Petros
Member
So many great comments - thanks! I just got back in and need time to respond to them.
Don
Don
Geoboards
- Thread starter Petros
- Start date
Petros
Member
In reply.
Some comments I’d like to respond to (excuse the poor paraphrases):
-‘why bother with new boards when there’s already an MMP bottleneck”
A: Because I have blind faith that the bottleneck will open someday and enjoy painting and using new maps. After 10 years doing this, I’m used to the bottleneck.
- ‘boards need to wait for scenario development’
A: Not true. It’s the other way around – scenario development follows terrain design. Designers of scenarios thrive on seeing new terrain to inspire new design, and there’s many battles that they’d like to design but lack adequate terrain choices. Ask em.
- ‘Don’t do new overlays / Do overlays / Do half-board overlays’
A: Small overlays are not used much by players it appears. I wish that were not true because I (and guys like Tom Repetti too) have oodles of overlay ideas to use on those underutilized boards. Large half-board ‘overlays’ are good ideas – but see how infrequently even the existing ones have been used. All of this is too bad and discouraging – but until designers use them more frequently (big or small overlays) and players stop complaining about them, they will probably not be designed. Believe me, if MMP made them and guys bought them, I’d paint them. Of all the overlay ideas, I like the idea many guys suggest – make some overlays that will make the underutilized boards useful. Tom Repetti’s ideas are great, Wolkey’s ideas too.
- ‘redesign the classical boards’
A: Good idea. I’ve considered redoing a few (2,3,4) and tweak the terrain enough but not too much to prohibit players from substituting them in play. Include some large overlays to make them more versatile.
Overall, I really appreciate the positive responses and encouragement. Like you, I take our hobby seriously as far as trying to make sure we have the best for our use. No shortcuts.
Don :bandit:
Some comments I’d like to respond to (excuse the poor paraphrases):
-‘why bother with new boards when there’s already an MMP bottleneck”
A: Because I have blind faith that the bottleneck will open someday and enjoy painting and using new maps. After 10 years doing this, I’m used to the bottleneck.
- ‘boards need to wait for scenario development’
A: Not true. It’s the other way around – scenario development follows terrain design. Designers of scenarios thrive on seeing new terrain to inspire new design, and there’s many battles that they’d like to design but lack adequate terrain choices. Ask em.
- ‘Don’t do new overlays / Do overlays / Do half-board overlays’
A: Small overlays are not used much by players it appears. I wish that were not true because I (and guys like Tom Repetti too) have oodles of overlay ideas to use on those underutilized boards. Large half-board ‘overlays’ are good ideas – but see how infrequently even the existing ones have been used. All of this is too bad and discouraging – but until designers use them more frequently (big or small overlays) and players stop complaining about them, they will probably not be designed. Believe me, if MMP made them and guys bought them, I’d paint them. Of all the overlay ideas, I like the idea many guys suggest – make some overlays that will make the underutilized boards useful. Tom Repetti’s ideas are great, Wolkey’s ideas too.
- ‘redesign the classical boards’
A: Good idea. I’ve considered redoing a few (2,3,4) and tweak the terrain enough but not too much to prohibit players from substituting them in play. Include some large overlays to make them more versatile.
Overall, I really appreciate the positive responses and encouragement. Like you, I take our hobby seriously as far as trying to make sure we have the best for our use. No shortcuts.
Don :bandit:
zgrose
Elder Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2004
- Messages
- 4,247
- Reaction score
- 961
- Location
- Kingwood, TX
- First name
- Zoltan
- Country
-
Well, perhaps it is a marketing problem then.Petros said:
Hey scenario developers, if you are reading this see if any of these get your juices flowing:
http://www.mindspring.com/~tqr/trmaps/trmapsintro.html
Petros
Member
Wolkey says and my response (DP): 'Here are some boards that could use a ‘specific’ overlay of 15-20 hexes to change/remove that feature and give the board new life.
a) Board 6 Chateau. An overlay that turns that one building into a 7 or 8 building village.
DP: I'll look at that, but I'm not sure how a 7 hex building is transformed into a 7-8 building village. Maybe the interior of that board in general can accomodate such a new village overlay.
b) Board 10 wall hex and surrounding plaza. Too many roads lead into that one hex. An overlay with 10-12 hexes removing that plaza and ‘normalizing’ that village would be nice.
DP: That could work.
c) Board 11 flat level 1 hill. Does anyone even use that HUGE and FLAT hill board? This board really needs an overlay that can be placed on the level 1 hill and change it to include level 2 and level 3 hexes.
