1776! - Battlefields of The American Revolution (Withdrawn)

[Elijah S]

Tacktix -
Thanks for your very colorful critique of my map - complete with simily ( "like part of some alien's holographic display") and plenty of humour - although I really don't think this is the place to berate members who are merely trying to contribute something to the site.
Clearly, the term "preliminary" is lost on your expansive intellect.

Moving on - Suzy1, jbrettlip, timminz, and Industrial Helix - Thanks for your comments! I've reworked the colonies to represent the actual borders or the period, eliminated the single commander being able to attack from each Battlefield, and am looking closely at ways to adjust the choke points - I doubt I'll have more than 1 attack route into or out of each Battlefield, as I feel it compromises the entire concept of using insets to illustrate the major battles.
As with many of the Historical maps (WW2, Waterloo, etc.) my goal here is to provide a sense of both graphical and gameplay reality to this map.
I'm considering several options which may contribute to that - including specific neutral starts, auto-deploys, one-way attacks and bombardments.

I'm also reviewing ways to divide areas in the west and north to to contribute more to the overall gameplay.

I should have a revision ready in a couple of days.

Again, all comments (even the smart-assed, look at me - I'm God's gift to graphics) are appreciated.

[Incandenza]

Again, all comments (even the smart-assed, look at me - I'm God's gift to graphics) are appreciated.

Boy, sure doesn't sound like it. Tack brought up a lot of good points, and you basically told him GFY.

[whitestazn88]

yo, i like this map a lot. the concept is very interesting, and the "battlefield" gameplay should be fun.

the image could be improved greatly, but i suppose a gameplay discussion is more important initially. keep at it, i'll post more later

[Elijah S]

Again, all comments (even the smart-assed, look at me - I'm God's gift to graphics) are appreciated.

Boy, sure doesn't sound like it. Tack brought up a lot of good points, and you basically told him GFY.

I didn't say he had no valid points - But, I think it comes down to using a mature, not insulting, manner of phrasing things.
I'm well-aware that there's work to be done, (hence the term "preliminary") but to compare it to an "alien's hologram" or whatever, seems pretty belittling to me.

I intend to move forward with this and all input is being considered.

As for you Incandenza, you can construe my response to - what I considered - terms which someone in a foundry assistant position should think twice about using to describe someone else's work.
And the truth is I could bash any map on this site if that was my intention - but unlike others I try to make my statements with a little more mature approach. And my comments are constructive. I've been supportive not demeaning and that's the difference.

[TaCktiX]

I didn't say he had no valid points - But, I think it comes down to using a mature, not insulting, manner of phrasing things.
I'm well-aware that there's work to be done, (hence the term "preliminary") but to compare it to an "alien's hologram" or whatever, seems pretty belittling to me.

I don't consider that belittling, I find it illustrative. You have a clear idea of what the map looks like to me, and us both knowing that's not what you intend, how to go about fixing that. I tend to use metaphors to note things that NEED changes, and I don't mean them to be belittling, just stark enough to be noticed above the standard comments. But if my feedback style is nothing other than a huge-arse insult to you, I suppose I'll just not give feedback anymore. And here I was the first Foundry Assistant to bother...I love the appreciation this job gets.

[Incandenza]

All I'm saying is that it's a bit early in the process to be that prickly, especially since you've already got one map under your belt that, IIRC, endured some recalibration in final forge. And besides, if tack's pretty low-intensity criticism stings that bad, you should hope to holy hell that mibi never comes in here and comments.

[Elijah S]

All I'm saying is that it's a bit early in the process to be that prickly, especially since you've already got one map under your belt that, IIRC, endured some recalibration in final forge. And besides, if tack's pretty low-intensity criticism stings that bad, you should hope to holy hell that mibi never comes in here and comments.

Possibly, partly due to the way my first map was handled in FF, I'm a little thin-skinned, but I feel that my reply was clearly as "low-intensity" as the comments that were made.
Surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander?

