cc olympics 2008 clan tournament, where the vast majority of games are for 2, 4 or 6 players). accordingly, i propose that u have 42 or 40 territories for southeast (32 is a possibility, but u already have two maps with that number) and 51 or 52 for great lakes. if there are 42, 51 or 52 territories, then 3 territories need to be conquered at the start of a 1v1 game to reduce the number of armies deployed by the second player, just like classic.

if u do go with a bigger southeast, then more territories can be added to florida (each state doesn't have to be drawn precisely to scale), making a big bonus region that, because of its shape and location, isn't impossible to hold. despite most people being more excited to see a place with which they are familiar, there is no sign as yet of mickey mouse. where is orlando? other places encountered on holiday, such as fort lauderdale, fort myers and interstate 95 will also not be out of place. the capital star of alabama ought to be on montgomery, not birmingham.

ur overriding principle, for the overall look to be in keeping with the original usa map, with exploded continents on a blue background, binds together the maps in a satisfying way.

ian.

[WidowMakers]

since i'm wielding the gameplay stamp for this mammoth project, i'd better make some preliminary observations before it reaches the main foundry.

Congratz. I hope I don't cause too many problems

this is one of the best ideas for a map series to have been aired recently. the clamour for it to be finished shows that the demand is certainly there.

That is why I am working hard on it. I have been slow with updates and I know people are waiting. i will continue to do the best I can and update as fast as possible. But life outside CC take priority and I can 't promise anything but eventual completion of the map pack.

my main bone of contention at this point is the number of territories (36 and 48) on the southeast and great lakes maps. these are among the worst numbers for 1v1 on southeast and 2v2 on great lakes, since the first player needs to win only 1 territory to reduce his opponent's initial deployment by 25%.

i don't see any need to have the number of territories divisible by 8, since most games do not involve 8 players (an example is the cc olympics 2008 clan tournament, where the vast majority of games are for 2, 4 or 6 players). accordingly, i propose that u have 42 or 40 territories for southeast (32 is a possibility, but u already have two maps with that number) and 51 or 52 for great lakes. if there are 42, 51 or 52 territories, then 3 territories need to be conquered at the start of a 1v1 game to reduce the number of armies deployed by the second player, just like classic.

if u do go with a bigger southeast, then more territories can be added to florida (each state doesn't have to be drawn precisely to scale), making a big bonus region that, because of its shape and location, isn't impossible to hold. despite most people being more excited to see a place with which they are familiar, there is no sign as yet of mickey mouse. where is orlando? other places encountered on holiday, such as fort lauderdale, fort myers and interstate 95 will also not be out of place. the capital star of alabama ought to be on montgomery, not birmingham.

Well I will solve on of your issues. Great Lakes now has 56 (see update page 1). That number works well with 1v1(56/3=18r2, 2v2 (56/4=14) 8player (56/8=7)

As far as adding to South East. It can be done. I do have room in Florida. I will look into that for the next update.
I will fix Alabama's capital too.

ur overriding principle, for the overall look to be in keeping with the original usa map, with exploded continents on a blue background, binds together the maps in a satisfying way.

I am glad you like this idea. I do fear, however, that ti might not live. In the smaller state regions (West, SW) there are not that many states adn it is easy to slightly adjust the colors and make them distinguishable. But in the Rockies and SE and GL, there are just too many states.

Once the gameplay is done, we can start on the GFX and we will need to look at all of teh maps together to find out what works best for everything. But that is another time

[WidowMakers]

Version 1 Great lakes



Version 4 South East
Fixed:

Switched army circle/Star for Montgomery and Birmingham in Alabama.

[cairnswk]

WM...first time i've dropped in on this huge project you've undertaken...congrats for doing it.

As a personal preference i kind of gelled with the similar tonal colours of some of the earlier maps, but i understand why you've changed them for those folks who don't know the various states, and to tie in with the legends.

I'm not entirely sure you've struck upon the right combination of colors in some of the maps, some look very awkward.

The Florida map i like....its seems to be getting there.
The Great Lakes map confuses the hell out of me because of the huge combo of highways running everywhere, which shouldn't bother me because of railway lines, but in this case it does probably because it isn't all together yet...if you know what i mean.

