[Abandoned] - Peru

by **jsholty4690** on Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:47 pm

Edit: Wrote before I thought, a bad habit of mine.

by **jsholty4690** on Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:10 am

Did some quick research and found there are 8 or so major ruins in Peru. You could throw these into the map for an added bonus or more territories.

by **porkenbeans** on Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:23 pm

What about the Naska Lines ?

by **Rih0** on Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:06 pm

I agree with Helix on the bonus thing, I`ll change it and post the update as soon as possible.

I won`t add or reduce any territory. I want it to be as real as possible. I already have 8 keywords! Do you want more?! (this is retorical, no answer needed).

I`ll also be working on the large version.

by **MrBenn** on Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:13 pm

This map is beginning to take shape ;-)

My real concern is that you haven't really made the best use of the canvas - it's almost as if you could draw a line from one corner to another and keep the whole playable area of the map in one half! Is there any way you could rotate the actual landmass a bit, say 10-15 degrees clockwise? It might also then help if you stretch the land a bit to make the territories a little bit fatter; this'll give you more space to fit names/numbers in properly...

by **ender516** on Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:17 pm

MrBenn wrote:This map is beginning to take shape

My real concern is that you haven't really made the best use of the canvas - it's almost as if you could draw a line from one corner to another and keep the whole playable area of the map in one half! Is there any way you could rotate the actual landmass a bit, say 10-15 degrees clockwise? It might also then help if you stretch the land a bit to make the territories a little bit fatter; this'll give you more space to fit names/numbers in properly...

On the positive side, with the current arrangement there is plenty of room for legible legends. And I must say although it wasn't obvious to me at all what the mini-map was, when I got, I liked it a lot.

by **natty dread** on Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:19 pm

And I must say although it wasn't obvious to me at all what the mini-map was, when I got, I liked it a lot.

I'd say the minimap is the most innovative thing in this map. I'm actually a bit jealous I didn't think of that first...

by **Rih0** on Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:39 pm

Sorry Mr. Benn. I liked a lot the idea of turning the map, but It does not help. Loreto would reach top, making the conection of ecuador and colombia invisible. Also, Llo port touches bottom and Cabo blanco touches left side. And something to make it worst: the mountains may become desproportional.

I'm still thinking into a way of doing the large map. I have more than 70 layers!

Does anyone has a great reason for me to change the bonus of the center region to 5 or can I keep 6?

While I'm working, I did the bonus exchange, and achieved to reduce a keyword. Now I present you Peru V3.8

Click image to enlarge.

by **natty dread** on Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:47 pm

You know the territory names don't necessarily need to fit inside the borders of the territories. You can also botch the border accuracy a bit to fit them in better - it's no big deal and it's done all the time.

Basically, abbreviations (keywords as you call them) should be minimized by whatever means possible.

by **Industrial Helix** on Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:29 pm

I think +6 for Center would be fine cause you have to defend every single territory.

by **Rih0** on Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:55 pm

The so long waited abreviations reducement you´ve asked:

Click image to enlarge.

by **natty dread** on Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:05 pm

Good job... ayacucho looks a bit squashed, perhaps you could divide it on two lines like:

Aya-
cucho

by **porkenbeans** on Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:22 pm

porkenbeans wrote:What about the Naska Lines ?

I can not think of Peru without thinking about the riddle of the Naska Lines. But maybe that subject can be left for a different map altogether.

by **Rih0** on Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:57 pm

So, this is what you meant natty?:

by **natty dread** on Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:06 pm

Yes. Nice.

by **Industrial Helix** on Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:51 pm

I just noticed something about the capital bonus... don't you already get +1 for any three territories anyway? Or will this be double dipping? So technically +2 for any three?

Or perhaps you intend to get rid of the typical +1 for any three territories?

by **Rih0** on Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:07 pm

Well, actualy its like to a double bonus, but it does not include ports and external countries.
I was thinking of adding a new bonus way:

+1 -> for lima + any 2 ports
+2 -> for lima + any 3 ports
+3 -> for lima + all ports

Also:

-x -> for any port(or lima)+ any external country -> where x is the result of the number of ports(or lima)[p] multiplyed with the number of external countries[c] you hold (x=p.c)

And to give the players reasons for holding the external countries:

Objective: hold all external countries + 20 territories inside peru.