In the Civil War thread I literally went back into my map and changed it every time there was a suggestion made. -And I did so eagerly and without hesitation.
It wasn't until the very last of it that I finally took some artistic license and refused to alter things I was happy with.
It's important to remember that maps are a creative endeavor and, as such, there's a degree of subjectivity involved.
I'm always willing to look into things that may need to be changed.
Afterall, we're all volunteers who are offering our time and efforts to this site.

More importantly, I want to avoid this thread becoming nothing more than a place to air differences, and want it to get back on track.

I think this site would benefit from having a great map on the subject, and believe my approach to it will produce an intriguing map, both graphically and gameplay-wise.

[mibi]

This map looks like it was designed for the Apple II computer system. You obviously know how to follow a paper texture tutorial. Unfortunately basic design sense cannot be taught with a tutorial, which is why this map is a cluttered mess. It certainly not as bad as some others I have seen, but it seems you have left the end user behind in a quest for illegibility and confusion. Is this map bringing anything new to this worn topic other than needless complication.

[Elijah S]

LOL What took you so long Mibi? Had a few minutes inbetween death and taxes?
Let's talk about your Iraq map, shall we? It takes a month of Sundays to figure the gameplay out. Talk about a cluttered mess.

This is all remeniscent of when my other map hit FF and several other map-makers, who couldn't be bothered to comment before then, came in at the last minute and bashed it.
At least this time around - due directly to my refusal to have my DRAFT berated - some of the all-important "cartographers" are showing up to offer their oh-so-insightful critiques.

Hell, I had some time on my hands and started a new map-project.
For you guys to only visit this thread because I took issue with tacticks phrasing shows the level of decorum I've come to expect from certain members of the foundry.

What part of "draft" or "preliminary" do you not understand?

Moreso, what constructive advice did you really offer, Mibi? None.

[InsomniaRed]

Hey now, let's not turn this thread in to a bag of insults. This is the Drafting Room and it should be used to help this map mature, grow and get better in all aspects. Not everyone on here has map a ton of maps, and they're not all experienced so it would be nice to offer constructive criticism and comments rather than snide and sarcastic reviews.

Anyway, about the map...I am glad to see you making another American war map

Let's see...
No real need to comment on the graphics yet since those will get better and worked on over time. We all can see they need work, and I know you'll get that part polished in time. The gameplay is a bit cluttered right now, lots to read and understand before beginning turn, that's for sure. The attacking is a bit confusing for me, but after reading it, I get it and think it could work. The other states seem completely unnecessary at this point since there is no need for them for any sort of bonus, I don't see any reason why anyone would bother with them or even care they were there (examples: Illinois, Ohio) There are much more confusing maps in play right now, and I like this one and think it'll grow into something great. I really like the idea of holding the 13 colonies to win, by the way. It's creative and sounds fun!

Good luck! I'm looking forward to updates on this. Keep up the good work

[Industrial Helix]

A) Ok, I've been giving some thought to the bottlenecking issue. It is a major problem for this map, I agree, but I don't think that because it is an issue that this map is condemned to failure. Here's a few possibilities:

1) The entrance/exit to a battlefield can also be used to bombard other entrance/exit generals.
2) Or perhaps exit/entrace generals can bombard the whole of other battlefields.
3) I was thinking maybe you could cut the militia and use colony capitols and use them to have a method of attack on the battlefields.
4) OR you could bring the militia men more into the game and allow them to bombard the battlefields, either the battlefields they share the colony with or perhaps any militia man can bombard any battlefield.

Basically, what I'm thinking is that bombard action might be the best course of action because it can break the bottleneck effect without taking too much power away from winning the battle. For me, I think this game should really emphasize battlefield victory over all, which I think it does, but brings me into the next point.

B) I think you should seriously consider cropping the map and bringing the 13 Colonies more to the forefront. It just strikes me as having the Mississippi and Florida as part of this as inappropriate. The conceptual and thematic strength and basis for this map lies in the battlefields, I think it draws undue attention away from that. It will require some tidying up and reorganization, but I think it would really benefit this map.

