First Nations of North America [Quenched]

by **alexandrois** on Sat May 16, 2009 5:15 am

Wow great update

by **pamoa** on Sat May 16, 2009 6:21 am

Tisha wrote:and i have been told before that the salish bonus should be one because someone might drop it.. how rare would that be?

I'm not sure about the numbers but in 2 or 3 players game i think more than 50%

better with list bonus legend
woodlands alone without north-east
can't you find more characteristic names for north-west south-east south-west
and maybe some kind of symbols in front of the names representative the the culture
I miss some native's graphic felling in this map (only my opinion)

I also think you are ready to make a test with "888" army symbols
triple 8 is because of the use of the colour code by a lot of players

=D>

by **Hatchman** on Sat May 16, 2009 9:29 am

The updated colours look great Tisha. Easier now to distinguish bonus areas.

The trees aren't THAT bad. Kinda cool looking. But then again it's chilly in those north-central areas, so perhaps coniferous (pointy pine thingies) would be more suitable.

And the territory names in the north at least seem to be coming along nicely. They're less Anglo now.

by **oaktown** on Sat May 16, 2009 10:12 am

Looking good... as mentioned above the trees aren't bad, but I suspect you'll do better in time.

There's about a 10% chance of somebody getting the 2-territory region to start the game in a 2 or 3 player game, and around a 6% chance in a 4 player game. In case you were wondering.

In terms of gameplay, I'm still troubled by the sheer size of the Arctic and Sub Arctic regions. Arctic will be impossible to take in most games, since it's not only 13 territories but the easternmost and westernmost territories are nine regions apart... and the region directly south of it won't be much easier. And historically, these would have been the least populated regions of pre-Columbian North America, yet they seem to be among the most densely populated regions of this map with many small regions. If you were to represent every nation as small as the Tunimiut, you'd have to add hundreds of regions to the great plains and both coasts.

When you consider how tough life is up there it makes sense that the Arctic region wouldn't be a source of great military might... I suspect the Tunimiut never enjoyed the same kind of warrior reputation that the Aztecs did.

So it shouldn't really be an easy place from which to begin an empire on this map. But from a play perspective you also don't want this to become a dead zone.

Since I've mentioned them twice, I tried to google the Tunimiut. I came up with nothing. ??

You've done a nice job of representing the original names of peoples, but Baffinland sounds like a European name. Again, I googled and came up with Baffinland Inuit, so this would seem to be a nation already represented on the map. And I know, somebody is going to say that there are important differences in the lifestyle of the Baffinland Inuit vs. their southern neighbors, to which my response would be that the differences aren't nearly as great as those between the Aztec and the unrepresented Mixtec (for example).

And I'm not saying you should start adding every unrepresented group - there has to be a line drawn somewhere - but I do think that some of the Arctic nations can be dropped/combined to improve gameplay without sacrificing the historical integrity of the map.

by **Tisha** on Sat May 16, 2009 2:09 pm

pamoa wrote:
Tisha wrote:and i have been told before that the salish bonus should be one because someone might drop it.. how rare would that be?

I'm not sure about the numbers but in 2 or 3 players game i think more than 50%

better with list bonus legend
woodlands alone without north-east
can't you find more characteristic names for north-west south-east south-west
and maybe some kind of symbols in front of the names representative the the culture
I miss some native's graphic felling in this map (only my opinion)

I also think you are ready to make a test with "888" army symbols
triple 8 is because of the use of the colour code by a lot of players

I'm not going to put symbols in front of the names, there isn't room.. I will add some randomly later.
and I know about the 888, i have made a map before. it's not time for that right now, when I'm still messing with the territories and trying to figure that out.

i don't know what more characteristic names you want, all the names describe the area that they...are

by **Tisha** on Sat May 16, 2009 2:41 pm

oaktown wrote:
Since I've mentioned them twice, I tried to google the Tunimiut. I came up with nothing. ??

