Wales [Quenched]

[oaktown]

Without the english names - the 2 territories per territory thing doesn't make sense?!

C.

Hmmm

The two words in each shire are still two distinct entities, right? Two different tribes? Seems like you could just separate them with a line, with corresponding army counts above and below.

___MON___
ABERFFRAW

[gimil]

Glwysings purple blob in the continent bonus section doesn't seem to be the right shape to the main map continent. It looks to me like it is upside down?

[Genghis Khant]

Glwysing's purple blob in the continent bonus section doesn't seem to be the right shape to the main map continent. It looks to me like it is upside down?

That's the Gower peninsula.

[Genghis Khant]

Without the english names - the 2 territories per territory thing doesn't make sense?!

As I said in an earlier post, the two tribes format gives the map historical authenticity. The ancient and medieval Welsh spent more time & effort fighting amongst themselves than repelling the invading armies of Rome, England & Normandy.

[yeti_c]

Without the english names - the 2 territories per territory thing doesn't make sense?!

As I said in an earlier post, the two tribes format gives the map historical authenticity. The ancient and medieval Welsh spent more time & effort fighting amongst themselves than repelling the invading armies of Rome, England & Normandy.

Ah - you see - because the names all look welsh - they now look like 1 long name... rather than 2 different ones?!

Before - it was easy to distinguish the difference between english/welsh...

However - I do agree with the theme comment... perhaps if they were written in different colours - or fonts?

i.e. Modern in a more modern font - ancient in a more scripty font?

C.

[Genghis Khant]

[bigimg]http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj320/bpawley/Wales/Wales15.jpg[/bigimg]

Nice one MrBenn. That's looking much better, although there are still some spilling mistooks there.

There should be circumflex accents on Môn, Llŷn, Rhôs and Iâl. You've also spelt Dolgellau and Glywysing wrong.

I also agree with Oaktown, that the settlements should be more central within the shires. For example, in Pembrokeshire you could have the settlement at Tyddewi (St. David's) and in Glamorgan it could be at Abertawe (Swansea) or Caerffili. (Cardiff has only been the capitol of Wales since 1955)

I'll dig out my history books and look into this a bit more this evening.

[Genghis Khant]

Ah - you see - because the names all look welsh - they now look like 1 long name... rather than 2 different ones?!

Before - it was easy to distinguish the difference between english/welsh...

However - I do agree with the theme comment... perhaps if they were written in different colours - or fonts?

i.e. Modern in a more modern font - ancient in a more scripty font?

C.

Or he could just space them out a bit more. Maybe even position the settlement between the two tribes.

[TaCktiX]

I disagree with the reference to assembling mobs. It makes it seem that you've ceased having a noble conquest and have begun rioting around the countryside with no real reason at all. I know it's there as it's a short word for a large mass of people in a tight space, but I highly suggest using a different word (even army again).

[MrBenn]

OK, I'm working on the namings... I preferred it with a bit of English on there...

I'm not sure there is a need for different typefaces for the clans/cantrefi; I could space them out a little more, although it should be clear from the army numbers that there are two armies?

As far as the explanatory text goes, I'm unhappy about the use of the word cantefi, even though it is the correct historical Welsh word to use - an english word like clans would make the explanation clearer...

Tacktix doesn't like a mob (FWIW I agree)
Alternatives I could use are... army, company, gang, horde, squad, troop... any thoughts?

[e_i_pi]

Tacktix doesn't like a mob (FWIW I agree)
Alternatives I could use are... army, company, gang, horde, squad, troop... any thoughts?

Uh...

War Party? Warband? Regiment?

I always thought groups of Celts were referred to as Warbands, but that's just my opinion.

[MrBenn]

Okey dokey, after a bit of playing around, I have an update...
This image is at the size I've previously been using as my large, but since I've added the settlements, I'm contemplating using this size as the small...

I have tweaked some of the wording of the explanatory text, and made it slightly larger.

The settlements will all start with 3 neutrals, and can only be attacked by the clans in the same shire...I'm considering making it so they can't attack them back...



Points for discussion - relative merits of 3 territories per shire, and whether the settlements should be able to attack?

[edbeard]

too tall to be the small


not being able to attack out of them might get a bit too complicated. plus then you'll have the players with only settlement territories and they have to keep playing despite not being able to do anything except deploy.

[MrBenn]

Two valid points....

I'll work out what sizes will work best... Any other thoughts on gameplay?

[edbeard]

it's really quite hard to say. you have to factor in the possible shire bonuses but since these are conditional on holding the settlements as well it's not so easy. I think you want to make the bonuses smaller than you'd think because with the relatively small number of territories, you're going to have a lot of huge attacks otherwise. at the same time though you're holding at least four territories for a continent bonus so holding it isn't exactly easy-peasy.



blue is probably the toughest to figure out so let's discuss that one

you could be getting +5 from shires for a total of 15 territories needed with 4 borders. that'd be

+10 simply from shire and territories

but it could also be...

