Fall of Rome: AD 476 - Major P. 4 update on June 25

[Mr. Squirrel]

What is happening with this map? When is the the next update coming?

[BrianHoef]

So, my pattern appears to be isolated major overhauls rather than regular updates. I'll work on that; the next draft ought to come a lot quicker. Here's #4:

Click image to enlarge.

Changes:
-Moved and upgraded the legend
-Added a border around the whole map
-Added territories in the northeast and a couple in Africa
-Moved the Byzantine starting locations from Alexandria and Constantinople to Nicaea and Hunnica
-Added some sea routes in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean

Questions:
-The borders for the new territories are twice as thick as the old borders. Should I thicken the rest of the borders or reduce those ones?
-What do you think of the new starting locations?
-Is the legend clear enough about gameplay?
-Does the color-coding in the legend work? (I know that some of the words have a yellow shadow and some don't. It's just sticking around temporarily until I delete the underlying text. However, if you like it, please let me know.)
-Should I add some new color-coded regions, now that I have so much empty territory in the north? If so, what groups do you think I should color?
-Finally, does anybody have alternative name suggestions for Scandinavia and the new northeastern territories? Norway, Denmark, and most of the new names don't feel quite right to me. They're all fairly accurate, it's just the sound.


I'm going to make the font bigger for the next draft, which will come out as soon as I have answers to the first four questions and have a small draft attached.


Thanks for reading all that!

[ZeakCytho]

Because there is no regional bonus, I suggest you make the colorations for each region very subtle. Right now they pop out and are confusing, because there is no difference gameplay-wise between holding two territories of the same continent and holding two of different continents.

The borders look very pixely still. I don't like the font you're using very much either. The blue dots - they show starting territories now, but will they be present in the final image? I don't think they should be.

[seamusk]

So, my pattern appears to be isolated major overhauls rather than regular updates. I'll work on that; the next draft ought to come a lot quicker. Here's #4:

Click image to enlarge.

Changes:
-Moved and upgraded the legend
-Added a border around the whole map
-Added territories in the northeast and a couple in Africa
-Moved the Byzantine starting locations from Alexandria and Constantinople to Nicaea and Hunnica
-Added some sea routes in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean

Questions:

-The borders for the new territories are twice as thick as the old borders. Should I thicken the rest of the borders or reduce those ones?

I like the old thickness. though somewhere in between would be awesome.

-What do you think of the new starting locations?

They seem more balanced at first glance.

-Is the legend clear enough about gameplay?

the legend is awesome! That said, I think a small key somewhere would be a nice supplement to make sure the rules are clear and to provide a quicker reference. But keep the legend, I think it adds a lot...

-Does the color-coding in the legend work? (I know that some of the words have a yellow shadow and some don't. It's just sticking around temporarily until I delete the underlying text. However, if you like it, please let me know.)

I like it a lot but as I note above, reinforce with quick reference key.

-Should I add some new color-coded regions, now that I have so much empty territory in the north? If so, what groups do you think I should color?

I don't know enough of that era to say but if there is a way to effectively color code them folks seem to like that. Also, the coloration for me was alittle too close for yellow which has its own connotations. What does sort of bug at me is the shifting colors of the regions.

-Finally, does anybody have alternative name suggestions for Scandinavia and the new northeastern territories? Norway, Denmark, and most of the new names don't feel quite right to me. They're all fairly accurate, it's just the sound.

Not sure I follow but they seem fine by me.

I'm going to make the font bigger for the next draft, which will come out as soon as I have answers to the first four questions and have a small draft attached.

Bigger font would be cool. Keep up the good work! I think this will be a good one.


Thanks for reading all that!

[BrianHoef]

Zeak-

Do you mean the new borders look pixely? They were drawn pretty fast and I can smooth them out. I'm assuming you'd like to see the thicker borders on the entire map?

I'll lower the opacity on the regions and see what happens.

Regarding the blue dots - no, they aren't necessarily intended to remain in the final stage, but I'm not sure how to replace them. I think I need something there so people who haven't played the map before will get that it's conquest style.

[ZeakCytho]

I think either thickness is fine, just make it less jagged.

People will realize it's conquest gameplay after reading the bottom and seeing that they only start with one territory. There's no need to give a special symbol to mark starting locations.

[Qwert]

hmmm,how will these look on small map?

[Mr. Squirrel]

I like the map itself. It would make a great feudal challenge. What I think you should be working on more than anything is the graphics. Right now they are bland and boring. Make the map stand out. I would put the gameplay on hold for a while.

[MrBenn]

Moved into retirement - it has been a couple of months since the last post, and it doesn't look like the mapmaker is working on it any more.

[Teflon Kris]

As well as the army per two territories, I'd suggest an army auto-deployed on the 'home' territory, and perhaps other key territories?