DP: I think Board 11 isn't used much for that reason - it's a cool board - good idea building up the levels.
d) Boards 13 and 14 sunken/raised roads. A road overlay that removes those features and adds a few roadside buildings hexes or a few clumps of woods.
DP: Yes. Both boards are way underutilized and just because of these isolated features, they are ignored by designers.
Other ideas?
a) Board 6 Chateau. An overlay that turns that one building into a 7 or 8 building village.
DP: I'll look at that, but I'm not sure how a 7 hex building is transformed into a 7-8 building village. Maybe the interior of that board in general can accomodate such a new village overlay.
b) Board 10 wall hex and surrounding plaza. Too many roads lead into that one hex. An overlay with 10-12 hexes removing that plaza and ‘normalizing’ that village would be nice.
DP: That could work.
c) Board 11 flat level 1 hill. Does anyone even use that HUGE and FLAT hill board? This board really needs an overlay that can be placed on the level 1 hill and change it to include level 2 and level 3 hexes.
DP: I think Board 11 isn't used much for that reason - it's a cool board - good idea building up the levels.
d) Boards 13 and 14 sunken/raised roads. A road overlay that removes those features and adds a few roadside buildings hexes or a few clumps of woods.
DP: Yes. Both boards are way underutilized and just because of these isolated features, they are ignored by designers.
Other ideas?
>DP: I'll look at that, but I'm not sure how a 7 hex building is transformed into a 7-8 building village. Maybe the interior of that board in general can accomodate such a new village overlay.
Use a 15-20 hex overlay to cover the Chateau and surrounding features. Theres another large building close to the Chateau. Have the overlay include a 7-8 smaller buildings and join that building into the group to form a village.
This overlay could also be used on boards with lots of open ground like board 4 and 19 (?).
>Other ideas?
Lots of them!
* Hill overlays for board 2, 9 and 15 to change their features. Add a few more crags, cliffs, brush and woods.
* A new valley overlay to change up how board 24 looks. I love board 24, but there are too many scenarios that use the same valley.
* A large overlay for board 3 to change one of the three hills AND the village inside those hills.
Instead of releasing an Action Pack with two new boards, release an Overlay Action Pack which features overlays that significantly changes 10 existing boards with 10 accompanying scenarios that use the overlays.
Use a 15-20 hex overlay to cover the Chateau and surrounding features. Theres another large building close to the Chateau. Have the overlay include a 7-8 smaller buildings and join that building into the group to form a village.
This overlay could also be used on boards with lots of open ground like board 4 and 19 (?).
>Other ideas?
Lots of them!
* Hill overlays for board 2, 9 and 15 to change their features. Add a few more crags, cliffs, brush and woods.
* A new valley overlay to change up how board 24 looks. I love board 24, but there are too many scenarios that use the same valley.
* A large overlay for board 3 to change one of the three hills AND the village inside those hills.
Instead of releasing an Action Pack with two new boards, release an Overlay Action Pack which features overlays that significantly changes 10 existing boards with 10 accompanying scenarios that use the overlays.
Chas
Elder Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2004
- Messages
- 2,504
- Reaction score
- 1,816
- Country
-
I have several overlays designed modifying several boards, and they will be released someday. However, I would worry about a pack that has nothing but the overlays with one associated scenario. Would scenario designers continue to use them down the road and make them worth the while????
Chas
Chas
Thunderchief
Elder Member
I hope this is not the case - ASL and boardgames in general is about having a good social game - face to face with a friend/opponent - if I could have more FTF I would!WaterRabbit said:
Adam.
Thunderchief
Elder Member
As a scenario designer (although nothing has yet seen print there are about 10 that I have submitted) I would love to see this sort of thing, there are so many boards and so many overlays - lots of potential combinations that can be done. MORE BOARDS! MORE OVERLAYS! MORE COUNTERS!chas said:
Adam.
WaterRabbit
Member
Good Grief!
A business decision is not a conspiracy.
For those of you that doubt VASL could be used in tournaments, a couple of points. The Ftf atmosphere can easily be maintained -- no different than playing Battleship. Plus, with Ftf VASL you could have your cake and eat it too. You could still roll real dice, you get the computer to handle the fog of war, and you get to sit and BS with your opponent. It is much easier to lug a 10 lb. laptop than 50 lbs of boards, counters, scenarios, and rulebooks. I have set up the network for several computer game tournaments. The smallest tournament had more players than the largest ASL tournament has ever recorded. Just look at Frag Fest sometime -- none of the participants thought it was anti-social. Hell the excitement levels were much higher than any ASL tournament and lots of onlookers. Using a computer to replace the boards and counters is not much of a stretch and hardly removes the social elements.
