Page 4 of 27
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:48 amby Aerial Attack
I like the update. As far as state lines go, I think you should keep the same stroke weight (whatever that means) or thickness. Just add small breaks (effectively make them dashed lines) in the Dust Bowl affected areas. Then you could still tell they are states AND that you can only cross in the Dust Bowl.
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:00 amby RjBeals
Good Idea. I'll test it out. Thanks
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:01 amby Coleman
Continue with this idea?- Yes - 73% - [ 34 ]
- Not sure, need more structured map first - 19% - [ 9 ]
- No - 6% - [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 46
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:34 amby RjBeals
Hows this? I like it and will keep it if it's agreed upon. Thanks for the suggestion Aerial Attack.
Also - looking at Oklahoma, It's too easy to hold for that bonus. I think I may take out the dark drought region of North Platte (Nebraska) and create a new one out of Woodward (Oklahoma). That way OK would have 3borders to defend, the same as Texas, but slightly less bonus.
Also I want to move the drought region of XIT Ranch in Texas to also border Oklahoma. As of right now - what do you think? Or leave it.
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:42 amby Coleman
I like it. I think you could extend the thick lines a little father. Denver, North Platte Sterling look like they might connect. Unless Denver is supposed to connect to North Platte.
Same with a few other areas.
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:50 amby RjBeals
Coleman wrote:I like it. I think you could extend the thick lines a little father. Denver, North Platte Sterling look like they might connect. Unless Denver is supposed to connect to North Platte.
Same with a few other areas.
Well that answers that. If you already question it, then I'm sure it needs extending. It is not suppose to connect. That will be no problem to extend the lines, but I'll let the map sit for a while to get some more feedback.
I see I left the end quotes off of "Dust Bowl" in the description paragraph. That will be fixed also.
And "Dustbowl" should be 2 words in the Attack paragraph. That will be changed also.
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:03 pmby Aerial Attack
Bonus Structure:
Nebraska (4 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought - current +3 bonus, suggest +3)
Colorado (6 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought - current +4 bonus, suggest +4)
Kansas (5 terrs, 3 defense points, 2 drought - current +4 bonus, suggest +4)
New Mexico (6 terrs, 2 defense points, 1 drought - current +3 bonus, suggest +4)
Oklahoma (7 terrs, 3 defense points, 2 drought - current +6 bonus, suggest +5)
Texas (8 terrs, 3 defense points, 3 drought - current +7 bonus, suggest +6)
Drought Areas: I suggest
-1 for five areas
-2 for eight areas
-3 for eleven areas
-4 for all twelve areas
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:13 pmby Coleman
I agree with all of that.
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:17 pmby I GOT SERVED
Coleman wrote:I agree with all of that.
I would have to concur. The only suggestion I have would be to kick up the negative bonus for holding all of the drought by onr or two.
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:35 pmby mibi
who the f*ck would hold 12 drought areas, that doesnt make sense, unless the game is already over.
i think the drought bonus needs to be reworked.
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:55 pmby RjBeals
mibi wrote:who the f*ck would hold 12 drought areas
Don't start bashing people for making suggestions mibi... (joke). It's just there for intimidation I guess. Rework the whole drought area's though, I kind of like having a negative bonus though - seeing as how it was so hard to survive anyway in those areas.
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:32 pmby mibi
RjBeals wrote:mibi wrote:who the f*ck would hold 12 drought areas
Don't start bashing people for making suggestions mibi... (joke). It's just there for intimidation I guess. Rework the whole drought area's though, I kind of like having a negative bonus though - seeing as how it was so hard to survive anyway in those areas.
I like the negative bonus area too... its what the map IS about, I just think the negative bonus structure can be reworked.
Maybe -1 for each drought area unless you own the whole state or something. That would keep people out unless it was really nessasary to "try and make a living there" and getting their whole state bonus. -1 might be a little harsh tho.... I dunno. right now I think its a bit of a non-factor since its takes so many drought territories to have an effect on the the bonuses.
another idea, which may not be possible, is to have each drought territory be -1 if its over the amount of non-drought territories you have. forexample, you can occupy 8 drought areas as long as you occupy 8 non drought areas, if someone conquers 3 of your non drought areas, then its imbalanced and a -3 bonus comes in to play. So its turns the drought area into a gamble, which may or may not pay off, kind of like how the dustbowl was.
i dont know anything about xml so that may not be possible at all.
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:46 pmby RjBeals
mibi wrote:another idea, which may not be possible, is to have each drought territory be -1 if its over the amount of non-drought territories you have. forexample, you can occupy 8 drought areas as long as you occupy 8 non drought areas, if someone conquers 3 of your non drought areas, then its imbalanced and a -3 bonus comes in to play. So its turns the drought area into a gamble, which may or may not pay off, kind of like how the dustbowl was.
That is GREAT!! That's the key I've been looking for in order to make the drought areas a factor, but a gamble also. So if your balanced out, and it's my turn, I simply attack some non-drought areas and give you negative bonus. Very Very Cool. So do people pay your for your ideas or what!
Please Please let XML be able to do this ???
