[Abandoned] - Los Angeles

by **oaktown** on Sun May 11, 2008 5:57 pm

Alright, I've been meaning to do this forever, but I keep letting myself get sidetracked: I present to you the Los Angeles metro area, including parts of Orange County and the Valleys.

Click image to enlarge.

Here's the gameplay reboot on this map, as promised. When I started this it was all regions, then people wanted freeways and we had a weird classic/rail hybrid. Now I'm going all freeways.

The idea is that you string bits of a freeway together to make your own bonuses. Any string of three gives you +1. A string of four gives you +2, etc. The beauty in this is that a string of four is basically two strings of three overlapping, so I don't have to get fancy with the code. There will be a lot of code, but it will be simple.

The freeway signs are the army circles... army shields!

Right now there are 78 territories, but it's a mess and I'm thinking that I should remove a freeway or two - the first to go will be the 105, which shoots east-west just below the funny spiral towers in the center. It knocks us down to 74 territories, which is still pretty big!

Downtown obviously is too close together - I'll work on it - and we'll need to be strategic about where there are two adjacent sections of a freeway without an interchange between them, as this will be the key to getting early bonuses.

And yes, the mountains still suck. The graphics reboot will come later.

So, does this look playable??
original post:
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r76/ron_parodi/Southland02.jpg

by **t-o-m** on Sun May 11, 2008 6:01 pm

FINALLY!!
lol
orange county being defended by 3 terits and its quite big seems a little odd. idk why
the conts look fairly hard to hold in my opinion but that'll be solved by immpassables.
i like the title on the actual map

i would coment mroe but its late..

by **Kaplowitz** on Sun May 11, 2008 6:02 pm

i have nothing to say so far. I dont know enough about making good gameplay

by **ZeakCytho** on Sun May 11, 2008 6:05 pm

Kaplowitz wrote:i have nothing to say so far. I dont know enough about making good gameplay

QFT. Also, I don't live anywhere near LA, so any comments I have right now (ex. "wtf is a orange county?") would be useless

.

I like the idea, though.

by **Optimus Prime** on Sun May 11, 2008 6:15 pm

I'll take a shot at giving some advice, or at least I hope it is constructive advice....

To me, as I look at the map, it seems that Anaheim and Irvine are absolutely huge. I don't know if that is because those particular "cities" are really that big, or that is just how the map came out, but it seems to me like there is a lot of wasted space sitting around there. I'm not familiar enough with the area, but is there an option for splitting those up a little bit?

Also, the Orange County part seems large for a three border continent, but I don't know a whole lot about that gameplay-wise. Perhaps a route from Huntington Beach to Palos Verdes or Wilmington? If you were wanting to add a fourth border to that one, seems like that would be a logical space.

That's all I've got....hopefully it was worthwhile. I'm trying to be a more active "foundry commenter" in the coming days.

by **cairnswk** on Sun May 11, 2008 6:17 pm

cool...i can relate...I've driven in LA....down the Valley, out to Pomona (i think it was way out there), all the wiltshire etc.
Are you going to use freeways...Man's chinese theatre...Capitol Building...LAX airport...Disneyland etc.etc.
Graphically i think you could do a lot with this one. Good luck.
And is that a tunnel between Van Nuys and Westwood or the mountain road.

by **InkL0sed** on Sun May 11, 2008 6:18 pm

Optimus Prime wrote:I'll take a shot at giving some advice, or at least I hope it is constructive advice....

To me, as I look at the map, it seems that Anaheim and Irvine are absolutely huge. I don't know if that is because those particular "cities" are really that big, or that is just how the map came out, but it seems to me like there is a lot of wasted space sitting around there. I'm not familiar enough with the area, but is there an option for splitting those up a little bit?

Also, the Orange County part seems large for a three border continent, but I don't know a whole lot about that gameplay-wise. Perhaps a route from Huntington Beach to Palos Verdes or Wilmington? If you were wanting to add a fourth border to that one, seems like that would be a logical space.

That's all I've got....hopefully it was worthwhile. I'm trying to be a more active "foundry commenter" in the coming days.

Be more sure of your comments -- half of us are talking out of our asses when we post. Hope I see you around

by **Mjinga** on Sun May 11, 2008 6:23 pm

DANGIT! You got to it first! So not fair! *cries*

Oh well. Such is life, and all that.

I can put up a comprehensive list of things I find wrong (no offense, I mean, cause like, you asked...) with it after I finish my updates, but for right now... Where's Gardenia? Why do you have Great Highway and Palos Verdes instead of El Segundo and Redondo Beach? How can you not have Rosemead in it? Why do you have Wilshire Blvd there? Where's Bel Air? Venice? The City of Industry? Garden Grove? All the like... best places aren't there. Some of the areas include parts of land that should belong to other areas if you're dividing that way.