C) Not to keen on the Indian bonus as well, there's a lot of bonuses to be had already it might not be necessary?

D) I understand that space is going to be an issue, but the battlefields seem a little top heavy. Maybe through the British sack of Savannah in there?

E) For the Chesapeake Battle, I presume Virginia AND Maryland can advance on to the battlefield? Seems to be self explanatory, just a tad unsure. And then in order to advance to the High Seas one needs to hold the entrance/exit to Chesapeake Bay? It seems logical, just want to make sure I got it right.

Anyway, keep up the work. As I've said, i really like the battlefield concept and hope you see this through. To be honest, it makes more sense to definitively settle gameplay before even tackling graphics because of the potential this has to be moved and shifted around. Put a tag in your post title (if you can fit it) "GAMEPLAY discussion" and hopefully that will focus the discussion towards what you want right now.

Best of luck with the map, I do like it. Hope this helps.

[pamoa]

bottleneck issue
if you make the battlefield a confrontation point between 2 states (even if not really historically exact)
it means each side is coming from 1 state and confront on the battlefield
the 2 armies from the same side cannot attack each other
you have a much more open situation without the complicated rules Industrial Helix is proposing (sorry helix)

random example: bunker hill in between massachusetts and new hampshire

• new hampshire <attack> putnam and prescott
  putnam and prescott <attack> gage and clinton
  gage and clinton <attack> massachusetts

graphically it means in the inset
you put the 2 states names up and down
and you give a color to each side

[mibi]

LOL What took you so long Mibi? Had a few minutes in between death and taxes?
Let's talk about your Iraq map, shall we? It takes a month of Sundays to figure the gameplay out. Talk about a cluttered mess.

Moreso, what constructive advice did you really offer, Mibi? None.

The Iraq map is a complicated one for sure. Which reflects the complicated nature of the theme and game play. It's a thinking persons map.

However I never thought of the American Revolution as a complicated war. As with many of the maps in the foundry theses days, this seems like a map with no purpose. It feels like a remix of your civil war map, only with some extra gameplay features that need full on examples in the legend.

[Suzy1]

I like the concept of this map. Opposed to many maps here that have no connection with an actual battle or war, I think many players will want to play this map, it is part of our history. Also, there are several maps here that cartographers have kept to the same theme as an original map. It is a matter of choice, I, as everyone, like some, love some, hate some. The American Cvil War map speaks for itself, look at the amount of plays! Elijah received alot of criticism when he started it, some a bit harsh, but overall constructive from some really great map artists here. He took everything in and created one of the most played maps here. I truly believe after he is done with this one, it will do the same. I really think what has made this site 1 of the better ones for this type of play is because there are so many different flavors brought by different cartographers. It would be rather boring if you all had the same creative visions. I think the foundry is being a bit harsh in the way they have phrased some of their opinions, but that's part of the nature of the beast. Elijah is only offering something to this site that would in the end result benefit it. By all means, he wants your views on how to improve this draft, etc. No one seemed to be remotely interested in looking at it, but once TaCk did with somewhat of a negative attitude to begin with, those of you who have chimed in, haven't had much to say in a constructive manner, which is all he was asking for. Good luck Elijah!

[MrBenn]

I recently read about the American Revolutionary War/Battle for Independence, and think that there is definitely a lot of potential in a map based around the events of 1776. The implementation of it here is not quite how I've come to envisage it in my head.... Personally (and by personally I mean "If I were to make a map on this myself") I would like to have more of a focus on the individual battles, and perhaps focus on a couple of them in depth - Battle of Long Island, Fort Washington, Trenton are the ones that spring to mind. I think the rest of the map (ie America) could serve as more of a backdrop and possibly not even play a role in the gameplay of the map, other than to connect the battlefields. In my head I've thought about British reinforcements coming overseas, which could be simulated through a large autodeploy in England, that would have to battle through some large killer neutrals (to represent the fact that it would take moths for them to arrive).... but like I said, that's the map that's in my head

This is all remeniscent of when my other map hit FF and several other map-makers... came in at the last minute and bashed it.
At least this time around... some of the all-important "cartographers" are showing up to offer their oh-so-insightful critiques.