And i get mixed messages from the cast shadows, some are right, some left, and some don't know whether they should be right of left.

Keep trucking, i'm sure you'll get there. and i'll look in again soon.

[WidowMakers]

Since iancanton brought up the topic of territory count, can we please go over this for every map. Once this is agreed upon, I can add(or subtract) territories and then work on connection.

Thanks

[yeti_c]

Now we have all 6 drafts - can we move to the Foundry?

C.

[iancanton]

for 1v1, 40 territories is not quite as good as 42, but is certainly very playable because attacking with a stack of 7 (3 starting plus 4 deployed) by itself gives a less than 50% chance of winning 2 territories. the second player is therefore likely to be able to deploy 4 armies too. 40 territories also poses no special difficulties for 2v2 or any other format, so southeast will be fine at 40.

the 56 for great lakes falls down for 1v1 because, with 18 starting territories each, the first player needs to win only 1 territory to knock down his opponent's initial deployment. this will happen for 45-47 and 54-56. similarly, the ranges to avoid for 2v2 are 48-51 and 60-63. this leaves 52, 53, 57, 58 and 59 as good numbers for fairness to the second player or team. some of these numbers give a lot of random starting neutrals, so i suggest 52 or 57 for great lakes. if u prefer 57 to 52, then add something to delaware, include washington dc as part of maryland and remove international falls from minnesota, perhaps?

for the purpose of limiting the first player's advantage, i'm happy with the territory count for west, southwest, rockies and new england.

however, new england has 9 continents and only 32 territories, with some small states consisting of only 2 territories. we need to try to avoid these, to stop player one from picking up bonuses from the drop. one way to do this is to place a fixed starting neutral on each 2-territory state. a neater method, which i prefer for new england, is to eliminate the 2-territory bonuses completely by increasing the total number of territories to 33-35 or 38-42 in this densely-populated area that is packed with cc members keen to see their own city on the map. connecticut, rhode island and new jersey (thanks, edbeard) are prime candidates for more cities, with new york being a possibility. if space issues start to creep in, then maine can be downsized visually relative to the others.

in the west, california looks curiously sparse compared with nevada. maybe swap a nevada city for one in silicon valley?

rockies has 9 states that are roughly equal. this ought to make it good for classic-style gameplay, so it might benefit from one of the interstates being removed, but this is just a random thought.

ian.

[WidowMakers]

for 1v1, 40 territories is not quite as good as 42, but is certainly very playable because attacking with a stack of 7 (3 starting plus 4 deployed) by itself gives a less than 50% chance of winning 2 territories. the second player is therefore likely to be able to deploy 4 armies too. 40 territories also poses no special difficulties for 2v2 or any other format, so southeast will be fine at 40.

OK Staying with 40 sounds good.
Version 5 SouthEASt

the 56 for great lakes falls down for 1v1 because, with 18 starting territories each, the first player needs to win only 1 territory to knock down his opponent's initial deployment. this will happen for 45-47 and 54-56. similarly, the ranges to avoid for 2v2 are 48-51 and 60-63. this leaves 52, 53, 57, 58 and 59 as good numbers for fairness to the second player or team. some of these numbers give a lot of random starting neutrals, so i suggest 52 or 57 for great lakes. if u prefer 57 to 52, then add something to delaware, include washington dc as part of maryland and remove international falls from minnesota, perhaps?

I added D.C. Total number of terts is now 57.
I also added some connections: Cambridge to Haggerstown, Roanoke to Somerset and Waterloo to Saint Paul.
The first 2 were to eliminate the bottle neck to the east coast states. The the 3rd was to do the same on the west side.
Version 2 Great Lakes

however, new england has 9 continents and only 32 territories, with some small states consisting of only 2 territories. we need to try to avoid these, to stop player one from picking up bonuses from the drop. one way to do this is to place a fixed starting neutral on each 2-territory state. a neater method, which i prefer for new england, is to eliminate the 2-territory bonuses completely by increasing the total number of territories to 33-35 or 38-42 in this densely-populated area that is packed with cc members keen to see their own city on the map. connecticut, rhode island and new jersey (thanks, edbeard) are prime candidates for more cities, with new york being a possibility. if space issues start to creep in, then maine can be downsized visually relative to the others.