It would be extremely hard to hold it, since ports are able to assault each other. So I ask: Can I do this?

by **Evil DIMwit** on Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:16 am

Rih0 wrote:Well, actualy its like to a double bonus, but it does not include ports and external countries.
I was thinking of adding a new bonus way:

+1 -> for lima + any 2 ports
+2 -> for lima + any 3 ports
+3 -> for lima + all ports

Do players still get +1 for each port under this scheme?

Also:

-x -> for any port(or lima)+ any external country -> where x is the result of the number of ports(or lima)[p] multiplyed with the number of external countries[c] you hold (x=p.c)

And to give the players reasons for holding the external countries:

Objective: hold all external countries + 20 territories inside peru.

Now we're getting a little complicated. That negative bonus can get huge, and in any case I don't see a reason to penalize players for dropping an external country.

It would be extremely hard to hold it, since ports are able to assault each other. So I ask: Can I do this?[/quote]

by **Rih0** on Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:02 pm

Rih0 wrote:
Well, actualy its like to a double bonus, but it does not include ports and external countries.
I was thinking of adding a new bonus way:

+1 -> for lima + any 2 ports
+2 -> for lima + any 3 ports
+3 -> for lima + all ports

Do players still get +1 for each port under this scheme?

Actually no. This would be a totally new way to play.

Also:

-x -> for any port(or lima)+ any external country -> where x is the result of the number of ports(or lima)[p] multiplyed with the number of external countries[c] you hold (x=p.c)

And to give the players reasons for holding the external countries:

Objective: hold all external countries + 20 territories inside peru.

Now we're getting a little complicated. That negative bonus can get huge, and in any case I don't see a reason to penalize players for dropping an external country.

I agree that number would become huge on some cases so I´ll review the formula.

by **Rih0** on Tue May 04, 2010 4:34 pm

How do I make that white box?(hide/show):

.....................................................................................................................................
: show: :
.....................................................................................................................................

by **ender516** on Tue May 04, 2010 5:29 pm

Rih0 wrote:How do I make that white box?(hide/show):

.....................................................................................................................................
: show: :
.....................................................................................................................................

Like this:

show: the secret

by **natty dread** on Wed May 05, 2010 2:33 am

Code: Select all: [spoiler=title]text[/spoiler]

will look like:

show: title

by **ender516** on Wed May 05, 2010 8:22 am

natty_dread wrote:
Code: Select all
[spoiler=title]text[/spoiler]

will look like:

show: title

Thanks, natty, that may be a bit clearer. Of course, now we should show how to do the code box:

Code: Select all: [code] [spoiler=title]text[/spoiler] [/code]

by **natty dread** on Wed May 05, 2010 8:33 am

No need, it has a button in the post editor

Right next to quote...

by **jsholty4690** on Tue May 11, 2010 1:17 am

I don't know if its just me, but lake Titicaca looks like a playable territory to me. If that's not what your intending to do, I suggest making it look more like the Pacific Ocean, or make it duller.

[Abandoned] - Peru

Re: Peru V 3.7

Re: Peru V 3.7

Re: Peru V 3.7

Re: Peru V 3.7

Re: Peru V 3.7

Re: Peru V 3.7

Re: Peru V 3.7

Re: Peru V 3.8

Re: Peru V 3.8

Re: Peru V 3.8

Re: Peru V 3.8

Re: Peru V 3.8

Re: Peru V 3.7

Re: Peru V 3.8

Re: Peru V 3.8

Re: Peru V 3.8

Re: Peru V 3.8

Re: Peru V 3.8

Re: Peru V 3.8

Re: Peru V 3.8

Re: Peru V 3.8

Re: Peru V 3.8

Re: Peru V 3.8

Re: Peru V 3.8

Re: Peru V 3.8

Who is online