I know i pulled it from one of my maps somewhere.. Tunumiut .. a typo

the whole arctic area are all Inuit.. it's hard to find names for any of them. lingustic stock might be a better way to sort the arctic areas.. no? I don't know.. you should show my how you think it should be divided, and I'll name the territories..

by **icehack** on Sat May 16, 2009 3:21 pm

I really love this map so far and I'm looking forward to playing it.
I'm not feeling the canoes though, they seem out of place to me. I also agree with oak that the Arctic region might need to be re-examined.

by **pamoa** on Sun May 17, 2009 7:15 am

great basin is a geographic feature north-west is a compass direction
as native didn't knew compass you may find some geographic feature for those 3 legend region names
and I was thinking of icons in front of legend region names not territories
and sorry for being pedant about 888

by **thenobodies80** on Sun May 17, 2009 11:30 am

I am pleased to issue this map the draft stamp on behalf of the foundry community.

Welcome to the Foundry Proper!

About Arctic and sub arctic zones, this is how i see that zones.

show

obviously , you can split/merge in a different way, but i think that reducing the number of territories could be a double good choice:
1. More sense of few people living in these zone.
2. Easier to hold, generally when a zone has more than 7 territories is left as "the final zone in which i have to kill enemy troops before winning".

This is a beautiful map, you 're doing a great work Tisha! =D>

by **Bruceswar** on Sun May 17, 2009 2:04 pm

nice moving up.

by **cairnswk** on Tue May 19, 2009 4:01 am

Tisha, congratulations.
I have to say this is the best map i've seen come into the foundry colour-wise. I hope you don't have to change much more of it.

by **Tisha** on Tue May 19, 2009 9:11 am

cairnswk wrote:Tisha, congratulations.
I have to say this is the best map i've seen come into the foundry colour-wise. I hope you don't have to change much more of it.

are you colorblind?

please say yes...lol

by **Bruceswar** on Tue May 19, 2009 9:19 am

Tisha wrote:
cairnswk wrote:Tisha, congratulations.
I have to say this is the best map i've seen come into the foundry colour-wise. I hope you don't have to change much more of it.

are you colorblind?

please say yes...lol

LOL I hope for your sake he is!

by **cairnswk** on Tue May 19, 2009 12:42 pm

Tisha wrote:
cairnswk wrote:Tisha, congratulations.
I have to say this is the best map i've seen come into the foundry colour-wise. I hope you don't have to change much more of it.

are you colorblind?

please say yes...lol

no i am not colour-blind. but do remember that colour is a subjective aspect.
If you can't accept my comments gracefully as a compliment, then don't expect me to to be back for further compliments.

by **Bruceswar** on Tue May 19, 2009 1:05 pm

cairnswk wrote:
Tisha wrote:
cairnswk wrote:Tisha, congratulations.
I have to say this is the best map i've seen come into the foundry colour-wise. I hope you don't have to change much more of it.

are you colorblind?

please say yes...lol

no i am not colour-blind. but do remember that colour is a subjective aspect.
If you can't accept my comments gracefully as a compliment, then don't expect me to to be back for further compliments.

Nah what she means is there has been a good bit of talk already about the color blind people having a hard time with this map. She was hoping you were as this would mean the problem is solved.

by **Danyael** on Tue May 19, 2009 2:35 pm

i think being colour blind i can say that great basin, mesoamerica, northeast woodlands look the same but with the name order any colour blind person with a brain should be able to tell them apart. Due to the fact all are separate from each other

nice work =D>

by **AndyDufresne** on Tue May 19, 2009 2:44 pm

As with any Colorblind issue, I always favor of labeling continents/zones on the map---for instance Oaktown's Indian Empire map, Middle East map, DustBowl, High Seas---I realize the last few weren't specifically named because of a colorblind issue---but the sentiment of naming zones on the zones is exceptionally helpful.

--Andy

by **Risky_Stud** on Thu May 28, 2009 8:24 am

cool map!

by **lostatlimbo** on Thu May 28, 2009 10:09 pm

map is looking good. i think the colors of the regions look fine except for the "Plateau" because it is so small - took me a while to find it. I would try switching it with one of the brighter colors on the map to make it stand out more.

my only other gripe is using "Dine" instead of Navajo. i realize that they call themselves Dine (with an acute accent over the E, actually) in their language, but this map is in English and that tribe is widely recognized as Navajo (which they also use to refer to themselves). I appreciate the need for space-savers, but I blinked at the map for a couple minutes in shock at their exclusion before I finally made the connection. i think you're better off cutting into the extra space in Nemene and change it back to Navajo.

i disagree with Pamoa's suggestion for geographic names rather than compass regions, but some suggestions if you go that route:
NW = Coast Mountains
NE Woodlands = Great Lakes
SW = Desert lowlands?
SE = ? Swamps ?
as for Artic & Sub-Artic, how about Artic & Tundra?