+3 from shires and 10 territories with 4 borders


most likely people won't be holding that continent though. that was just kinda to show how high the bonuses can/will be


purple: 4 terr, 4 borders, 6 attack it (3 continents)

min: +3
max: +5

bonus? uhh. if you go with the current +3 that's a min: +6 and max: +8

seems like that person could dominate after getting a "small" bonus.


I've certainly said quite a bit to basically say "I don't know" but you might want to do something like +2 for blue, purple, red and +3 for yellow and green

it gives you a bonus of half the number of territories you need to defend your continent. the strength of your continent comes from how many shires you have I guess. It might not matter much since people's bonuses will generally come from holding shires I think.

[oaktown]

Points for discussion - relative merits of 3 territories per shire, and whether the settlements should be able to attack?

Interesting... so you don't have to hold the cities to collect the regional bonus. This may need to be better spelled out in the legend, but it makes for all sorts of strange bonus combinations. I think it's good to pile these on to the regional bonuses, since each one requires throwing armies away hitting a neutral.

For starters, the last bit of the legend info is confusing - hold all clans within a region to "assemble an army" - considering the way we have traditionally referred to armies around here, the regions actually collect more than one "army." You need to somehow convey that holding all clans within a region actually nets you the bonuses below.

I agree that making the cities one-way attacks will do little more than add confusion. For the most part, they will rarely be used to attack out - usually you'd only take it if you already hold both of the territories it borders. Not allowing attacks out also means that any armies you fort into a city upon taking it are now lost to you for the rest of the game. Seems like an idea that adds little to the play of the map while being a potential source of frustration.

I'd still like to see all of the cities backed away from the shire borders - Dolgelau looks like it borders the neighboring shire.

Map size: if you can make this the small you're golden... can I suggest moving the playable area to the right (you have space to play with on the right), creating more space in the Atlantic, and running the regional bonuses down the left side of the map. The benefit of this is that the bonuses will be directly after the legend paragraph referring to them. Oh, and it probably gives you 30+ pixels you can cut from the bottom of the map (once you move your sig).

[Genghis Khant]

There should be circumflex accents on Môn, Llŷn, Rhôs and Iâl.

...and Aberffraw and Môn should be the other way around.

I still think the Pembrokeshire settlement should be at St Davids.

[MrBenn]

Here we go with version 17...

The map has been cropped a lot more tightly to the Welsh coastline, making the map slightly shorter.
The region bonuses have been moved to the side, and the wording of the explanatory text has been tweaked again.
I've shifted my signature slightly, and the compass has been moved and shrunk in order to accomodate the relocated legend.
I've added in some more mountains between Herefordshire and Shropshire to tidy up the border there, which looked a little odd with the tiny bit of neither county betwixt the two.
The typeface I'm using doesn't have an extended character set, so accented characters will be harder to add than I thought.
Aberffraw and Mon will probably remain the way they are, in order to make the labels best fit the space of the island.
In addition to these significant amendments, there have been a number of tweaks to shades of things, too numerous and petty to mention.

[bigimg]http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj320/bpawley/Wales/Wales17.jpg[/bigimg]

[yeti_c]

Hmmm - I still think that the names look like one name?!

Perhaps instead of having

88
NAME
NAME
88

You could have
NAME
88
88
NAME

Would that be clearer? Is it possible in your space?

C.

[gimil]

Hmmm - I still think that the names look like one name?!

Perhaps instead of having

88
NAME
NAME
88

You could have
NAME
88
88
NAME

Would that be clearer? Is it possible in your space?

C.

Agreed!

C.

[TaCktiX]

So I take it that MrBenn can tell the future, as he's saying today on the 11th that it is updated the 12th...

To avoid outright spamming, good-looking map here!

[whitestazn88]

i think the new gameplay is good, definitely more balanced, and i suppose this will get rid of the set starting points?

but i do wish the welsh(?) translations were still in the legend... that was cool

[MrBenn]

So I take it that MrBenn can tell the future, as he's saying today on the 11th that it is updated the 12th...

And lo, it came to pass...

[bigimg]http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj320/bpawley/Wales/Wales18.jpg[/bigimg]

[yeti_c]

Gaps look much better.

C.

[MrBenn]

It looked more confusing when I put the 88s in the middle, so this seemed the best solution (I'm still not sure why I didn't do it sooner).

[oaktown]

Alright Benny boy, I think we've thought the gameplay out to death on this one, and I like where it has gone. Stamped.

When this map next hits my desk, however, I'd like to see the explanation of the bonuses to be a bit clearer - I get the benefit of a secondary gameplay check now! I think you will need to be very explicit and deliberate in explaining that there are Shires within each Region, and both Clans and a settlement within each Shire. Capitalizing SHIRE in the legend helps, as the shire names are in caps on the map, so maybe something similar could be done with the word "settlement."

Carry on!