Moderator: Cartographers
Wait seriously? this is being held back because of line cleanliness? As long as you can tell what attacks what, that's all that matters at this point, right? what parts specifically are causing confusion for you?TaCktiX wrote:The overall idea is solid and there's a good foundation for Gameplay. I'd say my only complaint is the relative mess that the connecting lines and impassables look like. I realize that you do a watercolor draft with a near-finished graphical look, but if you could make the lines cleaner I'm cool with it rolling on into the Gameplay Workshop.
A fair point but I don't think another Naval Superiority is the answer. I think maybe South Africa having a 2 way connection with Great Britain would be good.theBastard wrote:the connection between Europe and Africe is still unbalanced. what about to do Naval Superiority also in Mediteraean See, these could revert to neutral and one way attack from Europe to Africa and from Europe to Europe. and do all borders in Europe imassable...
if the European bases will be starting points (also starting points)...
TheSaxlad wrote:The Dice suck a lot of the time.
And if they dont suck then they blow.
Unfortunately working in watercolor may become a hindrance then.The Bison King wrote:looking at my other maps should give you a pretty good idea of what to expect.
I'm not making a 3rd "sample" version of the map, I don't have that kind of time any more. There will be this flexible, easily modified map to hammer out gameplay, and then when we get to graphics I'm going to create a very large (25x30ish) Water color version. I'll import that to photoshop where I'll make final adjustments on the final version.
How so? It hasn't been on any of the 3 other maps I've worked on. In fact this time it's way smarter cause usually I work exclusively off the watercolor, this time I had the foresight to do a sloppy comp first which I can change around with out hurting anything.AndyDufresne wrote:Unfortunately working in watercolor may become a hindrance then.The Bison King wrote:looking at my other maps should give you a pretty good idea of what to expect.
I'm not making a 3rd "sample" version of the map, I don't have that kind of time any more. There will be this flexible, easily modified map to hammer out gameplay, and then when we get to graphics I'm going to create a very large (25x30ish) Water color version. I'll import that to photoshop where I'll make final adjustments on the final version.
--Andy
I completely agree that your approach in making a 'sloppy' draft first before doing the watercolor is far better for the Foundry process.The Bison King wrote: In fact this time it's way smarter cause usually I work exclusively off the watercolor, this time I had the foresight to do a sloppy comp first which I can change around with out hurting anything.
What about if TBK did it the way he suggested but included a think inside line as well, as per your South Africa map? TBK is pretty talented with watercolors, I doubt you will be disappointed with his product. Besides, you gotta give him a little elbow room, graphics are largely subjective, so I think the mapmaker should have the final say, no?Industrial Helix wrote:I think a coloring style more like the second style, with the interior outlines, would suit the map better. The Thyseneal style is a bit over used at the moment. Why don't you try something like I did for South Africa in Photoshop... just a generic mock up of what it is that you're intending to do.
On the other hand (just to provide an alternate view on the issue)...Industrial Helix wrote:I much prefer the medium to photoshop colors and the sterility of computer perfection...

How's this. Does this help?Industrial Helix wrote:I think a coloring style more like the second style, with the interior outlines, would suit the map better. The Thyseneal style is a bit over used at the moment. Why don't you try something like I did for South Africa in Photoshop... just a generic mock up of what it is that you're intending to do.
agree. maybe do all regions of Ivory Coast bonus witht he same colour?Victor Sullivan wrote:Ivory Coast - Why the dark blue stripes? They don't correspond to anything...
I assume you're referring to how I handled the ocean in this map?:I saw you sea in Non CC maps (do not remember accurate name). I want to see your beautifull see also here![]()
see now. than made it another colour. the stripes in all map means +1 to any bonus or required for bonus.The Bison King wrote:Come on guys read the legend. It's listed TWICE why Ivory coast has dashes. Maybe there's a better way to express it visually though.
What I'm trying to convey is that While Ivory coast is adjacent to another French bonus, it is not a part of the larger bonus but is it's own smaller bonus independent of the +5 it sits next to.
Why? Is it because of the fact that Eastern Hemisphere has a territory that's called Naval superiority? The functions are similar but they are different, if that's the concern shouldn't changing the name suffice?1) Figure out something different than Naval superiority. Maybe sea territories? Direct connections (France to Algeria, Madagascar, maybe colonial captials).
I'm leaning more towards the top options. It wouldn't be to hard to figure out but it would take up a lot more Legend space (but I've got some of that to spare any way.2) Figure out something different for the metropole/colony bonus than doubling it. One option would be to have a unified empire bonus... for example, Hold Germany and Kameroon +2, Hold Germany, Kameroon and SW Africa +4, ect. Another option would be Hold Britain and receive +1 per British territory in addition to any other bonuses held (still keeping +3 for South Africa, +1 for Nigeria, ect).
This is wisdom that shall be heeded.3) Approach your graphics very cautiously. Obviously you don't want to make a giant watercolor and have to overhaul it.
Well I like that it gives additional powers to the European Colonies that the African territories don't have. Thus symbolizing the fact the Europe did have the superior naval capabilities that allowed them to Colonize Africa in the way they did. Europeans could land wherever they wanted on the African continent. The Africans could not sail back up to Europe. However Which ever European power has the strongest navy has the ability to prevent the other powers from landing where they want. That being said, I still need certain territories to have 2 way connections because otherwise Europe has too much of an advantage. That is why I have it as I do.Well, to be honest, I'm not sure the current "naval superiority" works. You've got two types of sea connections... NS and the dotted lines. Why not get rid of both and just use some sort of one way attack symbols. That would be much smoother, imo. it would also free up some space in the legend and in the south Atlantic.
Or this:Industrial Helix wrote:The only major gameplay element that I think you ought to add is a European one way attack on at least one of their major colonies. I'm thinking Britain to SA, Germany to German East Africa, Belgium to Congo, and Portugal to Angola. This way you get the Europeans able to land and conquer Africa, but Africans stuck in Africa... true to history and also makes some of the more harder to achieve bonuses, such as Portugal, easier to achieve. Maybe, even consider killer neutral ocean territories, giving European players a chance to make landings, ect. In fact, I think killer neutral sea territories would really liven up the gameplay.
Also, if you have room, a Mediterranean/Suez Canal/Red Sea Naval Superiority might be pretty cool as well.
You might be right about that actually.On a side note, wasn't Djbouti French?