Treasures of Galápagos [Quenched]

[cairnswk]

I'm having a bit of difficulty separating the playable territories from the ocean impassables. Could you either darken the impassable ocean bits or lighten the territories? Not a lot, but just a bit. I think lighter territories would probably look better, since this map is a bit dark for a tropical setting, but if that's more work than darkening the oceans, you could always do that too.

It's been a while since I checked in on this map - it's looking good, but a bit bluer than I remember (that's not a comment which you should pay any particular concern to!)
It might just be my eyes, but the head of the tortoise in the legend could be made a shade lighter so you can see it slightly better... it's fine on the actual map, but just a little difficult to see on the legend.

I'll see what i can do about these items above.

[cairnswk]

what are those blue circles? btw some of them are circular, others oval sideways, and others oval upwards

bryguy...those are the fresh water sources. and yes they are several different shapes. i didn't want them to be too graphic but rather iconic...and not all the same shape/size.

I'm having a bit of difficulty separating the playable territories from the ocean impassables. Could you either darken the impassable ocean bits or lighten the territories? Not a lot, but just a bit. I think lighter territories would probably look better, since this map is a bit dark for a tropical setting, but if that's more work than darkening the oceans, you could always do that too.

ZeakCytho...thanks for your comments. Look i can understand what you are saying, but i am reluctant to alter the blue mixes in there, as I feel it has the correct amount of haze/hue/tones for an underwater map.
If you are having trouble finding terits, then perhaps the legend will guide you as the non-terit areas are those with sharkes & reefs in them, and also they don't have an army shadow in them.

It's been a while since I checked in on this map - it's looking good, but a bit bluer than I remember (that's not a comment which you should pay any particular concern to!)
It might just be my eyes, but the head of the tortoise in the legend could be made a shade lighter so you can see it slightly better... it's fine on the actual map, but just a little difficult to see on the legend.

I'll see what i can do about these items above.

but i have changed the tortoise colours, so those should be lighter in V15 below.

Click image to enlarge.

[MrBenn]

It's looking good...

I can see the head of the tortoise on the legend now - thanks for doing that.

Just thinking about the sharks... you could make the shark below Lugger Genocruz a bit bigger; and I think you might have room to flip the one beneath Santa Fe so it faces the other direction. I think it would be nice to mix them up a bit...

[ZeakCytho]

ZeakCytho...thanks for your comments. Look i can understand what you are saying, but i am reluctant to alter the blue mixes in there, as I feel it has the correct amount of haze/hue/tones for an underwater map.
If you are having trouble finding terits, then perhaps the legend will guide you as the non-terit areas are those with sharkes & reefs in them, and also they don't have an army shadow in them.

Well, I can't say I really agree with you, but I see where you're coming from. It's not like this is a major flaw with the map or anything, just something that I feel could be altered to make the map slightly better. I'm sure the map will turn out fine with the current water colors.

[TaCktiX]

I say Final Forge this thing, it's good to go in my opinion.

[edbeard]

I imagine it would be like other 1v1 deployments...1/3 each which could mean 3 for each player and two for neutral.

actually 8 / 3 = 2.67 so everyone (player 1, player 2, player 3(neutral)) gets 2 snorkels. The other two cannot be assigned equally among 3 players so they become neutral as well.

[cairnswk]

I imagine it would be like other 1v1 deployments...1/3 each which could mean 3 for each player and two for neutral.

actually 8 / 3 = 2.67 so everyone (player 1, player 2, player 3(neutral)) gets 2 snorkels. The other two cannot be assigned equally among 3 players so they become neutral as well.

Thanks edbeard for that analysis...so this map would be good for up to 3 player games????

[edbeard]

the only problem is that 2,3,4 player games you get 1 army per turn to start

so if those 10 armies you have from the start (and the 1 army you get per turn), are lost from bad dice trying to kill a neutral, then you're in a big hole.

[cairnswk]

the only problem is that 2,3,4 player games you get 1 army per turn to start

so if those 10 armies you have from the start (and the 1 army you get per turn), are lost from bad dice trying to kill a neutral, then you're in a big hole.

but isn't that the objective of any game - not to expend your forces too early???

[edbeard]

I'm just saying that bad dice to start are way more killer on this map because you're only getting 1 army per turn.

you're not 'expending your forces too early' if you're losing rolls. The key to the map is to get dive luggers and/or fresh water territories right away.

I guess knowing how many neutrals there will be on non-starting territories will help me know if I think this is a real problem.

3 neutrals everywhere? I think this will be a problem. losing 11 v 3 is common place. And, you'd have to go through more than one of these to offset your -1

2 neutrals? not as bad but still could be trouble especially when you consider that you have to go through 3 territories in some places.

