USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

[AndyDufresne]

Clarity has been a topic of discussion off and on. If you really wanted to give something drastic a try, changing army shadows from yellow balls to the usual army shadows might lessen the impact on the eye overall, and allow names and the plethora of roads to stand out. It might, however, take away from the aesthetic you have going on.


--Andy

[iancanton]

i note that there are 42 state capitals of states that have 4 or more cities. rather than having the capitals start neutral and troops everywhere else, have u considered starting everyone from these 42 state capitals only, with the rest of the map (except capitals) as single neutrals? this has the advantage of not letting player 1 starting with a huge attacking force without setting an artificial cap which slows down the game in the later stages, though it does wreck the isaiah trademark capital bonus.

ian.

[isaiah40]

i note that there are 42 state capitals of states that have 4 or more cities. rather than having the capitals start neutral and troops everywhere else, have u considered starting everyone from these 42 state capitals only, with the rest of the map (except capitals) as single neutrals? this has the advantage of not letting player 1 starting with a huge attacking force without setting an artificial cap which slows down the game in the later stages, though it does wreck the isaiah trademark capital bonus.

ian.

Actually, it was a passing thought, though the way you put it makes total sense. There are 3 capitals that have an airport attached to them, I think those should start as 3 neutral. Instead of everything else starting with 1 neutral, how about if we have them start with 2? What should we have the initial placement be 2 or 3? What about capitals having an autodeploy of 1 or 2?

[koontz1973]

i note that there are 42 state capitals of states that have 4 or more cities. rather than having the capitals start neutral and troops everywhere else, have u considered starting everyone from these 42 state capitals only, with the rest of the map (except capitals) as single neutrals? this has the advantage of not letting player 1 starting with a huge attacking force without setting an artificial cap which slows down the game in the later stages, though it does wreck the isaiah trademark capital bonus.

ian.

Actually, it was a passing thought, though the way you put it makes total sense. There are 3 capitals that have an airport attached to them, I think those should start as 3 neutral. Instead of everything else starting with 1 neutral, how about if we have them start with 2? What should we have the initial placement be 2 or 3? What about capitals having an autodeploy of 1 or 2?

If you went down this route, and it would be a nice route even though it spoils the initial idea of the map pack copy, you could give...
each capital a +1 auto
airport capitals 3 neutral (as you said)
D.C. a 5 neutral but a +3 auto
Elsewhere, 2 neutrals. Easier to kill than one.

[lostatlimbo]

If you're going to do a mega map of the USA you should do it RIGHT.

If you were going to do a map of California, you should have done it RIGHT.

[Victor Sullivan]

i note that there are 42 state capitals of states that have 4 or more cities. rather than having the capitals start neutral and troops everywhere else, have u considered starting everyone from these 42 state capitals only, with the rest of the map (except capitals) as single neutrals? this has the advantage of not letting player 1 starting with a huge attacking force without setting an artificial cap which slows down the game in the later stages, though it does wreck the isaiah trademark capital bonus.

ian.

Hm, truthfully I'm not so sure about turning this into a conquest map... Personally, I'd prefer to keep it classic-style. We could consider starting positions for the capitals, but leave the rest drop-able, couldn't we?

As far as the debate on Ohio goes, I'm neutral on the matter.

-Sully

[ViperOverLord]

I've been thinking about this for some time and I have to agree with Andy's way earlier declaration that the background is too dark. Perhaps lightening it? You'll probably run into some issues with border states on the edge of the background and would have to rearrange colors. But I think the work would be worth it.

I do like the freeway color changes.

---

As for Cincinatti. I don't like the Natti part but I think that since it is about double the size of Dayton and in the same proximity and I'd consider replacing Dayton with Cinci. It looks like there will still be plenty of cities on the 70 that way. Are you concerned that it would clump too much with Louisville? Perhaps if you posted pics of which either one looks like and let people put their two cents.

I do agree that city size should not be the only factor. Spatial symmetry is a good concept. Though I do probably prefer to at least weight population as much as possible without clumping up the map.

Also, I think St. Paul/Minneapolis (Twin Cities) as are LA/Anaheim (LA/OC) Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW), etc. are too close to add the individual cities. But I would list them together.

[Kaisermikeb]

Any Ohioan will tell you that Cincinnati is the right call.



For one, Ohio has a tri-C thing going on, where Cin'ti, Cols, and Cleveland are all on the same highway. Although Ohio has a strangely high number of major cities for a Midwestern state, those three are far and away the most important. While Ohio geography may not be your thing, it would be a faulty decision to ignore the views of Ohioans on what cities in Ohio matter.