Also this statement from the other thread says it all -- "This warehouse relocation situation has us at MMP thinking about pipelines and products and it has become quite clear that running the business is almost a full time job and layout is almost a full time job. And we've got one guy (me) doing both." That’s a big DUH! It should have been a full time job 5 years ago. All I can say is finally.
However, this explains why we have to suffer with inferior map boards. Sufficient time has not been spent to find a more competitive printer. I have said it before and I will say it again, nothing costs that much here in the Borderland. A good paying job here is around 30k and people can raise a family on $10/hr -- you can even do better if you are willing to look into Mexico for a printer.
Thus the burden of printing maps is shifted to the consumer. This could be good or bad depending upon how VASL is supported. We are talking about a business decision here not a conspiracy.
I am also going to decent on the need for more geomaps. We already have enough for any generic scenario you could want to play. I would rather see more maps along the lines of the Nhpum Ga map. I would rather see scenarios and maps more tightly married. We as a community have about 1000 scenarios or more played on the generic geomaps. The differences between some of them are not all that great anyway. Example, not that much difference between boards 5, 32, 34, and 52; or how about 4, 16, 33, 35, 38, and 48; or how about 10, 24, 49, and y (since half the scenarios SSR out the valley).
So unless you have something exciting up your sleeve for mapboards, what is the point of just adding boards? IMHO, 52 boards it the perfect number -- the same number as in a deck of cards -- interesting possibilities for random design or for terrain layouts.
I agree that many boards could benefit from a large overlay. Just using this idea we have many more potential configurations. Plus, overlays are cheaper to make so MMP can keep costs down.
Good grief is right; you should really try to look up the meaning before you use such big words as conspiracy.pitman said:
A business decision is not a conspiracy.For those of you that doubt VASL could be used in tournaments, a couple of points. The Ftf atmosphere can easily be maintained -- no different than playing Battleship. Plus, with Ftf VASL you could have your cake and eat it too. You could still roll real dice, you get the computer to handle the fog of war, and you get to sit and BS with your opponent. It is much easier to lug a 10 lb. laptop than 50 lbs of boards, counters, scenarios, and rulebooks. I have set up the network for several computer game tournaments. The smallest tournament had more players than the largest ASL tournament has ever recorded. Just look at Frag Fest sometime -- none of the participants thought it was anti-social. Hell the excitement levels were much higher than any ASL tournament and lots of onlookers. Using a computer to replace the boards and counters is not much of a stretch and hardly removes the social elements.
Also this statement from the other thread says it all -- "This warehouse relocation situation has us at MMP thinking about pipelines and products and it has become quite clear that running the business is almost a full time job and layout is almost a full time job. And we've got one guy (me) doing both." That’s a big DUH! It should have been a full time job 5 years ago. All I can say is finally.
However, this explains why we have to suffer with inferior map boards. Sufficient time has not been spent to find a more competitive printer. I have said it before and I will say it again, nothing costs that much here in the Borderland. A good paying job here is around 30k and people can raise a family on $10/hr -- you can even do better if you are willing to look into Mexico for a printer.
Thus the burden of printing maps is shifted to the consumer. This could be good or bad depending upon how VASL is supported. We are talking about a business decision here not a conspiracy.
I am also going to decent on the need for more geomaps. We already have enough for any generic scenario you could want to play. I would rather see more maps along the lines of the Nhpum Ga map. I would rather see scenarios and maps more tightly married. We as a community have about 1000 scenarios or more played on the generic geomaps. The differences between some of them are not all that great anyway. Example, not that much difference between boards 5, 32, 34, and 52; or how about 4, 16, 33, 35, 38, and 48; or how about 10, 24, 49, and y (since half the scenarios SSR out the valley).
So unless you have something exciting up your sleeve for mapboards, what is the point of just adding boards? IMHO, 52 boards it the perfect number -- the same number as in a deck of cards -- interesting possibilities for random design or for terrain layouts.
I agree that many boards could benefit from a large overlay. Just using this idea we have many more potential configurations. Plus, overlays are cheaper to make so MMP can keep costs down.
Pitman
Forum Guru
Jeff, some of your comments strain my limited ability to refrain from pointedness. As someone who designs scenarios I can tell you, for example, that your comment that "We already have enough for any generic scenario you could want to play" bears no relationship whatsoever to reality. The current limited selection of geo-boards excludes a huge number of possible scenarios from consideration. This is not opinion; this is fact.
One thing that *is* opinion is your comment that people will be "suffering" with "inferior" mapboards.
As for your VASL fixation, I urge you to try to organize a face to face VASL tournament and see how many people will bite.