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:47 pmby I GOT SERVED
mibi wrote:another idea, which may not be possible, is to have each drought territory be -1 if its over the amount of non-drought territories you have. forexample, you can occupy 8 drought areas as long as you occupy 8 non drought areas, if someone conquers 3 of your non drought areas, then its imbalanced and a -3 bonus comes in to play. So its turns the drought area into a gamble, which may or may not pay off, kind of like how the dustbowl was.
That sir, is genius.
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:12 pmby Optimus Prime
You have done an amazing job on this so far. I am terribly excited to see it out for play.
I like the new version with only being able to get to another state through the drought region. That gives it just a little extra spice to the gameplay without all of the incredibly hard to keep track of bonuses and scenarios.
As for the penalty for holding the drought regions, I think I personally like the idea where it is a straight deduction as you have now. Although I do think that the one suggested by mibi would work nicely as well, as long as the requirements were properly decided. Nothing too drastic, but enough to make you think twice at times.
Keep up the good work.
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:21 pmby Herakilla
I GOT SERVED wrote:mibi wrote:another idea, which may not be possible, is to have each drought territory be -1 if its over the amount of non-drought territories you have. forexample, you can occupy 8 drought areas as long as you occupy 8 non drought areas, if someone conquers 3 of your non drought areas, then its imbalanced and a -3 bonus comes in to play. So its turns the drought area into a gamble, which may or may not pay off, kind of like how the dustbowl was.
That sir, is genius.
i agree
what if you had oasises that counteracted the drought bonus if you connected them? (spelled wrong but you know waht i mean right?)
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:25 pmby Anarkistsdream
There aren't really any in that region, especially at that time in history. That was why it was called the Dustbowl.
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:29 pmby Herakilla
even nxt to the water?
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:30 pmby Anarkistsdream
Herakilla wrote:even nxt to the water?
If you notice, the drought didn't reach to the Gulf of Mexico.
Posted:
Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:03 pmby Herakilla
so ship some up there!
Posted:
Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:08 amby yeti_c
RjBeals wrote:mibi wrote:another idea, which may not be possible, is to have each drought territory be -1 if its over the amount of non-drought territories you have. forexample, you can occupy 8 drought areas as long as you occupy 8 non drought areas, if someone conquers 3 of your non drought areas, then its imbalanced and a -3 bonus comes in to play. So its turns the drought area into a gamble, which may or may not pay off, kind of like how the dustbowl was.
That is GREAT!! That's the key I've been looking for in order to make the drought areas a factor, but a gamble also. So if your balanced out, and it's my turn, I simply attack some non-drought areas and give you negative bonus. Very Very Cool. So do people pay your for your ideas or what!
Please Please let XML be able to do this ???
Wow - love the idea Mibi... Hmmmmmm....
Right I've got to think about this...
On first instinct I reckon it can be done...
I'll have definitive answer on Monday -> Two nights of sleep should organise this into a working solution!!!
C.
Posted:
Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:17 amby yeti_c
f*ck that -> I've got it...
OK - this can be done with required and overrides...
OK so you have 8 drought areas?
So you need 8 drought continents based like this...
- Code: Select all
<continent>
<name>8 droughts</name>
<bonus>-1</bonus>
<components>
<component>drought a</component>
..... (list all drought territories here)
</components>
<required>8</required>
</continent>
note : <required> technically not needed for the highest one!
Then what you need are the cancellers...
- Code: Select all
<continent>
<name>8 waters</name> (Shit name I know!)
<bonus>0</bonus>
<components>
<component>non drought territory</component>
..... (list all non drought territories here)
</components>
<required>8</required>
<overrides>
<override>8 droughts</override>
</overrides>
</continent>
<continent>
<name>7 waters</name> (Shit name I know!)
<bonus>0</bonus>
<components>
<component>non drought territory</component>
..... (list all non drought territories here)
</components>
<required>7</required>
<overrides>
<override>7 droughts</override>
</overrides>
</continent>
Note - because the continents only overide their matches then you get the correct balance of -1 or 0 for each drought area...
C.
Posted:
Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:55 amby Mjollner
Sorry it took so long to get back on.
Nebraska and Kansas look fine.
Colorado:
all the city-named terr. are good
Western slope is in the wrong place(San Luis Valley, or Alamosa would be better names for this place)
Eastern Plains are not there, Craig or western slope would work here.
New Mexico:
Looks Ok, I belive cimmarron, logan and clayton are all in the Clayton area, but they're near the border and that helps with relating it to dustbowl.
Oklahoma:
It looks like there are some Oklahoman here, so they should point out glaring stuff(I'm a Colorado Native, so the Colorado stuff seems glaring to me.
Texas:
Amarillo is pretty far from it's named terr., it's up in Dallhart terr.
I'm not from TX, nor am I familiar with it, Amarillo is a pretty big city though, so I think people are bound to notice.
I love the style of the map, and love the idea.
Posted:
Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:42 amby RjBeals
Mjollner - I'll for sure edit the Colorado regions with what you suggested. And I'll wait to hear for some Oklahoma feedback. I'll check maps.google for the Texas regions also. Glad you like.
Yeti_C - that's great news! So far it looks like everyone is okay with mibi's suggestion. I'll update this map in a few more days, and we'll work towards that with a fair bonus structure.
And I'm glad you understand that XML.. if/when this gets to final forge, would you be willing to help with the XML - your name would go on the bottom right of the map
Posted:
Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:55 amby Hatchman
I love the look of this map - you got the colours dead on.