You should squeeze in a little blurb on your map somewhere, or at least the large. Most people will have no idea what the heck is going on. It's always nice to have a little story, so you can really feel like you're playing the part while playing the gameDiM wrote:i was sure i explained this. steampunk is usually set in a fantasy steam-powered victorian era Britain. naturally i chose england and the story is that evil Dr. DiM split apart England with the use of a terrible machine found in his lab at Oxford. now all he needs is to gather enough power from at least 3 engines to complete his malefic plan of destroying England.Industrial Helix wrote:And why did you choose areas of England for the territory names? It seems awkward.
great idea. something like Age of Merchants has.Victor Sullivan wrote:Sorry for the delay (internet problems...grumble grumble), Dr. DiMBut here are my current thoughts (mostly minor things, so yay, yes?):
You should squeeze in a little blurb on your map somewhere, or at least the large. Most people will have no idea what the heck is going on. It's always nice to have a little story, so you can really feel like you're playing the part while playing the gameDiM wrote:i was sure i explained this. steampunk is usually set in a fantasy steam-powered victorian era Britain. naturally i chose england and the story is that evil Dr. DiM split apart England with the use of a terrible machine found in his lab at Oxford. now all he needs is to gather enough power from at least 3 engines to complete his malefic plan of destroying England.Industrial Helix wrote:And why did you choose areas of England for the territory names? It seems awkward.
yep it's algerian. i'll try the old one and see how it looks.Victor Sullivan wrote:Second, I'm not digging the font. Isn't that "Algerian", a font that comes with Microsoft Word on the PC version?I think you should go back to the font you had before, I thought it looked quite nice, and appropriate, too.
well, i would certainly need an englishman to help me here. gimil, maybe...Victor Sullivan wrote:Third, this is somewhat of a pet peeve of mine, but can you name the continents something other than cardinal directions? Weren't there specific names for these portions of Great Britain back in the day (England, Wales, Scotland)? "Southwest" and "Southeast" don't say much about the region, nor does it point to the fact that they're pieces of Britain!
glad you still like it and thanks for the great input so far.Victor Sullivan wrote:Fourth, still in love with this map (don't worry, I'll ask you for permission before I propose).
-Sully

i got inspired after listening to a song and got this:Victor Sullivan wrote: You should squeeze in a little blurb on your map somewhere, or at least the large. Most people will have no idea what the heck is going on. It's always nice to have a little story, so you can really feel like you're playing the part while playing the game![]()

The quick and succinct answer is no, there are no applicable names you could use for this time frame.Victor Sullivan wrote: Third, this is somewhat of a pet peeve of mine, but can you name the continents something other than cardinal directions? Weren't there specific names for these portions of Great Britain back in the day (England, Wales, Scotland)? "Southwest" and "Southeast" don't say much about the region, nor does it point to the fact that they're pieces of Britain!
-Sully

no worries mate. remember i used to make maps back when there were no foundry subforums about gameplay/graphics/etc. feedback used to come from all directions about anything and everything. so any feedback on any matter is more than welcomecairnswk wrote:DiM, thanks for moving the continent names and toning down the lines.![]()
I have some other graphic things you might like to consider...so i hope you'll forgive if they're presented here. If you like i can wait until you reach graphics stage and have them done there.
the font used for the terit names and the continent names is actually very nice and has little cogs in it which fit the theme perfectly. but the problem is that the size is too small for such details and maybe that's why it feels like it doesn't belong. i'll search for a replacement and post an update later.cairnswk wrote:I am not sure that all the fonts "click" together. I could be wrong but are they from a similar period.
What i am trying to say is...the overall theme looks like early 19th century, and to my way of thinking the legend instructions seem to fit that period...but do you feel the tert and region names font fit in there. For me it seems a bit of a mismatch.
i'll see what i can do about it.cairnswk wrote:there is a very strong crease that runs through southeasst. it is very distracting 'coz it seems there is a lot of eye clutter going on near the Isle of Wight but it runs down from West sussex into the legend.
the legend is still a work in progress. i can't do much enhancement until i decide exactly what i need to write there. after i do that i'll see what space i have left and fill the rest (if any) with some graphics.cairnswk wrote:have you any plans to "enhance" the background of the legend? While the fancy work around the legend is somewhat fine, it seems out of place because there is not as much detail in it as opposed to the iron globe and the cogs on the left.
yep i'm aware of this problem and it's on my to do list as soon as i have decided on the final text that goes in the legend. once that's in place i can estimate what space i have left and work on the visibility of the legend continents.cairnswk wrote:the colours of the continents seem also to get lost on that background, particularly the white, yellow and orange, although the brown doesn't appear to fare so well either. i think something more solid (but not too metallic) might help underneath the legend although i don't know what to suggest...perhaps try a few things since you're in early stages still.
will do.cairnswk wrote:the cuts at the edge of the paper under the iron globe look a little out of place also almost as though they are seperate from the paper...perhaps more tattered look might help.
i think the size is ok but i will tone it down and hopefully it will be less eye-catching.cairnswk wrote:and lastly, the brown burn in the middle near Isle of Dr Dim...it's very distracting, it catched my eye and draws me to it every time i look at the map. Do you think it needs to be so strong? or Large?
i hope so toocairnswk wrote:I hope these suggestions help improve things.
DiM, that's much better for the crease, cuts abd brown burn. Well done.DiM wrote:here you go cairns:
V8:
*toned down the brown burn in the middle
*fixed the cuts in the lower right of the map
*fixed the strong crease near the Isle of Wight
*added various fonts (each continent has a different font, so a total of 8, please chose your favourite)
....