One thing that *is* opinion is your comment that people will be "suffering" with "inferior" mapboards.
As for your VASL fixation, I urge you to try to organize a face to face VASL tournament and see how many people will bite.
WaterRabbit
Member
This is your opinion. A fact is that there are 52 numbered geoboards. In your opinion, that is not enough. Mine is that this enough. That is called a difference of opinion.pitman said:
Also, you keep posting about how there is not enough boards. However, almost every suggestion posted can be represented by the current geoboards give or take a largish overlay. For example, someone wanted to represent the large Russian wheat fields. Use the desert boards. Define OG to be grain. Slap on a couple of overlays to break up the monotony and there you have it. A board made for that purpose would be dull and hardly ever used. Robert’s suggestions are clearly the most practical on this point. More boards is not necessarily the answer – especially given the similarity of so many of them already (as I pointed out above).
I personally would rather see future endeavors concentrate on recreating more faithfully the historical terrain. The historical studies and CGs have all had fairly good maps that gives one a better feel for the actual terrain faced by the historical commanders. The generic geoboards don't. The Edison Ridge battle has been done with the generic boards. However, it just plays better on the historical map. The feel is simply better.
Yes, that is my opinion -- one that is shared by others as well. You opinion is to the contrary – one that is also shared by others. So what is your point? You must think that putting asterisks around the word is lessens my opinion.pitman said:
Given that there might be 5 players in the whole state of NM + El Paso, it wouldn't matter if I handed out cash prizes -- not many people would bother to show up. However, I am not so hidebound as to not see it as even a possibility. The next tournament I attend I will bring my laptop (perhaps two if I have a second by then) and I'll see how it goes. I think it is an option for people who have to travel. Obviously not everyone will jump on the bandwagon right away. However, given that many people on this forum in particular use VASL it is the right venue to suggest such a possibility.pitman said:
Also, you apparently have the luxury of not having to travel by plane to get to most major tournaments. I am guessing that you don't have to drive for 3 and 1/2 hours to get to your nearest opponent either. Even when I lived in Oregon, I had to make a 2 hour trek to Portland to join the rest of the BCs. I am also willing to bet you have never attended a computer gaming convention. So you have to excuse me when I take the comment “Nobody will be using VASL at tournaments.” with a grain of salt.
Pitman
Forum Guru
I regularly make drives of 2-4 hours to play ASL--ask any of my friends in Detroit. I don't see what that has to do with this conversation, however. As for VASL, be sure to e-mail me when that first face to face VASL tournament occurs.
And it is simply not true that any scenario situation can be represented by a "largish" overlay, unless you define the overlay to be board-sized. There are severe limitations in what current ASL boards can depict.
And it is simply not true that any scenario situation can be represented by a "largish" overlay, unless you define the overlay to be board-sized. There are severe limitations in what current ASL boards can depict.
Pitman
Forum Guru
When I actually lived in El Paso, I didn't have to drive far at all; lots of friends played Squad Leader....
Petros
Member
Overlays: It's pretty obvious to most here that overlays are a good way to expand our terrain options. The different types of overlays could be broken down as follows:
1. ones that cover specialized terrain in current board mix, thereby making them less specialized (ie. elevated/sunken roads -13,14, or hills 9,15, or rivers 7,8)
2. ones that cover specialized terrain and make them specialized in same or different way (sunken village 24 to Level 0 village, chateau on 6 to village, make hills for hill boards with different config. etc.)
3. ones that modify current boards, esp. the old ones, to make them more versatile (connect hill mass on board 2, grainfields to replace hillmasses on 3, open park for board 1, etc.)
4. big half-board overlays to do lots of things (open terrain to cover board 10 village, etc.)
Of all these types, type 1. above seems most logical. Would MMP want to print them? Would the majority want to buy them? Until those questions are better answered, the overlays may not see the light. They would be easy enough to do, and I'd even be able to somewhat closely match the various colors and styles of the different geoboards so as to make the overlays blend in well. It's up to MMP.
Don
1. ones that cover specialized terrain in current board mix, thereby making them less specialized (ie. elevated/sunken roads -13,14, or hills 9,15, or rivers 7,8)
2. ones that cover specialized terrain and make them specialized in same or different way (sunken village 24 to Level 0 village, chateau on 6 to village, make hills for hill boards with different config. etc.)
3. ones that modify current boards, esp. the old ones, to make them more versatile (connect hill mass on board 2, grainfields to replace hillmasses on 3, open park for board 1, etc.)
4. big half-board overlays to do lots of things (open terrain to cover board 10 village, etc.)