Those arrows... That's about where the 57 and the 405 are, I think. A freeway system overlaying the map would be awesome!

I'll come back with something more organised after I get my updates done. Sorry if none of that made any sense. But I live in the area and you must do a good job.

by **oaktown** on Sun May 11, 2008 6:27 pm

Optimus Prime wrote:To me, as I look at the map, it seems that Anaheim and Irvine are absolutely huge. I don't know if that is because those particular "cities" are really that big, or that is just how the map came out, but it seems to me like there is a lot of wasted space sitting around there. I'm not familiar enough with the area, but is there an option for splitting those up a little bit?

Also, the Orange County part seems large for a three border continent, but I don't know a whole lot about that gameplay-wise.

Yeah, you're right on, Optimus. That's the worst part of the map, as it needs to be split up. There are more cities I could throw in to add territories, but unless I can break it into two regions adding more territories just makes it worse. If anybody out there knows Orange County at all, please let me know what makes sense.

cairnswk wrote:And is that a tunnel between Van Nuys and Westwood or the mountain road.

It's the 405... and yes, there is a lot of fun to be had with this graphically.

Mjinga wrote:Where's Gardenia? Why do you have Great Highway and Palos Verdes instead of El Segundo and Redondo Beach? How can you not have Rosemead in it? Why do you have Wilshire Blvd there? Where's Bel Air? Venice? The City of Industry? Garden Grove?

As noted in the first post, I have obviously had to lump areas together in order to make the map manageable... "Great Highway" is everything from El Segundo to Redondo Beach, Wilshire Blvd covers everything north of the 10, etc. I know this map will piss off some people ("I live in Reseda - where the hell is Reseda?!?"), so collectively we should figure out what works best for the map.

by **Mjinga** on Sun May 11, 2008 6:52 pm

I live just off the area your map displays, so you don't have to worry about Reseda-syndrome from me.

I just wonder why you picked the areas you did, because some of them aren't as important as others that you didn't use.

If you added a freeway system (somewhat like the subway system on the NYC map?) you could make Orange County attackable in more places.

by **oaktown** on Mon May 12, 2008 1:00 am

Click image to enlarge.

Split Orange County into North and South in the most logical way I can see fit. Gameplay-wise this creates a new potential start in the south east corner of the map, albeit not a very good one because there's no place to go other than into the abyss of the O.C. (shudder). Still, better than getting stuck down there with no easy bonus.

By my count we are now up to 56 territories, which is a pretty solid number. 2-3 players = 18 territory starts + 2 neutrals, 4 players = 14 terits, 5 players = 11 terits + 1 neutral, 6 players = 9 terits + 2 neutrals, 7 players = 8 terits, 8 players = 7 terits.

by **Mjinga** on Mon May 12, 2008 1:09 am

The first person to go in two and three player games will have a huge advantage. If that person deploys all 6 guys on one territory, it'd be easy to deprive the next dude of one bonus guy in a 9 vs 3.

What are your proposed bonuses on these things?

EDIT: I think I'm missing things because it's late. o.O I swear I didn't see some of the things in your post before.

I've obviously lumped cities and neighborhoods together because there's no way I could include every area of, say, Orange County for example. Have I done this in a logical manner?

They're not shaped right... Like really not right... you have bits going into other named neighborhoods' bits. And I don't known why you picked some neighborhoods over others, but I've said it before and besides that might be a graphics thing. :S

And about the Disney hall and such... Aren't most of those things gonna be in Hollywood and thereabouts, and leave the San Gabriel Valley rather devoid of famous attractions? But the freeways, I'm all for that.

by **oaktown** on Mon May 12, 2008 1:16 am

Mjinga wrote:The first person to go in two and three player games will have a huge advantage. If that person deploys all 6 guys on one territory, it'd be easy to deprive the next dude of one bonus guy in a 9 vs 3.

Yeah, but what can you do... 18 territories isn't ideal, but if somebody decides to play a two/three player game on a big map like this they are taking a big risk that they'll draw a late start a start out with a disadvantage. It's no worse than World 2.0 or any other big map.

And I haven't even begun to think about bonuses... if we get the regions settled I'll run them through the calculator.

