[Abandoned] - Mexican-American War

Samus · Post by **Samus** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:54 am

Gemineye wrote:so, i guess what you are saying Samus, is that it isnt that important to be geographically accurate?

im happy to make all these changes, as long as we understand that most of them require the accuracy to decline.

Well, my general feeling on rivers is that in the real world, there are rivers and streams everywhere. It's simply not possible to show them all. As a map maker, you're charged with the task of deciding which ones to include on your map and which ones to leave out. I am more concerned with playability, so I tend to suggest using or removing whichever rivers are best for that.

I'm all for accuracy, but I really think too many rivers and especially rivers running through the middle of territories look bad and are confusing. If you really want to keep things as accurate as possible, then we can come up with another solution for the rivers east of Texas. But I think the other suggestions about what other rivers to shorten and remove are just as accurate as the hundreds of other North American rivers not included on this map.

boberz · Post by **boberz** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:49 am

hulmey wrote:There must be a site somewhere that you can download stuff etc....

Mibi must know but i think he will want to keep it secret

I mean where does he get the images for the trees and paving of the castle!!!

usually people draw them from scratch cannot comment on mibi and cannot remember the map (not my favourite so i dont visit much) but for example dim always sraws stuff that looks like an image

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:29 pm

To be honest with you boberz....You cant really compare mibi's work and DIM's work graphacially!!!!!!

Gilligan · Post by **Gilligan** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:24 pm

Bump.

I love this map! don't let it die!

d.gishman · Post by **d.gishman** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:38 pm

instead of "connected station", could you make it something clearer like "adjacent station"? At first glance, it seemed like it could attack any station, because I interpreted connected to mean chained. It's just a little confusing.

Otherwise, great map, I love it, and I look forward to the day that it is quenched.

Gemineye · Post by **Gemineye** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:45 pm

well, i wanted to jump in here and tell you guys that i am really sorry for the lag of not continuing. i found out my wife has been cheating on me, so some real life stuff has been consuming me these last few days.

i will continue work as soon as i can.

Gemineye · Post by **Gemineye** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:03 am

Well, i decided to go ahead and work on this a little tonight. let me know what you all think, and what needs to change.

Update 5
Removed "extra" rivers.
Changed Legend Art.
Changed Railroad.
Added Art to the Gulf of Mexico.
Changed Railroad description.
Moved the Los Angeles script to the ocean border.
Changed ocean graphic.
Fine tuned a few of the circles/numbers.

t.e.c · Post by **t.e.c** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:13 am

it's looking really good.

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:16 am

I count 34 territories. How about another 2? Maybe split Oregon in half or something to make it two territories.

Rook · Post by **Rook** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:49 am

This map is looking great!

Only constructive crit that I can add is that the number of armies awarded to bonus seems off. Just at a quick glance I would think "Unorganized" would deserve more of a bonus.

I also agree that the railroad makes the map slightly confusing visually. Once that is tidied, I think the map will read better.

Keep up the good work!

Gilligan · Post by **Gilligan** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:24 pm

This is my favorite map in development.

Gemineye · Post by **Gemineye** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:01 pm

guys, i need feedback on this. please tell me what else, if anything, needs to be done next.

i guess i can continue work on the XML for now, and hope for a response.

PimpCaneYoAss · Post by **PimpCaneYoAss** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:11 pm

Okay I took a good look at the map and here is what I saw:

On the left side of the map the water is a very dark color blue and then in the Gulf of Mexico you have a picture. Since the left is really dark, I think it makes that side "heavy." I would either use the same texture/color in the Gulf of Mexico or lighten up the Pacific.

Second thing, Can the railroads attack through the mountains? That would be a good note to add or put a gap in the mountains where it goes through.

The bridges seem unappropriate for the map. I would stick to a normal looking bridge to help the theme of the map.

Finally, what is Oregon Country? Is it a title of the area or a territory cause it needs an army circle. Also, the territory on the east that is black near Wisconsin, if it's not a territory and neither is Oregon Country then i would make them the same color. If oregon country is suppose to be a territory then i would change the color of this because it looks bad just dark.

Hope this helps.

Gemineye · Post by **Gemineye** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:13 pm

Update 6
Changed Bridges.
Added info on one way attacks.
Lightened ocean color to help match w/ the Gulf of Mexico.
Cleared a path in the New Mexico Mountains for the railway.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:43 pm

maybe change unorganized to outlaws :shock:

Gilligan · Post by **Gilligan** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:02 pm

Give Oregon County a bonus to itself and make it a country

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:13 pm

Why is texas 4? It should be 2, 3 at most.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:18 pm

unriggable wrote:Why is texas 4? It should be 2, 3 at most.

because it has 4 terits 3 of them being borders and it can be attacked from 8 places :wink:

d.gishman · Post by **d.gishman** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:40 pm

I also think that you should make Oregon playable (was it British territory back then? -- if it was, I agree with the map maker if he wants to take it out)

luckiekevin · Post by **luckiekevin** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:50 pm

DiM wrote:maybe change unorganized to outlaws

I think "Open Range" would be more appropriate.

Gemineye · Post by **Gemineye** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:15 am

DiM wrote:
unriggable wrote:Why is texas 4? It should be 2, 3 at most.

because it has 4 terits 3 of them being borders and it can be attacked from 8 places

QFE....the reason Texas has 4 is due to the fact that so many different territories can attack it, making it a very difficult to hold.

Oregon Country. the reason i have yet to implement any type of territory here is that this region did not really exist during the war--although, neither did the unorganized region, but i was asked to add that. if the major consensus is to add 2 more territories in Oregon Country i will--in fact, new poll.

as far as the Unorganized region. it was literally called "unorganized Territory" during the time of the war....i was asked to add more to the map, so i added this region, with rough estimates of the indian tribes that resided within. as far as what else it should be called, i tend to think Open Range would be more appropriate, from the 2 options listed.

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:34 am

i cant see the map !!!

Gilligan · Post by **Gilligan** » Fri May 04, 2007 2:31 pm

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Fri May 04, 2007 2:39 pm

delete the picture behind the map name it doesn't look good

plysprtz · Post by **plysprtz** » Fri May 04, 2007 7:55 pm

1.leave the picture it looks fine and interesting
2.either change the brigdes back to the squiggly lines or make them a hell of a lot better

3. make the rivers either brighter..bolder..or anything i just dont think they stick out
4. and i like the idea of the oregon country and if you do do that then i would encourage you to make it 2 armies with 2 territories with another railroad station (but make sure to not make Montanas attack the country with the station)
5.whats that big black thing in the op right corner maybe you could take that out and make wisconsin bigger?
6.and with 34 countries
3 player-11 each one neutral
4 player-8 with 2 neutral
5 player-6 with 4 neutral
6 player-5 with 4 neutral

and with the added 2'
3 player- 12 each no neutral
4 player- 9 each no neutral
5 player- 7 each 1 neutral
6 player- 6 each no neutral

so overall i think you need the extra two armies

just some suggestions