Tuomo
Keeper of the Funk
I'm always a little surprised when somebody says, "That map will work for this battle I've been reading about". Like, I don't think I understand what it is about THAT village map that seems to work better than six other village maps. So let me throw out some ruminations and see if anything is worth commenting on.
I imagine it must be the general overall view of things, right? Like, the general juxtaposition of the terrain? So, say, a long/thin village running along a road at the base of a hill ridge is a different beast from a somewhat more compact village lying between the arms of a hill, etc? So you're looking at the broad strokes of the board, but you don't particularly care about the smaller, 1-3 hex, details like little stands of Orchards or Grain, etc?
Once the central board is decided on, does a scenario designer then kinda work from the VC area outward as well? Like, you first want the general topography of the main battle area to be correct, and then you add boards to the outside in order to give you the right feel for the first few turns of the scenario as one side maybe enters the board?
Seems to me that a lot of standard geo boards have the Main Theme take place in the middle of the board, but the edges, particularly the A-D and DD-GG columns, are pretty much left as filler. That may be just a function of geometry, but it never feels good to waste those hexes. That also may be why the Fort boards are so successful (at least to me) - their dimensions are less susceptible to waste, and you can engage the players all over the map.
From my perspective as a board designer, I appreciate the differences between different types of boards as mentioned above - I can see how a long/thin village strung out along a road is a very different beast than a compact village in the middle of grainfields. To me, though, there's some added details I care about a lot, but I wonder if scenario designers do - things like how the road net interacts with the buildings and hills, whether there's any streams or gullies to affect the approaches to a town, whether there's any dominating terrain like Level 2 building locations or hills, etc. Not mainly because I like to draw pretty terrain, but because I think it'd be a cool board to play on.
I wonder if those things which make the board *to me* are really not all that important to a scenario designer. And if that guy looks at my board and says "Meh" because of something I haven't appreciated, then I guess I want to understand what THEY think is important. Cuz otherwise I'm just doodling fun terrain, and while that's therapeutic in its own way, it doesn't really get maps connected with scenarios and published, ja?
I imagine it must be the general overall view of things, right? Like, the general juxtaposition of the terrain? So, say, a long/thin village running along a road at the base of a hill ridge is a different beast from a somewhat more compact village lying between the arms of a hill, etc? So you're looking at the broad strokes of the board, but you don't particularly care about the smaller, 1-3 hex, details like little stands of Orchards or Grain, etc?
Once the central board is decided on, does a scenario designer then kinda work from the VC area outward as well? Like, you first want the general topography of the main battle area to be correct, and then you add boards to the outside in order to give you the right feel for the first few turns of the scenario as one side maybe enters the board?
Seems to me that a lot of standard geo boards have the Main Theme take place in the middle of the board, but the edges, particularly the A-D and DD-GG columns, are pretty much left as filler. That may be just a function of geometry, but it never feels good to waste those hexes. That also may be why the Fort boards are so successful (at least to me) - their dimensions are less susceptible to waste, and you can engage the players all over the map.
From my perspective as a board designer, I appreciate the differences between different types of boards as mentioned above - I can see how a long/thin village strung out along a road is a very different beast than a compact village in the middle of grainfields. To me, though, there's some added details I care about a lot, but I wonder if scenario designers do - things like how the road net interacts with the buildings and hills, whether there's any streams or gullies to affect the approaches to a town, whether there's any dominating terrain like Level 2 building locations or hills, etc. Not mainly because I like to draw pretty terrain, but because I think it'd be a cool board to play on.
I wonder if those things which make the board *to me* are really not all that important to a scenario designer. And if that guy looks at my board and says "Meh" because of something I haven't appreciated, then I guess I want to understand what THEY think is important. Cuz otherwise I'm just doodling fun terrain, and while that's therapeutic in its own way, it doesn't really get maps connected with scenarios and published, ja?