Of all these types, type 1. above seems most logical. Would MMP want to print them? Would the majority want to buy them? Until those questions are better answered, the overlays may not see the light. They would be easy enough to do, and I'd even be able to somewhat closely match the various colors and styles of the different geoboards so as to make the overlays blend in well. It's up to MMP.
Don
Pitman
Forum Guru
You seem to have missed a big category, which is simply overlays that can "add on to" hills, woods, etc. As it is now, you can't put an overlay on a hill hex.
>Would MMP want to print them? Would the majority want to buy them? Until those questions are better answered, the overlays may not see the light. They would be easy enough to do, and I'd even be able to somewhat closely match the various colors and styles of the different geoboards so as to make the overlays blend in well. It's up to MMP.
Send out your thoughts about these board 3, 6, 13, 14, 24 overlays to 10-15 designers (Shelling, Smith, Pitman, Kenney, etc.) and ask them specifically if they have a scenario in the works that could use one of these boards with the overlays you have in mind.
The designers/scenarios are going to drive this project. If you can come up with 12-15 good scenarios that use these overlays then create the Action Pack. Not all the overlays need to be used. For instance, you can have 10 scenarios and 20 board altering overlays. Once these overlays have been published by MMP and are 'officially' released in an AP the other designers are going to use them.
Send out your thoughts about these board 3, 6, 13, 14, 24 overlays to 10-15 designers (Shelling, Smith, Pitman, Kenney, etc.) and ask them specifically if they have a scenario in the works that could use one of these boards with the overlays you have in mind.
The designers/scenarios are going to drive this project. If you can come up with 12-15 good scenarios that use these overlays then create the Action Pack. Not all the overlays need to be used. For instance, you can have 10 scenarios and 20 board altering overlays. Once these overlays have been published by MMP and are 'officially' released in an AP the other designers are going to use them.
Petros
Member
Wolkey says: 'Send out your thoughts about these board 3, 6, 13, 14, 24 overlays to 10-15 designers (Shelling, Smith, Pitman, Kenney, etc.) and ask them specifically if they have a scenario in the works that could use one of these boards with the overlays you have in mind. The designers/scenarios are going to drive this project."
DP: I'm not sure if they drive it yet. I doubt if they have any scenario in the works for a piece of terrain they don't have. I could be wrong. But I think if I assembled a list of 'very useful overlays' (some already identified or designed by others) and described them to this forum, perhaps these designers would be kind enough to let me know if I was on the right track.
:bandit:
DP: I'm not sure if they drive it yet. I doubt if they have any scenario in the works for a piece of terrain they don't have. I could be wrong. But I think if I assembled a list of 'very useful overlays' (some already identified or designed by others) and described them to this forum, perhaps these designers would be kind enough to let me know if I was on the right track.
:bandit:
WaterRabbit
Member
Apparently, following a converstation thread isn't your strong suit. I was explaining the 'fixation' as well as the advantages.pitman said:
So you keep saying but have yet to provide an example of where you went to design something that could not be done. My guess is that it is too specific and would be better served by a Nhpum Ga style map. (This includes your super secret scenario...hush, hush, nudge, nudge,pitman said:
)You must have driven them from the area then because there are none now.pitman said:
This is trivial to do in VASL, btw.pitman said:
Petros
Member
I've looked at all geoboards this weekend with the goal in mind of identifying 'useful overlays'. :cheeky: I identified several which would do the following in general:
1. cover existing specific terrain 'chunks' with generic terrain (ie.Board 43 - cover that walled-in collection of buildings)
2. cover existing open/bland terrain chunks with specific terrain (ie. connect drop in a bunch of buildings in the center of boards 17 and 44 to make small villages).
3. extend terrain to make more prominent features (ie. connecting the hills on Board 2).
Altogether, there's the equivelant of about one-and-a-half geoboards worth of terrain. I will be more specific on my next post as far as describing them.
I am guessing that these overlays will not immediately inspire new scenarios but will eventually be used by designers given their practical usefulness. They would be smart additions to the system I think.
Don
1. cover existing specific terrain 'chunks' with generic terrain (ie.Board 43 - cover that walled-in collection of buildings)
2. cover existing open/bland terrain chunks with specific terrain (ie. connect drop in a bunch of buildings in the center of boards 17 and 44 to make small villages).
3. extend terrain to make more prominent features (ie. connecting the hills on Board 2).
Altogether, there's the equivelant of about one-and-a-half geoboards worth of terrain. I will be more specific on my next post as far as describing them.
I am guessing that these overlays will not immediately inspire new scenarios but will eventually be used by designers given their practical usefulness. They would be smart additions to the system I think.
Don