OK I added 3 terts to New England
1 in New Jersey, 1 in New York and 1 in Connecticut. Total is now 35
Version 3 New England

in the west, california looks curiously sparse compared with nevada. maybe swap a nevada city for one in silicon valley?

I am fine with this.
I added San Jose (and put Fresno on the right side of highway 5) and took Eureka out of Nevada
Version 3 West

rockies has 9 states that are roughly equal. this ought to make it good for classic-style gameplay, so it might benefit from one of the interstates being removed, but this is just a random thought.

Which interstate and why?

Thanks ian

[WidowMakers]

Can this be moved now? Please

[gimil]

First milestone!

Yeeeeeeeeeeeah Ha!

[iancanton]

wm

the new total territory counts are fine.

now that the maps are in the main foundry, i expect that we'll see lots of feedback from players regarding their own neck of the woods, especially in choosing state symbols and pushing their hometowns, which can only be good.

in the meantime, i shall try to twist ur arm on turning the remaining 2-territory states, being delaware in great lakes and rhode island in new england, into 3-territory states.

can u draw delaware bigger so that u can include its largest city, wilmington, in the far north?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington,_Delaware

this also means removing one city. i suggest removing montreal, wisconsin, which is only a village of 800 people (according to wikipedia), with the three highways to montreal being replaced by three highways to neighbouring ironwood instead (the roads really do go to ironwood, if u look at google maps); an extra road between eau claire and duluth will help to make minnesota more vulnerable. in the legend, maryland needs an r before the y.

similarly, try increasing the size of rhode island, so that u can show a third city in addition to providence and warwick. cranston is one i found, but i don't really know anything about rhode island, so it might well be that another city is more suitable.

http://www.cranstonri.com/

if u do this, then what to remove? erie?

rockies has 9 states that are roughly equal. this ought to make it good for classic-style gameplay, so it might benefit from one of the interstates being removed, but this is just a random thought.

Which interstate and why?

interstate 90, the yellow one (just a general feeling, not based on analysis), perhaps because it runs next to the green interstate 25 for some of its course. i'm not actually saying that there's anything wrong with the current gameplay on the rockies map, at which i've had only a brief look. sioux falls appears as souix falls just now.

that's all from me for the rest of august and i look forward to seeing the graphics after i return from canada. this time, i shall not be stopping in beautiful detroit.

ian.

[whitestazn88]

dc is not in maryland.... it is neither in virginia... make it a separate +1 autodeploy bonus?

and i think a northern virginia would be better suited if you don't wanna make dc a separate territ... maybe fairfax, because its the biggest county in NOVA

[gimil]

Widowmakers I see that some of the maps won't be following the colour scheme from the USA map. Is this a permenant arrangement? I would rather seem each map follow the colours off its counterpart from the USA map.

[Gilligan]

How will this go in the Start a Game?

[edbeard]

Widowmakers I see that some of the maps won't be following the colour scheme from the USA map. Is this a permenant arrangement? I would rather seem each map follow the colours off its counterpart from the USA map.

I can't talk for WM but I'm almost positive that these colour changes are done so that gameplay can be discussed easily by people who do not know these areas and are not able to distinguish states from each other. Graphics will be done when gameplay is more flushed out and at that time when repeating symbols will accompany each state. The colours will return to being themed after the USA map regions.

[WidowMakers]

the new total territory counts are fine.

now that the maps are in the main foundry, i expect that we'll see lots of feedback from players regarding their own neck of the woods, especially in choosing state symbols and pushing their hometowns, which can only be good.

in the meantime, i shall try to twist ur arm on turning the remaining 2-territory states

I actually like a couple of 2-terts bonus regions. I think I am going to keep them. They are 2 tert, 2 border for a bonus of 1. I really don't think it is a problem.

rockies has 9 states that are roughly equal. this ought to make it good for classic-style gameplay, so it might benefit from one of the interstates being removed, but this is just a random thought.