Secondly, as TheBisonKing posted, the population is significant, however that is only half the story. Cincinnati has a significant suburban population, the majority of which sign their address "Cincinnati, Ohio", which is not counted in the above figure. That, added to Covington and Newport, the true population of the Cincinnati area is closer to 2 million.

Third, and possibly most importantly, Cincinnati has much more history, Americana, and industry than any of other cities in Ohio. There are more presidents from Cincinnati than any other. It was once called the "Queen City of the West", and rivaled Chicago in importance. It has two major sports teams, and the Cincinnati Reds were the first Major League baseball team in America. It was the first City to have a suspension bridge, a fire department, and a sky scraper. Some of the biggest corporations in the world are head quartered in Cincinnati, including General Electric, Proctor and Gamble, and Macy's. It has multiple major universities, an opera, several theaters, and some of the most respected Zoo's and museums in the world. Internationally, more people recognize the name "Cincinnati" than they do Dayton or Columbus.

[isaiah40]

Okay this is how it is going to work, Cincinnati will not be on the map. If I do this for Ohioians, then I'll have to do it for Utahians, then Californians then ... you get the picture. I70 and I75 pass THROUGH DAYTON, so Dayton WILL be on the map. That is the city I want on there, so that is the city that is going to be on there. This isn't a gameplay or graphics clarity issue, so Dayton will stay. So please let's end this debate right now. If anyone wants to continue the debate then I will not continue working on this, as I have many other things I could be doing with some of my free time.

[chapcrap]

Funny that BK is complaining about Ohio when he has states left out of his American Heartland map. And he's decided to add states like West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

[isaiah40]

Funny that BK is complaining about Ohio when he has states left out of his American Heartland map. And he's decided to add states like West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

+1

[natty dread]

So please let's end this debate right now. If anyone wants to continue the debate then I will not continue working on this, as I have many other things I could be doing with some of my free time.

Isaiah, that's no way to address feedback. You're setting a really bad example here.

You may have a legitimate reason for disagreeing with the feedback, but you can't just squash any criticism by threatening to bin the map - that's just not acceptable. The whole foundry process is supposed to be based on free criticism (at least, unless you get a special free pass from lackattack to ignore any criticism... )

[ViperOverLord]

So please let's end this debate right now. If anyone wants to continue the debate then I will not continue working on this, as I have many other things I could be doing with some of my free time.

Isaiah, that's no way to address feedback. You're setting a really bad example here.

Great work Isaiah but I do have to agree with this otherwise. People aren't just trying to bitch and moan. They are giving feedback b/c they think they can help you make the best final product possible. Ultimately you'll have the freedom to push through with your vision anyways. But condemning legitimate feedback or threatening to quit b/c you don't like constructive feedback sets a terrible precedent imo.

[isaiah40]

So please let's end this debate right now. If anyone wants to continue the debate then I will not continue working on this, as I have many other things I could be doing with some of my free time.

Isaiah, that's no way to address feedback. You're setting a really bad example here.

You're right, I may be. At the same time when you have one specific person continually say that one city needs to go on because it is bigger and makes more sense, and I give a rebuttal as to why I don't want it on, and that person keeps on pushing for their way, then I have to draw the line, which I did, and it was still pushed for, then I have to throw up the road block so to speak. Especially when someone comments like this:

Funny that BK is complaining about Ohio when he has states left out of his American Heartland map. And he's decided to add states like West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Which is his choice, and leaving one city off is my choice. TBK, let's just agree to disagree on this and move on!!

@ ViperOverLord, yes I agree, and like I said above, I stated my reasons as to why, and already stated that Cincinnati won't be placed on the map for clarity's sake, and that I needed a city to be at the junction of two interstates, and Dayton was it, then that should be final. No one should push a mapmaker to add something that DOES NOT make the map better. Now if this was a gameplay and/or graphic suggestion and it made sense, then yes I would more than likely make that change. But when it is something that someone only wants to see on the map because it makes sense population wise, because it is the bigger city, then no I don't have to put it on their if I choose not to. And I choose not to with no disrespect to those living there.

[natty dread]

I'm not saying that you don't have reasons to disagree with the feedback. What I'm objecting to is only the whole "ultimatum" thing. It simply has to stop in the foundry - you're a CA, you need to set an example that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable in the foundry.


As for the issue of Cincinnati vs. Dayton - I can see both points of view, both have legitimate arguments. However, mapmaking often requires making compromises with reality. Sometimes geographical/historical accuracy must be sacrificed for gameplay or clarity reasons. And it seems to me that often people have a problem when their home town/country/area is not represented 100% accurately... I don't know, maybe I would react the same way if someone else was making a map that featured my home country, who knows. We often are "blind" to things that are too close to us...