They're not shaped right... Like really not right... you have bits going into other named neighborhoods' bits. And I don't known why you picked some neighborhoods over others, but I've said it before and besides that might be a graphics thing. :S

I can shape them any old way, though I'll take some liberties to make the regions playable. Trouble is how do draw the border between two cities - say Westminster and Costa Mesa - when in reality Fountain Valley is between them? A lot of the borders are just approximations, but I'll gladly take suggestions! And again, when I'm faced with cutting out a city, I don't necessarily know many of these areas well enough to know which one to lose. Brea or Yorba Linda? Norwalk or Artesia? Covina or West Covina? Don't be shy - tell me what to change!

by **Mjinga** on Mon May 12, 2008 1:38 am

Mm, that's true with the 2-3 player games. Plus it doesn't matter to me anyway, since I never play them. XD

I'd just make Westminster cover the area where Fountain Valley would be... but then again I'd pick Garden Grove as that territ rather than Westminster. :lol:

But what I mean about shaped wrong is like... where Tustin, Orange, Santa Ana, and Irvine meet. That intersection of areas exists in real life. Except that Tustin actually touches Santa Anna and is bordered by Orange in the north, not in the west (and actually El Modena is between Orange and Tustin, but you could just make that part of Tustin since it'd give it a convenient flat north border). Irvine has all of Tustin between it and Orange in real life. And Anaheim surrounds Orange in the north: Yorba Linda is the next area over but it doesn't share a border with Orange.

It's not that I have an issue with areas touching that touch because little neighbourhoods have been swallowed up to form rather bigger ones, it's that some of the areas which border each other have incorrect borders even though they haven't swallowed up smaller neighbourhoods to account for it.

I'm not exactly sure how to say what I mean clearly. :S

EDIT: Oh, and Brea rather than La Habra.

by **edbeard** on Mon May 12, 2008 1:54 am

I'm probably not the best person to ask, but what you have as Wilmington, I know as Lomita.

I agree with your Westminister over Garden Grove. And, La Habra over Brea.

Spelling mistake: Hawthorne (you've got Hawthrone).

If you're trying to pick, I'd go Buena Park over Cypress.

I don't have enough knowledge on northern areas to comment.

by **Incandenza** on Mon May 12, 2008 2:01 am

ZOMG OAKTOWN YOU DA MAN! FINALLY !!!11111ELEVENTY

So, yeah, I'm excited about seeing a map of SoCal.

But I have a couple of trenchant comments:
1. I think you could get rid of Orange and the San Gabriel Valley, compact the map, and have more detailed neighborhoods (like Los Feliz, Koreatown, Lincoln Heights, Mar Vista, Naples, etc.) Basically make it a "true" Los Angeles map, as opposed to a Los Angeles Greater Metropolitan Area map.
2. Also, freeways were mentioned above, but I'd like to go into more detail about the concept: how about having the 101, 5, 405, 10, maybe the 605, 710, 105, etc, interspersed with onramps and the obvious interchanges. Then you could have one-way attacks on the freeways (in both directions: i.e. 101 North Silverlake would be able to attack 101 North Hollywood as well as 101 Hollywood Offramp, and 101 South Burbank would be able to attack 101 South Hollywood and 101 Hollywood Offramp, but 101 North Hollywood would NOT be able to attack 101 South Hollywood). It would be like a weird synthesis of a traditional geographic map like you have here and Circus Maximus (and it would be unlike anything else on the site). The advantage of the freeways is that you'd be able to (theoretically) only have to kill, say, three terits to get from Santa Monica to Downtown. The disadvantage, of course, is that someone puts a big honkin' army somewhere on the 10 East and creates the dreaded gridlock...
3. I don't think you need landmarks or any such, unless you were going to compact it further and go some sort of kitschy Maps of the Stars Homes sort of map. L.A. is a big tourist destination, but it seems to lack many of the traditional sorts of tourist spots like New York or Paris have. People go to Disneyland, the beach, and Hollywood, all of which could theoretically just be terits.

There's obviously geographical issues, but it seems more profitable at the moment to talk about large overarching concepts rather than nitty-gritty shit like that.

by **whitestazn88** on Mon May 12, 2008 1:03 pm

i'd like a landmark or two

well, just the big hollywood sign really

and i think that if you wanna do highways they have to have like 100000000 neutrals on them to show the traffic through LA lol

plus i'd like to thank you for adding pasadena. holla

by **bryguy** on Mon May 12, 2008 1:04 pm

you could pull a DiM and have insane gameplay :mrgreen:

no offense DiM

by **mibi** on Mon May 12, 2008 1:31 pm

I'd like to see some freeways, its not LA with out a commute.

by **yeti_c** on Mon May 12, 2008 1:39 pm

Gotta say - I like the sound of Inca's Freeways...

C.

by **TaCktiX** on Mon May 12, 2008 1:51 pm

I fourth Incandenza's freeway initiative. It'd be an interesting, and city-appropriate twist to LA. Take NYC for example: when people think about getting around New York, they think subway. When people think about getting around LA...they think of massive gridlock on the interstates.

by **InkL0sed** on Mon May 12, 2008 5:02 pm

TaCktiX wrote:I fourth Incandenza's freeway initiative. It'd be an interesting, and city-appropriate twist to LA. Take NYC for example: when people think about getting around New York, they think subway. When people think about getting around LA...they think of massive gridlock on the interstates.