Which interstate and why?

interstate 90, the yellow one (just a general feeling, not based on analysis), perhaps because it runs next to the green interstate 25 for some of its course. i'm not actually saying that there's anything wrong with the current gameplay on the rockies map, at which i've had only a brief look. sioux falls appears as souix falls just now.

that's all from me for the rest of august and i look forward to seeing the graphics after i return from canada. this time, i shall not be stopping in beautiful detroit.

ian.

I can remove yellow and try to find another interstate that fits the map. I wanted to keep three because of the size.

[WidowMakers]

Widowmakers I see that some of the maps won't be following the colour scheme from the USA map. Is this a permenant arrangement? I would rather seem each map follow the colours off its counterpart from the USA map.

I can't talk for WM but I'm almost positive that these colour changes are done so that gameplay can be discussed easily by people who do not know these areas and are not able to distinguish states from each other. Graphics will be done when gameplay is more flushed out and at that time when repeating symbols will accompany each state. The colours will return to being themed after the USA map regions.

100% correct ed.

But now that the GP is getting closer to finalization, I want to start the discussion regarding GFX.
Here are the areas:

1) State Colors
2) State Symbols

1) My initial idea was to color each map accordion to the bonus region it came from on teh USA map. This worked out OK for the West, SouthWest and South East maps. But the Rockies does not look good and there has already been some confusion on the maps with symbols about proper identification.

So my question is. Do we base these maps on the colors of the USA bonus regions? OR just pick varying colors for all maps and ignore the bonus region colors?

2) Now id we do go with the bonus region colors then we are going to need icons. I will wait to pick and choose these alter but I want to get everyone thinking. I already have a list made up but I will wait until the colors are settled. Plus if we do not hold the color theme, the icons might not be needed.

WM

[edbeard]

the icons are half the fun when it comes to the graphics. without the icons, you might as well not make these maps

[barterer2002]

You're looking good WM and I apologize for not looking in earlier. One concern from a game play aspect in the Rockies region is that there are two many states on the eastern side of the map that aren't connected. There need to be more north-south connections from kansas to nebraska to the dakotas and not 4 terts with only one way in each (all from the west).

[oaktown]

when did this sneak into the Main Foundry? I missed that completely.

Anyway, as I've been busy as of late, iancanton has accepted the task of stamping this one for gameplay. As always I'll pop my head in occasionally, and you're free to pm me questions.

[pamoa]

...My initial idea was to color each map accordion to the bonus region it came from on teh USA map. This worked out OK for the West, SouthWest and South East maps. But the Rockies does not look good and there has already been some confusion on the maps with symbols about proper identification.

So my question is. Do we base these maps on the colors of the USA bonus regions? OR just pick varying colors for all maps and ignore the bonus region colors ?...

the icons are half the fun when it comes to the graphics. without the icons, you might as well not make these maps

Your initial idea was a very good one and it does look good in rockies.
In a tournament perspective, as you set in the concept, it is very important, it does create the continuity.
The problem is to make the link between a long list of names and the state on the map.
Impossible for non american players and even some american I guess...
My suggestion is the use of minimap, easy and quick to read.
You will loose the graphics of the name list but keep the main theme which is the color with icons.
It should stay it's the identity of these maps.

[WidowMakers]

OK I guess I might need a poll for this one but I will wait and see what feedback I get after posting this.

OK so I plan on keeping the pseudo color scheme of the bonus regions of the USA map.
And at the same time I will be adding the little icons to each state once the legend is sorted out.

Here are the 3 options I have for the legend:

1) Legend like USA map (name of state in text only on colored bars)
2) Mini map Legend Style #1 (name of state in text only on colored bars and bonus on mini map - See Great Lakes/Portugal)
3) Mini map Legend Style #2 (name of state and bonus on mini map - See Iron Curtain[Drafting Room / Brazil Revamp)
[/list]

My Thoughts:

-The 1st option keeps 100% with the feel and look as the USA map (which was my original purpose)
-The 2nd keeps a 100% content from the original USA but adds some extra (the mini map).
-The 3rd is a complete change from the style of the USA map. I would really like to avoid this one.

You thoughts