1 neutral? this'll be fine but will it make things too easy?



I guess it's not THAT bad when you consider that you have 2 luggers so getting bad dice on them both will be less common.

I just think 3 neutrals could lead to horrid games for some people.

[cairnswk]

I'm just saying that bad dice to start are way more killer on this map because you're only getting 1 army per turn.

you're not 'expending your forces too early' if you're losing rolls. The key to the map is to get dive luggers and/or fresh water territories right away.

I guess knowing how many neutrals there will be on non-starting territories will help me know if I think this is a real problem.

3 neutrals everywhere? I think this will be a problem. losing 11 v 3 is common place. And, you'd have to go through more than one of these to offset your -1

2 neutrals? not as bad but still could be trouble especially when you consider that you have to go through 3 territories in some places.

1 neutral? this'll be fine but will it make things too easy?



I guess it's not THAT bad when you consider that you have 2 luggers so getting bad dice on them both will be less common.

I just think 3 neutrals could lead to horrid games for some people.

understand.....2 neutrals prob would be the go then from what you're saying....
sorry. i'm in a hurry and need to get to RL work. so will review again tonight.
thanks for your input.

[edbeard]

maybe instead of -1 bonus for the luggers you get a -1 decay?


hmm. it's tough because you want neutrals high enough so that people can't just go eliminate each other right away (think age of realms: might before the changes), but you don't want them high enough so that people are not able to do much


perhaps recruit DiM to give some insight as to how he figured out neutral values for his map and try to apply some of those things here

[cairnswk]

maybe instead of -1 bonus for the luggers you get a -1 decay?


hmm. it's tough because you want neutrals high enough so that people can't just go eliminate each other right away (think age of realms: might before the changes), but you don't want them high enough so that people are not able to do much


perhaps recruit DiM to give some insight as to how he figured out neutral values for his map and try to apply some of those things here

edbeard thanks for offer....but i am not interested in making another AoM map of this one even though they might be similar.

Below is the numbers that were decided on previously.

[edbeard]

well I'd say that reef 2 and reef 3 are going to be a problem.

terminator games and assassin games where someone has that player as their target. win before anyone else gets to move!

it'll happen


reef 7 - reef 4 too



I always feel like I'm pointing out bad stuff on this map. I know it'll be good, but kinks still need to be worked out.


Increasing neutrals on SF1 and Marchena would prevent this problem somewhat. though that might screw up other aspects of gameplay. it probably makes starting from those reefs that much more difficult.


How about

1. switching places of Lugger Cristocruz and Reef 7 (also maybe make reef4 - SC2 impassable? perhaps then open up the border from reef4 to IS3
2. not sure what to do about reef 3 and 2



One graphical thing. Could you make the impassable between Reef4 and Santiago more evident? It looks like there's a gap in the middle of the reef which could easily be misinterpreted

[yeti_c]

well I'd say that reef 2 and reef 3 are going to be a problem.

terminator games and assassin games where someone has that player as their target. win before anyone else gets to move!

it'll happen


reef 7 - reef 4 too



I always feel like I'm pointing out bad stuff on this map. I know it'll be good, but kinks still need to be worked out.


Increasing neutrals on SF1 and Marchena would prevent this problem somewhat. though that might screw up other aspects of gameplay. it probably makes starting from those reefs that much more difficult.


How about

1. switching places of Lugger Cristocruz and Reef 7 (also maybe make reef4 - SC2 impassable? perhaps then open up the border from reef4 to IS3
2. not sure what to do about reef 3 and 2



One graphical thing. Could you make the impassable between Reef4 and Santiago more evident? It looks like there's a gap in the middle of the reef which could easily be misinterpreted

Remember that they start with a 10 on there - that would be pretty hard to kill?

C.

[cairnswk]

well I'd say that reef 2 and reef 3 are going to be a problem.

terminator games and assassin games where someone has that player as their target. win before anyone else gets to move!
it'll happen
reef 7 - reef 4 too
I always feel like I'm pointing out bad stuff on this map. I know it'll be good, but kinks still need to be worked out.

I agree edbeard about the kinks and that's why i'm encouraging you with your opinion.

One graphical thing. Could you make the impassable between Reef4 and Santiago more evident? It looks like there's a gap in the middle of the reef which could easily be misinterpreted

O gawd...that's an easy one

Increasing neutrals on SF1 and Marchena would prevent this problem somewhat. though that might screw up other aspects of gameplay. it probably makes starting from those reefs that much more difficult.
How about
1. switching places of Lugger Cristocruz and Reef 7 (also maybe make reef4 - SC2 impassable? perhaps then open up the border from reef4 to IS3
2. not sure what to do about reef 3 and 2

edbeard...i'm not in favour of switching lugger C...Z and Reef 7 as the reefs and luggers are set up to be *roughly* evenly spaced....but what i did do was make some changes as per below in version 16.

