Map in process
  • 99 posts
  • Page 6 of 7
dough_boy wrote:
I like it. The mini-map will need to be worked on, but I think it is fine.

Curious about the airports, are those there in real life, or is it for gameplay? If gameplay, should there be one further south in the left territory of the red region?
Glessesboy wrote:
dough_boy
I like it. The mini-map will need to be worked on, but I think it is fine.

Curious about the airports, are those there in real life, or is it for gameplay? If gameplay, should there be one further south in the left territory of the red region?

Mini map was Just for me, for territories etc hahaha.
And yes the airport's are located in those areas in real life.
Glessesboy is online.
Glessesboy wrote:
I think that this is close to the final product:
Final, almost, product (click to show)
Glessesboy is online.
Cireon wrote:
Glessesboy
I think that this is close to the final product:
I am not a cartographer, but just to manage expectations: I doubt it. We're still in the phase of establishing gameplay, and I don't think there is enough widespread agreement that the gameplay is finalized. I also think some more work needs to be done to elevate the graphical quality of this map to the standards of this website. So yeah, I don't want you to keep your hopes up, I think you need to receive much more feedback before this map can go live.

Anyway, here are some of my thoughts:

  • I don't see the need for airports on this map. Airports are problematic for connectivity reasons, and should be avoided if the map can be made well connected enough otherwise.
  • The inclusion of the ABC islands is a bit weird to me. They're really far away geographically (p much the other side of the world), so their inclusion seems arbitrary. To play on the "war" theme of Dominating12, it is unlikely troops would move back and forth between those locations very fast, making them virtually independent fronts.
  • The bottom-left green region (Zealand) seems incredibly isolated. If you get a hold of the bottom pink region (Brabant), you get the green region basically for free without having to protect other regions. If you do own the green region, there's going to be no way out with your troops unless you fight your way through the pink region. It doesn't make a lot of sense.
  • The topology around the north of the central pink region (Flevoland) seems odd to me. There is no way to get to the regions north of that river without going all the way through the yellow and cyan region, with some really tight bottlenecks involved there. I feel a connection between this pink and the red region north of it is necessary.
  • Some territory borders seem unnecessary complex. For example, the river through the central river (Utrecht) doesn't seem to be adding any gameplay value, as it is not blocking any connections. It's also geographically inaccurate (in real life it's a canal, so it's very straight), so I think we could do with removing it entirely. If you want to keep the river, the territory line east of it that runs parallel to it can be made much shorter, removing clutter. The extension of that river through the top left green region could also be removed by changing the territory lines around so the territory north of the river bridge runs all the way to the west coast. I think it's super cool to make this a river-heavy map, it fits the NL, but there is a lot of value in being able to spot the routes through the map at a glance, without having to spend too much time looking for small details, such as where there are bridges, and where there aren't.
“This is how humans are: We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question.”
- Speaker for the Dead, O.S. Card
Glessesboy wrote:
Yes, maybe was "final" not the best choice of words. Hahaha. I meant to say, new edit of the map with all the feedback so far. As I understand the feedback and was able to implement it in the map.

So your thoughts are more than welcome! And I see the points you made.

Question; can you clarify the 'graphical quality of this map to the standards of this website" part?
Glessesboy is online.
Cireon wrote:
I think the cartography department has some pretty high standards when it comes to the actual final map, i.e. use of textures, colours, fronts, etc. So it may take a few passes for those as well. But let's focus on the gameplay first.
“This is how humans are: We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question.”
- Speaker for the Dead, O.S. Card
Glessesboy wrote:
How bout this for gameplay ha.

using the rivers as region border. think that would work beter.

(click to show)
Glessesboy is online.
Matty wrote:
That would work a bit better for the bottom left green region, but a lot worse for the left blue region. Also it would be unlike the real provinces.
The safest here would be to add a bridge from the green region to the right most of the blue region above it.

You could also lower the bonus to 1. That way it's still a good region, but definitely not overpowered anymore.

Or you know, you leave it as it is, and have another australia in this map. People like australia B|
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strenght lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
Matty is online.
Glessesboy wrote:
gameplay on this map?
(click to show)

(click to show)
People any tips for making a map gameplay ready?
Glessesboy is online.
Hoodlum wrote:
placing capitals from 2-9 can really help with a game play. try and place them if possible where they are all in the borders or all inside a region, as per capital selection guidelines, but also where opponents can manuevre around them and be able to attack another capital, rather than be blocked by a capital.
you kind of want make them all equally distant apart, but also as equal in having the same amount of routes where you don't want some capitals, stuck with just 1-2 paths.
i think with all of these rivers you have good options of being able to use those bridges to work with in regards to gameplay.
Glessesboy wrote:
Capitals 2-5 (click to show)
Capitals 6-9 (click to show)
Glessesboy is online.
Hoodlum wrote:
are these real territories? wards/regions? or did you design the map around it's river borders?
Hoodlum wrote:
if the river flows like that separating all the regions, then that's fascinating, and I've never seen that in real geographical location, where it's 100% the case as it seems in this map. if so, then that's a theme in itself. if the river/s do not work around all the borders, then u should try to keep it as realistic as u can since it's a real location.
Glessesboy wrote:
Hoodlum
are these real territories? wards/regions? or did you design the map around it's river borders?

Most of the provinces are surrounded by rivers, in real life. So i have taken the real rivers as region borders.
The rivers I have used are not all 100 accurate to the real life provinces outline, but it was more logical for the game play.
Glessesboy is online.
Matty wrote:
If I compare it with this map, the rivers do not seem to be at the borders of provinces.
A few liberties for the sake of gameplay, sure. But this is a lot.

Also, it's not even necessary. Let's take the river between Drenthe and Friesland (yellow and green in the north). Moving that river inside the yellow region would (or more correct: turning a but of that green region yellow) adds a few connections, but no new border territories at all. So why not follow the real province borders?

P.S. I do agree to create that 'extra region' for the islands. Makes a lot of sense.
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strenght lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
Matty is online.