For you guys to only visit this thread because I took issue with tacticks phrasing shows the level of decorum I've come to expect from certain members of the foundry.

May I remind you that you did post a call-out in AADOMM (the MapMakers usergroup) for the experienced cartographers to come and pass comment on your map.

Anyway:

[Elijah S]

I'm keeping a log of all suggestions and will be reviewing them when I start reworking the map.
So, if I'm not commenting yet to those that have offered input, it's not that the comments are being ignored.
Mr Benn - I had a map last spring on the topic in which I had placed Spain, Britain and France, as I saw it similarly to what you said, but someone - I think Qwert - mentioned that he thought it would be better without the European territories, so I redid it without them.
One thing that I believe lends itself to historical accuracy is that the navies - Brit, French and American Mercenary ships - played a huge part in the war; So I'm looking at ways to incorporate that more and reducing the western part of the map as well.
Pamoa and Industrial Helix have given great ideas on addressing the "choke points" and I'm looking into that as well.
That's an awfully big pill to swallow, Mr Benn. -I may have to take half of it and save the rest, (or maybe share it!)

[Tisha]

That's an awfully big pill to swallow, Mr Benn. -I may have to take half of it and save the rest, (or maybe share it!)

I might need half of it later..

[oaktown]

Hey elijah, nice to see you back behind a map. I haven't read through the thread - I understand there were some rough words already, and I'd rather make my comments untainted and based simply on the map.

The idea is good. Maybe even great. We need a revolutionary war map. We need the brits and colonies, one if by land two if by sea, taxation not representation, the declaration of independence, kings, generals, revolutionaries, tea, etc.

But when I first looked at this map it looked oddly familiar - too much like your civil war map in fact. By expanding the region shown in this map to include indian territories in the west, it no longer becomes a revolutionary war map. Lost is the importance of and focus on the battlefields after which this map is named, as the battlefields are reduced to points along the coast of a continent.

i like that you have already begun to try and weather some elements of the image, and I'd like to see you push that. But most of all I'd like to see the focus put on the colonies...



Getting rid of the western territories - which weren't contested during the war - would free up space to create proper mini-maps of the battlefields...

[Elijah S]

Oaktown -
I think you're dead-on right.
I'm planning to rework the image completely, giving additional space to focus on the Battlefields, and possibly add additional Battles.
After mulling over the recent comments, I'll be trying to use the ideas which fit best into what I see graphically and gameplay-wise.
Thanks for the input.

[yeti_c]

This looks like 90% of Civil war?!

C.

[MyTurnToWin]

Please, no fighting..... save it for the 'battlefields' on the maps.

From my player viewpoint, as a non map-maker, I like reading all the comments and am impressed by the knowledge of map-making and of the time period of this particular map.

Maybe someone else already pointed this out, if so... sorry for the repeat.... the western states are the same color as the insets that are around the edge of the map. Even a different shade of one or the other would be helpful.

There is one ship.... historically how many ships were there? A small fleet? Two or three?

When I read the comments I think people are liking your idea. Please continue, as I said before, I am looking forward to playing this map.

And, I still like the surrender feature.

[sully800]

And, I still like the surrender feature.

But it's not possible, just so ya know.

[MyTurnToWin]

Not possible? OHhhhhhhhhhhhhhh How come?

Please remember to explain why in simple, non-technical talk.

[the.killing.44]

We don't have that XML feature. Plus it probably wouldn't be allowed as it creates a large opening for throwing games and point dumping.

We need an American Revolution map. I'm gonna hold off until the big update for comments though

.44

[MyTurnToWin]

Thanks!

That is understandable.

Keep on with the map! Even without the surrender feature it still promises to be a lot of fun and a good challenge.