Moderator: Cartographers

10xnatty_dread wrote:Graphics are nice.
i'm not sure how i could do what you're asking. on the paper i will actually draw a map with teritories with mountains and rivers and stuff. and some terits will be special (ie: the steam will be steam geysers). so it's not going to be a blueprint of a weird contraption where each part is a terit. right now i just have some icons with lines between them because it's only a temporary thing until i get a better idea about the gameplay.natty_dread wrote:I'd like to see more mechanics in the gameplay. Like, you could have a power source, which moves a cog, which in turn moves a belt which moves some contraption... each part of the machine having a different function and awarding different bonuses.
Also, more territories would be good.
When i saw anchors and what appear to be different continents, i thought AoM again. I could be wrong, but thought you were aiming for something different.DiM wrote:i'm pretty satisfied with SteamWorks right now.
i'd appreciate some feedback on gameplay.

graphically speaking there could be similarities and that would not be a problem. after all AoM is placed in a fictive 18-19th century world while Steamworks is placed in a fantasy 19th century. so design-wise surely some things will be very similar. i just add pipes, steam, some cogs, perhaps some blueprints of a weird contraption and voila...steampunkcairnswk wrote:When i saw anchors and what appear to be different continents, i thought AoM again. I could be wrong, but thought you were aiming for something different.DiM wrote:i'm pretty satisfied with SteamWorks right now.
i'd appreciate some feedback on gameplay.
i hate xml destroying or limiting all my plansVictor Sullivan wrote:At a quick glance, I'm not entirely confident that you can have an objective be killer neutral, as I believe the killer neutral goes into effect before the objective.
-Sully
Well, why don't don't you post one with your ideas, and if people like it, then I'm sure we can approve the extra pixels for it to work.DiM wrote:the only problem is that i can't possibly fit that into the current map size. so either i get approval for a supersize map or i reduce the number of terits.
Industrial Helix wrote:We need territory names for this to pass on.
Other than that, balloon has two l's.
And we need a value for how much is lost with more than 1 steam.

the idea is that if you have more steam than engines you lose the game.natty_dread wrote:Does "Engine + 2 steam = loss" mean that you're out of the game if you hold them?
Hm. What if you hold 2 engines and 2 steams, will that cancel the effect of "blown engine" or are you still out of the game?
Either way, I'm not sure if it'll work - the losing condition is coded as a set of territories you need to hold to stay in the game...

ok, thanks for the input. i'll do the negative bonuses instead.natty_dread wrote:Yeah I don't think the losing condition can be coded like that. The losing condition works by having a list of sets of territories/continents in the xml, and you need to hold x of these sets on any given time to stay in the game. So it's really more based on losing a territory rather than holding one.
The negative bonus is doable, it just needs quite a bit of coding - you need to enter all combinations of steam and engine amounts in the xml as individual bonuses.
thanks for the input zimmah. the bonuses are totally debatable i just threw around some numbers to get a feel of what it might look. so if anybody has bonus suggestions feel free to voice them and we'll have a chat.zimmah wrote:Too bad losing conditions like that are not (yet) possible, but i'm quite sure it's possible to get a negative bonus (i'm not sure what happens to the game if someone happens to end up with -1 armies to deploy tho). i have done something simular in operation drug war but it still required quite a bit of code. the only difference is that in ODW i didn't have negative numbers as far as i remember but the idea is the same.
something along the lines of "when you hold X amount of steam and X amount of engines you get X bonus" should be perfectly possible and not even too hard.
The map and gameplay look promising, i like the idea of risking to die (or losing your extra resources) while taking the objective (much like oasis, but still completely different). The paper looks very realistic now too, however the colors seem to be floating above the paper instead of actually being written on the paper, maybe you could try to blend them in a bit. This is especially visible at the limegreen, red, yellow and purple lines, slightly less so on the other bright colors. Also, the steam on the regions might be hard to see for people with eyeproblems, maybe you should think about those people too and try to find a solution for ti without destroying the graphics too much. The limegreen island is currently overpowered (bonus of 5 and only 1 border)
There is a failsafe in the code such that regardless of calculated bonuses, you always have at least one troop to deploy on each round.zimmah wrote:... (i'm not sure what happens to the game if someone happens to end up with -1 armies to deploy tho). ...
wouldn't 1-border islands become slightly more rewarding if you also count the steam+engine then? because a +2 bonus on 1 border sounds much more interestng then a +3 bonus on 2 borders to me, or am i seeing this wrong?Victor Sullivan wrote:First, I must say your map is simply stunning! Second, I must say that I do see some problems gameplay-wise:
- The continent names need to be more prominent; I don't even see one for the blue island.
- The island bonuses definitely need adjustment:
- Blue: +1 (4 territories, 1 border)
- Orange: +1 (5 territories, 1 border)
- Red: +2 (6 territories, 2 borders)
- Yellow: +2 or +3 (7 territories, 2 borders)
- Magenta: +2 or +3 (7 territories, 2 borders)
- Brown: +1 (5 territories, 1 border)
- Green: +1 (5 territories, 1 border)
- (Remember each will receive an additional +1 for holding the engine and steam)