Also, Isaiah, I'm not sure if you noticed my post about the state colours, because you never responded to it...

[isaiah40]

I'm not saying that you don't have reasons to disagree with the feedback. What I'm objecting to is only the whole "ultimatum" thing. It simply has to stop in the foundry - you're a CA, you need to set an example that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable in the foundry.


As for the issue of Cincinnati vs. Dayton - I can see both points of view, both have legitimate arguments. However, mapmaking often requires making compromises with reality. Sometimes geographical/historical accuracy must be sacrificed for gameplay or clarity reasons. And it seems to me that often people have a problem when their home town/country/area is not represented 100% accurately... I don't know, maybe I would react the same way if someone else was making a map that featured my home country, who knows. We often are "blind" to things that are too close to us...

Also, Isaiah, I'm not sure if you noticed my post about the state colours, because you never responded to it...

And you are right, I should not have that behavior, so I publicly apologize. Now I do have a few geographical inaccuracies already. For instance, Interstate 95 does not go through Charleston, and Interstate 75 does not go through Frankfort. There are other smaller inaccuracies, that being said, and I have said this a few times, Cincinnati will not be added as it is not a gameplay or graphical issue.

I saw your post about the state colors, and I am working on them, plus rearranging the colors because of color blind issues. Will have an update in a couple of days or so.

[The Bison King]

At the same time when you have one specific person continually say that one city needs to go on because it is bigger and makes more sense

Sigh, you make it sound like I was the only person arguing with you. I haven't posted on this topic for almost a whole page now. It was the comments from Viper Over Lord and Kaiser Mike that made you flip. Clearly you've dug in your heels on this one but don't try and make it sound like this was purely a me against you thing, when in fact there were several people who were making the same case as me.

[isaiah40]

At the same time when you have one specific person continually say that one city needs to go on because it is bigger and makes more sense

Sigh, you make it sound like I was the only person arguing with you. I haven't posted on this topic for almost a whole page now. It was the comments from Viper Over Lord and Kaiser Mike that made you flip. Clearly you've dug in your heels on this one but don't try and make it sound like this was purely a me against you thing, when in fact there were several people who were making the same case as me.

Well TBK, you were the only one that consistently pushed to have Cincinnati put on the map, and yes when others chimed in after I said that Dayton was going to stay and Cincinnati was not going to be added I did go over the edge so to speak. So let's agree to disagree about Dayton and Cincinnati and finish this thing. Agreed?

[Victor Sullivan]

Okay this is how it is going to work, Cincinnati will not be on the map. If I do this for Ohioians, then I'll have to do it for Utahians, then Californians then ... you get the picture. I70 and I75 pass THROUGH DAYTON, so Dayton WILL be on the map. That is the city I want on there, so that is the city that is going to be on there. This isn't a gameplay or graphics clarity issue, so Dayton will stay. So please let's end this debate right now. If anyone wants to continue the debate then I will not continue working on this, as I have many other things I could be doing with some of my free time.

I must apologize, as I must side with the others on this one for the sole reason that you aren't being true to the original map. Cincinnati is on USA Great Lakes while Dayton is not. You should be consistent here as well as elsewhere, if you made other changes.

-Sully

[isaiah40]

I must apologize, as I must side with the others on this one for the sole reason that you aren't being true to the original map. Cincinnati is on USA Great Lakes while Dayton is not. You should be consistent here as well as elsewhere, if you made other changes.

-Sully

While true, the map pack did not have I70 and I75 either, so some changes had to be made. WM and I had discussed this and we both agreed that some changes can be made due to the fact that I was combining all maps into one. I had also changed some other places because the names were too long and cluttered the map, and added others due to the interstate system. Right now this is going away from the look of the map pack for clarity reasons. So since Dayton is at the junction of I75 and I70 it will stay and Cincinnati is out.

[AndyDufresne]

I feel we should excise Ohio out of the map completely. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

In all seriousness, this seems like something that probably could fall under map-maker discretion, since it is more theme related than gameplay or graphic concern related, etc. As long as Isaiah can explain why he's opting for one city over another if there is a protest, I don't really have an opinion on the matter.


--Andy

[Gillipig]

The colour of the ME bonus melts into the background making it look like it's almost not there. Speaking of the background, the current one just won't do! Try some variant of the stars and stripes theme you had before.

[iancanton]

i note that there are 42 state capitals of states that have 4 or more cities. rather than having the capitals start neutral and troops everywhere else, have u considered starting everyone from these 42 state capitals only, with the rest of the map (except capitals) as single neutrals? this has the advantage of not letting player 1 starting with a huge attacking force without setting an artificial cap which slows down the game in the later stages, though it does wreck the isaiah trademark capital bonus.

ian.

