Omega Cities v4 <waiting for XML update>

[natty dread]

Losing condition added

Click image to enlarge.

[theBastard]

I think there is not needed "line" between ports. maybe "free" move could be better - each port can attack all others...

will look at all map later.

[natty dread]

I don't know, I kinda thought that being linear increases their strategic value... also, the movement in the rest of the map is already so free that a portion of the map having restricted movement kinda balances that, if that makes sense.

What do others think of this?

[theBastard]

ports are allways strategic points and all map is divided by sea, therefore "free" moves between ports could be fine...

I see that you have "regions" also in sea. did you thought about ships or oil platforms?

[natty dread]

No, the regions in the sea are for measuring purposes only, so that you can easily see how far you can bombard accross the sea. They are not actual territories. Which will be obvious in the game, as they will not have army numbers.

[theBastard]

I meant "regions". I understand they will have no numbers, just use any as ship/ oil base or what ever...

[natty dread]

No, there's enough territories in the map... and also enough things going on in the map, I don't think cramming even more stuff into it would be productive.

[40kguy]

this is an awesome map, have fun coding.

[natty dread]

this is an awesome map, have fun coding.

Thanks. To be honest, I kinda figured I'd get someone else to do the XML for this one...

[OliverFA]

this is an awesome map, have fun coding.

Thanks. To be honest, I kinda figured I'd get someone else to do the XML for this one...

If you are serious about this, I can do the coding But of course, all the final words about gameplay decisions would continue to be yours. Or to say in other words, I don't want to take ownership from you in any way.

[OliverFA]

By the way, sorry to be nitpicking. But I am not sure I understand what it means "at least 1 barracks or not building territory". By "non-building" it means a territory in the geographic map? What about something like "at least 1 barrack or hex territory"?

About ports, I think that it also makes more sense that all ports can attack all the other ports. This area looks like an internal sea, and usually internal seas work in that way.

I like having hexes in the water to count the range. However, it is also true that they can be mistaken as territories. What about making the lines doted lines? That way the player would clearly see that they are not real territories. Or even write somewhere a legend saying "Water hexes are not actual regions".

[40kguy]

now that i actually read whats suppose to happen, i do want this map to be made, seems fun.

[natty dread]

now that i actually read whats suppose to happen, i do want this map to be made, seems fun.

Thanks.

If you are serious about this, I can do the coding But of course, all the final words about gameplay decisions would continue to be yours. Or to say in other words, I don't want to take ownership from you in any way.

I would be happy to get you to do the XML. You already have experience from R&C, so coding another massive, complex strategic map should be a walk in the park for you

By the way, sorry to be nitpicking. But I am not sure I understand what it means "at least 1 barracks or not building territory". By "non-building" it means a territory in the geographic map? What about something like "at least 1 barrack or hex territory"?

Yes, any territory that is not on the building side. "Hex territory" could also work. I didn't want to use "land territory" because I thought it could be mistaken as only the "regular" land territories...

About ports, I think that it also makes more sense that all ports can attack all the other ports. This area looks like an internal sea, and usually internal seas work in that way.

As a compromise, I was thinking of adding routes so that each port can attack 2 nearest ports (instead of 1 like now).

I like having hexes in the water to count the range. However, it is also true that they can be mistaken as territories.

I think it will be clear as day they are not territories when players see that they have no army numbers...

[natty dread]

Ok how about sea routes like these? I kinda like this arrangement.

Click image to enlarge.

[OliverFA]

I like that compromise. It's not "any port to any port" but it is more open than the previous version. I think that the 2 routes per port idea fits well in the gameplay.

[natty dread]

I like that compromise. It's not "any port to any port" but it is more open than the previous version. I think that the 2 routes per port idea fits well in the gameplay.

2 routes per port, except for port 3, which is a sort of "hub" - it connects to all other ports. But it also divides the ports to two groups, 1-3 and 3-5. Now the connections are open on both sides of the sea respectively, but not between the sides - which increases the strategic value of the central port.

[OliverFA]

So. Can we say that the draft is finished?

[natty dread]

So. Can we say that the draft is finished?

I don't know, it's basically waiting at this point...

[natty dread]

I drew new city icons, but I'm not totally satisfied with them... I'm going to redraw them later. But I think top-down view cities is definitely the way to go, since it is more consistent with all the other icons.

Click image to enlarge.

[OliverFA]

My personal opinion is that I liked them more before, even if they were not consistent with the rest of the icons. Maybe if you want to continue with the top-down style, you could make the icon like drawong the main streets in the city. Right now we can see many buildings, but no main streets in the city, and maybe that's the reason why it looks a bit strange. Try drawin a couple or three of main streets for each city.

[natty dread]

Maybe if you want to continue with the top-down style, you could make the icon like drawong the main streets in the city. Right now we can see many buildings, but no main streets in the city, and maybe that's the reason why it looks a bit strange. Try drawin a couple or three of main streets for each city.

That sounds like a good idea. I'll try to do something like that.

[natty dread]

Any word on this?

Is this not going to be moved before the XML update?

[Victor Sullivan]

Any word on this?

Is this not going to be moved before the XML update?

You can PM nobodies. I think MrBenn has been pressed for time lately.

[OliverFA]

I think the main concern is to know if mods have noticed that your map is ready. For that reason is a good idea to PM nobodies as Victor suggested, just to let him now. Also, would be good to update the thread title to something that made clear you are waiting for their word.

Once we know that Foundry mods have noticed the map, we can wait for a little while.

[Victor Sullivan]

Well, I have a graphical suggestion in the meantime: The buildings are boring, just grey rectangles... I think you should at least have some semblance of a building icon for those (it'd be really cool if you had a different one for each kind of building, if you're up for it).