Lastly - the trees should definitely be pine trees that far north (the current trees looks deciduous) and there really shouldn't be ANY trees in the Artic.

by **lgoasklucyl** on Fri May 29, 2009 12:17 am

This map is freaking gorgeous graphically =)

I, personally, really like the trees.

I feel like the rivers are too solid of a color however, though that may be my monitor calibration.

They seem to be too bold of a stroke to match the rest of the map. Are they unclear as impassable if a little less solid?

by **pamoa** on Fri May 29, 2009 3:43 am

as you made a map of northern America before European came in
I think you should be attentive to the places and tribes names
it would be much more respectful to use their own names instead of the English given names
here under you will find 2 example of this

Nunaat instead of Artic

wikipedia wrote:The Inuit people live throughout most of the Canadian Arctic and subarctic: in the territory of Nunavut ("our land"); the northern third of Quebec, in an area called Nunavik ("place to live"); the coastal region of Labrador, in an area called Nunatsiavut ("our beautiful land"); in various parts of the Northwest Territories, mainly on the coast of the Arctic Ocean and formerly in the Yukon territory. Collectively these areas are known as Inuit Nunaat.[3][4] In the US, Alaskan Inupiat live on the North Slope of Alaska and the Seward Peninsula. Greenland's Kalaallit are citizens of Denmark.

Nēhilawē instead of Cree

wikipedia wrote:among the Cree, they usually referred to themselves collectively as Nēhilawē[1] (those who speak our language); they called themselves "Cree" only when speaking English or French.

by **SultanOfSurreal** on Fri May 29, 2009 4:54 am

awesome map, here's a suggestion on a better name for Baffinland

Identification. The Baffinland Inuit constitute the Easternmost group of what is commonly referred to as the Central Eskimo, a designation that also includes the Copper, Iglulik, Netsilik, and Caribou Inuit. The Baffinland Inuit are a hunting people who have occupied their land for over four thousand years. They refer to their territory as Nunaseak, which means "beautiful land."

http://www.everyculture.com/North-America/Baffinland-Inuit-Orientation.html

by **Bruceswar** on Fri May 29, 2009 9:08 am

lostatlimbo wrote:
Lastly - the trees should definitely be pine trees that far north (the current trees looks deciduous) and there really shouldn't be ANY trees in the Artic.

I disagree Sub Artic has trees in it

They look pretty anyhow

by **lostatlimbo** on Fri May 29, 2009 8:40 pm

This page has a great map showing the earth's biome. You'll see that the deciduous forests (leafy trees) don't grow anywhere near that area. The boreal (pine trees) forest doesn't grow in the tundra either, but its not entirely out of place as a border on the sub-artic.

>>> http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9k.html

by **JrFan88** on Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:51 pm

Great map, love the theme. Wish I was half as talented. However, there are 2 glaring inaccuracies.

First: Where are the Cherokee? They should occupy the WHOLE territory you've given to the Yamasee, and at least the southern THIRD of what you have assigned to the Tuscarora.

Second: The entire territory you've given to the Nemene (whoever they are), or AT LEAST the southern 2/3, belonged to the Comanche; historically they controlled the largest hunting range of ANY plains nation - from New Mexico to Colorado and Kansas, all of Oklahoma and most of Texas.

I don't know who you relied on for research, but they were way off on both of these.

Sorry, but as a 1/4 blood Cherokee married to a mixed Apache/Comanche, I kinda have a thin skin about this sort of thing. Don't mean to bust yer balls, but it's kinda important to get this right.

First Nations of North America [Quenched]

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: Native America.. UPDATE 04/23

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: Native America.. UPDATE 04/23

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Re: First Nations of North America.. UPDATE 05/15

Who is online