Tack beat me to it. The subways were a stroke of genius on the NYC map, something you only fully realize once you play it. Something similar on this map would be great.

I also agree with Incandenza -- I think you should stick to the city itself. But take that opinion with a grain of salt -- I've never been to LA and have no idea what the actual city is.

by **Mjinga** on Mon May 12, 2008 9:07 pm

I have and I'd agree with him too, especially if you put in freeways.

by **oaktown** on Mon May 12, 2008 9:32 pm

Incandenza wrote:1. I think you could get rid of Orange and the San Gabriel Valley, compact the map, and have more detailed neighborhoods (like Los Feliz, Koreatown, Lincoln Heights, Mar Vista, Naples, etc.) Basically make it a "true" Los Angeles map, as opposed to a Los Angeles Greater Metropolitan Area map.

My concern about eliminating the valleys is that we'd be left with a big flat square with no impassables. Anyway, if we're going to include freeways - which I'm on board with - it makes more sense to me to keep the map stretched out and run them long distances... 101 and the 5 from the valley, the 10 running east west through everything. etc.

Incandenza wrote:2. Also, freeways were mentioned above, but I'd like to go into more detail about the concept: how about having the 101, 5, 405, 10, maybe the 605, 710, 105, etc, interspersed with onramps and the obvious interchanges. Then you could have one-way attacks on the freeways (in both directions: i.e. 101 North Silverlake would be able to attack 101 North Hollywood as well as 101 Hollywood Offramp, and 101 South Burbank would be able to attack 101 South Hollywood and 101 Hollywood Offramp, but 101 North Hollywood would NOT be able to attack 101 South Hollywood). It would be like a weird synthesis of a traditional geographic map like you have here and Circus Maximus (and it would be unlike anything else on the site). The advantage of the freeways is that you'd be able to (theoretically) only have to kill, say, three terits to get from Santa Monica to Downtown. The disadvantage, of course, is that someone puts a big honkin' army somewhere on the 10 East and creates the dreaded gridlock...

Gridlock on the 10? Never. (I fondly remember the day that I spent 20 minutes driving from downtown to UCLA, and two hours getting back.)

But yes, freeways could be fun. One way to go about this would be to make them separate territories, like NY; I'm not sure that this makes as much sense as it did with the New York subway, since that's a distinct underground system with its own stations, but it would give due power to the LA freeway system.

Another way to go would be to just run freeways through territories and give those territories special powers. You could give a bonus to holding all territories that link a freeway top to bottom. You could also allow freeway territories to do ranged attacks - say, you can attack neighboring territories as well as any territory that is two terits away via a freeway. Downtown LA and Burbank would then be able to attack each other by passing through Glendale on the freeway, even if you don't actually own Glendale. Thus nobody actually "owns" a stretch of freeway until you own the entire thing.

Incandenza wrote:3. I don't think you need landmarks or any such, unless you were going to compact it further and go some sort of kitschy Maps of the Stars Homes sort of map. L.A. is a big tourist destination, but it seems to lack many of the traditional sorts of tourist spots like New York or Paris have. People go to Disneyland, the beach, and Hollywood, all of which could theoretically just be terits.

Agreed. When it comes time to think about the graphics I intend to add fun stuff like the Hollywood sign, Watts Towers, and Space Mountain, but that'll just be gravy.

by **waiwai933** on Tue May 13, 2008 9:16 am

I live in La Canada, if you could maybe add that in. Otherwise, I agree with the "fun places" idea.

[Abandoned] - Los Angeles

[Abandoned] - Los Angeles

Re: Los Angeles (finally)

Re: Los Angeles (finally)

Re: Los Angeles (finally)

Re: Los Angeles (finally)

Re: Los Angeles (finally)

Re: Los Angeles (finally)

Re: Los Angeles (finally)

Re: Los Angeles (finally)

Re: Los Angeles (finally)

Re: Los Angeles (read post 1 for feedback request)

Re: Los Angeles (read post 1 for feedback request)

Re: Los Angeles (read post 1 for feedback request)

Re: Los Angeles (read post 1 for feedback request)

Re: Los Angeles (read post 1 for feedback request)

Re: Los Angeles (read post 1 for feedback request)

Re: Los Angeles (read post 1 for feedback request)

Re: Los Angeles (read post 1 for feedback request)

Re: Los Angeles (read post 1 for feedback request)

Re: Los Angeles (read post 1 for feedback request)

Re: Los Angeles (read post 1 for feedback request)

Re: Los Angeles (read post 1 for feedback request)

Re: Los Angeles (read post 1 for feedback request)

Re: Los Angeles (read post 1 for feedback request)

Re: Los Angeles (read post 1 for feedback request)

Who is online