Trails and Routes - 1867

This first image is a concept image, it is very early in development. I came up with this idea about a week ago. I haven't looked into region bonuses yet, but my initial idea is several 3 or 4 territory regions. Territories will be able to attack other territories that are connected along the same trail or route. Comments are welcome for all aspects of game play. As this is still a concept image, I'm not yet looking for comments about the look of the map. I assure you, I plan to pretty it up later. If, however, I made a spelling error or similar mistake, please let me know now so I can fix it. http://home.comcast.net/~bob.battle.scar/Images/Trails-Initial-Concept.png

i cant comment on the gameplay but i think this is a very good idea for a map, i look forward to see what you do with it :)

No offense, but I think this map is beneath your skill level!! You're an "A" list map maker but bringing a "B" list concept!! Again, I mean no offense!!

I really do not understand how your gameplay works here - can San Francisco attack Santa Barbara (for example)???

No, San Francisco cannot attack Santa Barbara. Monterrey (misspelled on map) is clearly in between them. If it helps to imagine game play, view each circle as island and each line as connector dots.

I like it! @Leedog - Why it should be a B-list concept? Because he is using routes instead of lands? I can't get your point. @Matty - It will work as Oregon Cities works. Some connections maybe it is not clear yet, because the map it is not drawn yet! I will bear this, stop the criticism please. @Glanru - The regions that my mind sees are these: http://oi47.tinypic.com/11smumd.jpg You can call them: Oregon, California, Gadsden Purchase, (Old) Luisiana and... Central Area. It will be not hard to decide the bonuses. It would be nice a special one for St.Luis only, because its historical leading role on the West expansion. For example a +1 autodeployement could be good, but I don't know if is it implementable in the code. If you want 10 little regions with 3 territories each one, maybe you can like these: http://oi50.tinypic.com/b7ypol.jpg +2 bonus to most of them, and someone only +1. You can also consider to overlie those 2 subdivisions, in this way: http://oi50.tinypic.com/14o3ioy.jpg It would be special and different from most of the map we have. Maybe a little bit more complex to decide the bonuses.

Glanru, you are wrong. As the map is now, San Francisco can attack Santa Barbara passing NEAR Los Angeles. I guess you will fix it, making that connection internal to the city of Los Angeles, since from San Francisco to Santa Barbara you will need to pass IN Los Angeles (or also Monterrey, sure). Matty, you are right... It is not clear to the author yet! LOL Btw it's the same concept of Oregon Cities map.

Thanks for clarifying why Matty was confused on that connection. I have already moved the circle a little more North on my copy and guess I overlooked the area just north of Los Angeles when I was answering Matty. These are just initial lines to demonstrate the concept more than exact game play. Oregon City uses the idea in your third image, but I'm leaning towards the second image. I realized I failed to include Dodge City, it will be added in between Santa Fe, Denver, and Independence. That was a huge oversight on my part. I've also added Dallas / Fort Worth as a territory that will connect to Fort Smith and El Paso, maybe blocking their connection or maybe still allowing it. I've considered lowering the date to pre Civil War and removing Bozeman. I've also considered adding Little Rock to connect to Fort Smith and St. Louis. I've also considered adding a territory in Idaho that's more North of the current ones to connect Walla Walla and Bozeman.

Hi Bisshop, thank you for your sharp eye, I didnt see that either lol. Had I see that connection, I wouldnt even have asked it :P The reason why I was asking it was: "Territories will be able to attack other territories that are connected [b]along[/b] the same trail or route." (A bit like the house map: "each room in the same hallway can attack eachother"). So I wondered if it would be like oregon cities, or that every city across one specific route (one route has more cities) can attack eachother. But apparently thats not the case and this is just a simple graph :)

I'm leaning towards making this a region-less map. I think doing so would make it a better for small player caps games. Players would have several routes or paths they could take to the other caps, without the awkward regions detracting from the goal. I also think it would add a wild west feel to the map. However, I've drafted a first version to replace the initial concept version. This first version has removed two California territories and added Dodge City and Dallas/Ft. Worth. Thirty (30) territories, ten (10) regions of three (3) territories each. Each region is +1 bonus. Most regions require defending all territories to hold. I am not satisfied with how I've portrayed regions, but couldn't come up with a better idea for this update. http://home.comcast.net/~bob.battle.scar/Images/Trails_2.jpg At this point, I am now ready to accept comments regarding the artistic part of the map in addition to game play.

Its not clear at all which territory are in one region. Lots of circles are more or less, or even exaclty at the borders of what seems like regions to me. [spoiler][i]OH LOL, I just noticed that the background colour has nothing to do with regions, but the text colour does. Well, my bad, but it might be unclear to more ppl than just me.[/i] [/spoiler] About the gameplay, a game without regions would be very new indeed, but Im afraid it will be aweful to play in fixed games :/ Also, its not really risk-like. So please have some regions :) With the current region system I found a couple of two-border regions, good +1 pickings. I also found a two-border +2 region (combined), a three-border +2 region and a three-border +3 region. There even is a three-border +5 region, I guess owning that will win the game, but its gotta be hard to get that. Of course in increasing games its less important, but I think gameplay works out well this way. This map is going to be a bit like the basketball map in gameplay. Lots of connections, lots of paths, small regions. So I think new ppl will not play it too often, but the 'older players' will take quite some tours in the wild west. I wont comment on looks yet, cause you can do way better than this by yourself ;)

I have one presentation to give on Thursday, and then I'm done with classes at least for the winter. I'm likely to have more time to spend working on this map, but it really would be helpful to hear more thoughts about region-less, small-region, or some other idea for the regions before progressing. Though, I still am open to any other comments.

Are you planning to have Capitals gametype?

Yes, I plan for this map will have capitals game type.

Here's a minor update that should make the regions easier to see: http://home.comcast.net/~bob.battle.scar/Images/Trails_3.jpg Again, it would be especially helpful for comments directly related to small regions or no regions for this map. All other comments are welcome though.