well considering that Oxford is an essential part of the winning objective it is already very important. i like the fact that it is able to bombard because it emphasizes the importance of that terit and hopefully proves a big enough incetive for people to go for it. especially in fog games where some just like to sit around waiting.OliverFA wrote:Hello!
Don't know if that has been asked before. If this is a repeated question excuse me. But I wonder... Having Oxford / Isle of Dr.Dim bombard each and every other region, isn't too much? Stack a bunch of armies, go directly to Oxford and then bombard any strong opposition. If it's FoW, bombard ports and balloons so the other players can't see what you are doing. Or, if you can't bombard all the ports/balloons, bombard the ones held by the most dangerous players. All this make the Oxford territory super-powerful. Even more in FoW.
a bit of math:OliverFA wrote:I like the too-much-steam concept. I would even go a bit beyond what it is now. 1 exceeding seam -1, 2 exceeding steams -3, 3 exceeding steams -6 and so on.
Yes. But my point is that it is not only an incentive to go for the territory, but also a feature that makes a lot easier to keep it. It's the equation objective+easier to keep what worries me.DiM wrote:well considering that Oxford is an essential part of the winning objective it is already very important. i like the fact that it is able to bombard because it emphasizes the importance of that terit and hopefully proves a big enough incetive for people to go for it. especially in fog games where some just like to sit around waiting.OliverFA wrote:Hello!
Don't know if that has been asked before. If this is a repeated question excuse me. But I wonder... Having Oxford / Isle of Dr.Dim bombard each and every other region, isn't too much? Stack a bunch of armies, go directly to Oxford and then bombard any strong opposition. If it's FoW, bombard ports and balloons so the other players can't see what you are doing. Or, if you can't bombard all the ports/balloons, bombard the ones held by the most dangerous players. All this make the Oxford territory super-powerful. Even more in FoW.
Yes. It would be too much. You are rightDiM wrote:a bit of math:OliverFA wrote:I like the too-much-steam concept. I would even go a bit beyond what it is now. 1 exceeding seam -1, 2 exceeding steams -3, 3 exceeding steams -6 and so on.
X has northeast, eastmidlands and east. this gives him 3+3+4 from continent bonuses + another 3 for having 3 powered engines. that's a total of 12.
now let's say Y bombards 2 engines. this means he loses the continent bonus for the 2 continents where the engines were bombarded and he also gets a -2 for having too many engines. that leaves his with 4 for keeping a continent and -2 from the extra steam for a total of just 2.
so having the penalties you suggest would be a too severe punishment in my opinion. plus at some point (3 or more exceeding steams) it would be so severe the player would end up with an overall negative bonus. from what i understood any player deploys a minumum of 1 troop regardless of his bonus. so with your steeper penalties people would just end up with 1 troop weather they have 2 extra steams or 6 extra steams.
isaiah40 wrote:Okay, I can understand DiM's viewpoint on why he has Oxford the way it is. At the same time I can understand OliverFA's concerns about it being WAY too powerful. I see it as if you have a good number of men on the steam and engines and you take Oxford, you probably won't need to bombard any of your opponents (sunny setting). Now could we have a compromise? Have Oxford only bombard the balloons and ports, or have them bombard the engines, balloons, and ports? In this way Oxford is still strong but not overpowering. Just my couple of pennies for my thoughts.
precisely my thoughts. let's say i have an entire continent. if you bombard my engine the next turn i'll have no bonus (no continent, no powered engine) but i'll still have troops in the other terits (3-5 terits) and i'd still be able to take back my engine and try to recover.isaiah40 wrote:Just the engines would work as well. In this way as you said it would remove the Steam+Engine bonus plus the continent bonus as well. Just enough to disable an opponent, and yet not enough to almost take him/her out and have him/her decide to do a suicide run.
Victor Sullivan wrote:Sounds decent enough to me.
-Sully
I also like itVictor Sullivan wrote:Sounds decent enough to me.
-Sully
OliverFA wrote:I also like itVictor Sullivan wrote:Sounds decent enough to me.
-Sully
And DiM. I made the suggestion with the intention to improve the map, not to spoil your fun as a mapmaker.