[edbeard]

Remember that they start with a 10 on there - that would be pretty hard to kill?

C.

actually it wouldn't be too hard and would happen all the time in assassin games and maybe in terminator games if the points are worth it.

right now you have to kill 4 territories to eliminate someone in the reefs I pointed out (4 - 7 and 2 - 3)

12 v 2 v 2 v 2 v 10 (at best 9 v 10). but I mean if he's right there you have to try. you win the first two rolls out right. you're definitely going to try and finish the job. especially when your opponent only gets 2 armies on his next turn. if I picked up a freshwater territory along the way and he doesn't take it from me. the game is over for him (maybe everyone if it's assassin).

yea it's hard but it'll happen. enough where I think it's a problem.


maybe freshwater and treasure territories should start with four neutrals not two. only problem (as I stated in my other post) is that doing this might screwup other gameplay aspects.

[cairnswk]

Remember that they start with a 10 on there - that would be pretty hard to kill?

C.

actually it wouldn't be too hard and would happen all the time in assassin games and maybe in terminator games if the points are worth it.

right now you have to kill 4 territories to eliminate someone in the reefs I pointed out (4 - 7 and 2 - 3)

12 v 2 v 2 v 2 v 10 (at best 9 v 10). but I mean if he's right there you have to try. you win the first two rolls out right. you're definitely going to try and finish the job. especially when your opponent only gets 2 armies on his next turn. if I picked up a freshwater territory along the way and he doesn't take it from me. the game is over for him (maybe everyone if it's assassin).

yea it's hard but it'll happen. enough where I think it's a problem.


maybe freshwater and treasure territories should start with four neutrals not two. only problem (as I stated in my other post) is that doing this might screwup other gameplay aspects.

OK....understand all that above.
1. what if I lowered the starting armies on each reef to 8, and
2. raised the freshwaters and treasure terts to 4 in line with what you suggested.

[edbeard]

that's probably better.

But, the more I think about it, the more that freshwater seems a bit too strong.


is reef 1 going to be too strong since it's basically all by itself?


Does San Cristobal have freshwater AND a treasure? Is this too much?


I wish it were more than just you and me talking about this.

[cairnswk]

that's probably better.

But, the more I think about it, the more that freshwater seems a bit too strong.


is reef 1 going to be too strong since it's basically all by itself?


Does San Cristobal have freshwater AND a treasure? Is this too much?


I wish it were more than just you and me talking about this.

it has been....previously in the thread....and yeti_c has been in contributing....

considering the freshwater has the highest bonus combo perhaps it is worht the 4 to gain that extra.

reef 1...probably yes, but then so i 5 & 8

I not saying stop, but are we trying too much to over-analyse the combos without having the benefit of a sandbox mode

[cairnswk]

I wish it were more than just you and me talking about this.

Seems we may lose this map edbeard if contact doesn't improve.

[TaCktiX]

One thing I saw looking at the map: every Reef EXCEPT Reef 5 is within 2 territories of fresh water. Perhaps edit the border of IS1 a bit so that Reef 5 isn't inherently imbalanced?

[cairnswk]

One thing I saw looking at the map: every Reef EXCEPT Reef 5 is within 2 territories of fresh water. Perhaps edit the border of IS1 a bit so that Reef 5 isn't inherently imbalanced?

i'll have another look at this soon. Thanks TaCktiX

[rocky mountain]

well i have nothing to say other than:
when can we play it? it looks great to me!

except now that i look at it better, i noticed something... reefs 8 and 4 have an advantage in that they can go straight to a treasure only 1 territory away. that would give them a +1 advantage over those who have to go 2 spaces...

[bryguy]

congratz on getting this stickied


ill edit this and comment once i view it

edit:

1) i like the colors, makes it seem like your underwater
2) the sharks are a nice effect, but the reefs could use better graphix
3) it looks like there is a banana behind the turtle on pinta....
4) are there gonna be starting points?
5) some of the strange blue circles are circular, some are ovular/oval like (wow ovular is a real word?)
6) on that note, some of the blue ovals/circles are really pixely.... make that all of them
7) why are snorkels -1?
is there any reel reason for the small reef that touches fe1/2 isabela norht and isabela? far as i can tell only fe2 can touch isabela north and isabela, and fe1 can attack isabela north
9) the wording for the 'Gather treasures to assist your survival also' seems weird, why do u neeed to??