In this thread I’m hope for help/dialog in hashing through some ideas for board layers or possibly some other feature that I’m mulling.

The whole concept is one of unit autonomy. The process has been to use a kind of backwards design based on a type of map(s) that I’m hoping to create.  Many of these are recreations of historical battles.  Rather than a traditional board where every territory is owned, think of a board where there are just a few units traversing empty territory.

The use of Abandon is a fundamental underpinning of this type of design, and the recent addition of Factory/Barren has further set up the mechanics for it to work.

The implementation of Movement Count will be the next critical component because it will be a huge improvement over the awkward and very inelegant neutral wall solution.  I want these maps to look polished in play, so I’m thinking of features that could be added now or later that aren’t so hard to code, and which are forward looking with unit autonomy in mind.

Here are three designer features that have overlapping functionality – We could have one, two, or all of them.  I haven’t thought completely through how they would interact so I’ll just list them here for folks to comment on.

1. Zero counts are not shown (no count, no ownership)
2. Neutrals territories are not shown (board shows or fog shows instead)
3. Separate layer is added for territory ownership (they could look like pieces on the board).

M57 wrote:

In this thread I’m hope for help/dialog in hashing through some ideas for board layers or possibly some other feature that I’m mulling.

The whole concept is one of unit autonomy. The process has been to use a kind of backwards design based on a type of map(s) that I’m hoping to create.  Many of these are recreations of historical battles.  Rather than a traditional board where every territory is owned, think of a board where there are just a few units traversing empty territory.

The use of Abandon is a fundamental underpinning of this type of design, and the recent addition of Factory/Barren has further set up the mechanics for it to work.

The implementation of Movement Count will be the next critical component because it will be a huge improvement over the awkward and very inelegant neutral wall solution.  I want these maps to look polished in play, so I’m thinking of features that could be added now or later that aren’t so hard to code, and which are forward looking with unit autonomy in mind.

Here are three designer features that have overlapping functionality – We could have one, two, or all of them.  I haven’t thought completely through how they would interact so I’ll just list them here for folks to comment on.

1. Zero counts are not shown (no count, no ownership)
2. Neutrals territories are not shown (board shows or fog shows instead)
3. Separate layer is added for territory ownership (they could look like pieces on the board).

These seem like okay ideas, but I would like some clarification. 

a. By zero counts not shown, you mean that the actual "0" would not be shown, but the territory would be owned with abandonment on?

b. I think this may make it unclear which territories are territories and which are part of the background (not necessarily for adjacent, but globally).  I think that there are work arounds for this with fog settings, but I don't really know what you are looking for.

c. this can be done currently in partial form by make the fill map neutral colored and outlining the "piece" in neutral color so then when held you see the piece on a gray background.  I do see some nice things you could do with this feature however.

Alpha wrote:

a. By zero counts not shown, you mean that the actual "0" would not be shown, but the territory would be owned with abandonment on?

Yeah, This is the kind of thing I haven't thought through.  The scenario I envisioned involved unowned abandoned territories, which are essentially neutral 0s.  But why have a zero in there?  It's ugly and it means ..well, nothing (pun intended).  One solution is to have a neutral 0 (or all neutrals) become a fog layer, and make the fog the same as the board.  But it has occurred to me that with Abandon ON some designers would want the player to retain ownership for bonus purposes  and then the territory would have to change color (but remember, with no number).

My first solution was that a simple global "do not print 0s" would do the trick, but then it occurred to me that If I have an "owned" but abandoned property show up with a "playing piece", that would look stupid and be confusing.  Solution B would be to have a separate "0/abandoned layer" OR perhaps a "player piece" layer.  If we consider Solution B, it would seem prudent to look for other uses for this additional layer and make it assignable by conditions, e.g. Zero Count, More than Zero Count, Something Else.

Another part of the solution might be to toggle the Neutral color On/Off. After all, there are no troops there, so why have a color?

Basically I'm looking for a player piece to appear on the map when that territory is occupied and for there to be just a plain map image (with not a hint of a piece) when the territory is abandoned. Alternatively I thing others might prefer the same as above (just a plain map when abandoned), but with the territory color changing to show ownership.   To summarize, I want a map image where no troops are.  I'm pretty sure there are no workarounds for this with what exists.  Using a fog layer to roughly accomplish the effect means you can never have a scenario where all pieces can be seen.  One or some combination of the above ideas should do the trick, but I'm not sure what the most elegant solution is.

I''m on board, these seem like good graphical changes to the designer.

This could be a more flexible alternative to B..

D. Custom Neutral Color (which could be set to transparent).

The problem with custom neutral is that it can be confusing for players, but maybe just some gray shade choices for neutral, with transparent as one of them.  This could be helpful on boards with overlays as well. 

Alpha wrote:

The problem with custom neutral is that it can be confusing for players..

To be sure, but even now the current neutral color can be a problem on boards where the designer creates player colors that look similar (and I've seen it on a few boards).  It should continue be the responsibility of the designer and the review team to make sure there are no color issues.

As with a number of existing designer features, there are always ways to screw it up.  Making it totally customizable with the default set to the current gray should be enough to keep the all but the experts at bay.

ENygma likes this!

To be clear, I like this as well, I just wanted to suggest that it should be limited to shades of gray.

Alpha wrote:

To be clear, I like this as well, I just wanted to suggest that it should be limited to shades of gray.

I still vote full range. I'm concerned that limiting it to gray would severely impact the look of boards that use vast stretches of neutrals.  I.e., I'm thinking of two-player (dueling) games where there might be only a half-dozen pieces (or less) on the board at a time and the player colors are preset.  Ed's working on one of these now.  If he can pull it off, it will be incredibly cool. I don't want to steal his thunder but I will say that as it stands right now, I'm pretty sure he's all but forced into having a Gray game board/playing surface, when the appropriate neutral color for his design is "Old School CRT Green".

I suppose including transparent in the range of grays might help, but it wouldn't be the same.

Okay, as long as there is only a color option available for neutral abandoned, i.e. unowned.  I think that for general boards it will be very weird and difficult for players if neutral occupied territories (ones with units present) are now able to be red or yellow, or green, etc.

Alpha wrote:

Okay, as long as there is only a color option available for neutral abandoned, i.e. unowned.  I think that for general boards it will be very weird and difficult for players if neutral occupied territories (ones with units present) are now able to be red or yellow, or green, etc.

Yeah, that would be weird -- unless they were Neutral Green monsters 

But your point is well taken.  I would think that most designers wouldn't even notice the button, and those that do "experiment" with it will be under the thumb of the reviewers because it will stand out.

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/506/Define_your_own_Neutral_color_in_Board_Designer

I have always been a fan of defining the neutral color.  When used for good and in the hands of a skilled designer it would be fantastic.  Sure it can be screwed up as well, but that is why our boards have to go through review. 

Would it be possible to display what the neutral color is in the information section. As if they were an actual player.

Raptor wrote:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/506/Define_your_own_Neutral_color_in_Board_Designer

Would it be possible to display what the neutral color is in the information section. As if they were an actual player.

Wow, that's an old thread.

I think the convention should be, if it's a neutral army, it should be gray.  Reviewers should discourage designs that have NON-gray active neutral units that defend themselves.  Of course there may be exceptions and these should come with signficant warnings either or both in the about and/or on the board.

On the other hand, the color of the neutral is not confusing when it is being used as placeholder for an empty space, and where there are no neutral armies anywhere on the board.  This situation might be better off without special emphasis in the about.  Mentioning it might actually confuse people because they'd start looking for neutrals.