Actually, it was a passing thought, though the way you put it makes total sense. There are 3 capitals that have an airport attached to them, I think those should start as 3 neutral. Instead of everything else starting with 1 neutral, how about if we have them start with 2? What should we have the initial placement be 2 or 3? What about capitals having an autodeploy of 1 or 2?

If you went down this route, and it would be a nice route even though it spoils the initial idea of the map pack copy, you could give...
each capital a +1 auto
airport capitals 3 neutral (as you said)
D.C. a 5 neutral but a +3 auto
Elsewhere, 2 neutrals. Easier to kill than one.

each of these works, though each capital might start with just 2 troops so that the first move does not consist of player 1 attacking a neutral from every single capital he has. do u mean 2 neutrals are harder to kill than 1?

i'm unconvinced by the road from tok to great falls. i presume u must know a lot about roads, isaiah, but that must surely be a rarely-travelled route if ever there was one. if it's included, then it ought to have a killer neutral representing the canadian border (all other routes are free movement from usa to usa only without needing to go through immigration procedures); or, for simplicity, scrap the route.

the superbonuses, in the style of world 2.1, don't work well here. this is because they're so small in relation to the state bonuses that there is very little incentive to hold all of a map areas. to bind together the map areas, can i suggest instead of the superbonuses a bonus of +8 for holding all state capitals of any map area (but +16 for great lakes)? this can be expressed as western 6 * +8, southeastern 7 * +8 and so on.

ian.

[isaiah40]

If you went down this route, and it would be a nice route even though it spoils the initial idea of the map pack copy, you could give...
each capital a +1 auto
airport capitals 3 neutral (as you said)
D.C. a 5 neutral but a +3 auto
Elsewhere, 2 neutrals. Easier to kill than one.

each of these works, though each capital might start with just 2 troops so that the first move does not consist of player 1 attacking a neutral from every single capital he has. do u mean 2 neutrals are harder to kill than 1?

i'm unconvinced by the road from tok to great falls. i presume u must know a lot about roads, isaiah, but that must surely be a rarely-travelled route if ever there was one. if it's included, then it ought to have a killer neutral representing the canadian border (all other routes are free movement from usa to usa only without needing to go through immigration procedures); or, for simplicity, scrap the route.

the superbonuses, in the style of world 2.1, don't work well here. this is because they're so small in relation to the state bonuses that there is very little incentive to hold all of a map areas. to bind together the map areas, can i suggest instead of the superbonuses a bonus of +8 for holding all state capitals of any map area (but +16 for great lakes)? this can be expressed as western 6 * +8, southeastern 7 * +8 and so on.

ian. [/quote]
The route from Great Falls to Tok is actually heavily traveled. Though in reality there are about 4 different roads you travel on. You would actually drive through Calgary, Edmonton then on up to Dawson Creek which is the beginning of the Alaska Highway. That being said I could put a killer neutral and have it as Calgary for example.

For the capitals, are you saying Western +8 for 6 etc? Maybe if we increase the superbonus? Or will that make it high unbalanced?

[iancanton]

The route from Great Falls to Tok is actually heavily traveled. Though in reality there are about 4 different roads you travel on. You would actually drive through Calgary, Edmonton then on up to Dawson Creek which is the beginning of the Alaska Highway. That being said I could put a killer neutral and have it as Calgary for example.

a killer neutral is fine. it just shouldn't be as easy as, for example, san francisco to san jose.

For the capitals, are you saying Western +8 for 6 etc?

yes, basically a simple +8 for holding all of the state capitals in any of the maps of the map pack, exceptions being +16 for great lakes because of its sheer size and +8 for the capitals of the western map plus alaska and hawaii.

alaska and hawaii seem to have stronger links with western than with each other. for this reason, as well as for not having the easiest map capital bonuses or superbonuses at the edge of the map, i'd like to see them as part of western. they also have too many cities relative to the other western states: 5 for alaska and 4 for hawaii are probably about right.

the rockies area, which is supposedly the least industrialised, is crisscrossed by a huge number of roads here. perhaps consider removing some connections such as boise to pendleton (and maybe even the parts of I-15 that aren't on the original rockies map) to isolate the states a bit more and avoid the man-in-the-middle disadvantage?

Maybe if we increase the superbonus? Or will that make it high unbalanced?

the superbonuses, even when increased, have no effect at all on most games until very late on, when the result is probably no longer in doubt. this is unlike world 2.1, where the continents, when fully conquered, have a reasonably-small number of borders.

ian.