GameBear's Maps

[Typhon2222]

GameBear, I'd love to hear your musings on the design philosophy guiding your use of battlements.

[GameBear]

Originally Posted by Typhon2222

GameBear, I'd love to hear your musings on the design philosophy guiding your use of battlements.

My use of battlements is almost entirely about: 1- access to height; 2- pathing; 3- visuals.

Access to Height
This is easily my #1 motivation for using battlements, particularly near start zones. Battlements allow me to increase the cost of taking high ground. On Viridis, the grass battlements prevent 6-walkers from reaching that perch in a single turn. The swamp battlements ensure that only one 6-walker from the left half of the start zone can even get to level 2.



The layout on Bad Moon Rising is more complicated, but similarly motivated, preventing 6-walkers from climbing onto the 7-hex rock. The arrangement also slows forward advancement on the road out of the gate, without restricting movement too much - any figure walking onto the road from the start zone must take at least one step sideways.

(Fun fact: I posted Bad Moon Rising exactly 11 years ago today.)



Pathing
Battlements help create paths (to the left or the right), which mean choices, which make maps more interesting (as long as the choices matter). @Mad_wookie covered pathing in detail here, and @dok also touched on the topic in one of his blog posts.

While access to height motivates the use of battlements, pathing considerations tend to determine the actual layout. On Bad Moon Rising, the outcrop and the battlements on the 7-hex rock create the desired pathing. With the road battlements not needed for that purpose, they are intentionally arranged with gaps to allow more freedom of movement laterally.

The battlements on Viridis attempt to funnel units to the sides of the map, and intentionally leave the right more open than the left. I typically limit battlements to just the ones I need, because they hamper movement - and placement of larger figures - so much. I was very tempted to wall off the whole left side of the level 2 swamp to make the path choices significantly more impactful, but I decided that would be too punitive for a tournament setting.

Visuals
This is pretty subjective, and I don’t have any magic formula. I try to connect battlement placement to other map features, such as elevation changes or terrain types, to give them a more cohesive appearance. The battlements on the right side of Bad Moon Rising aren’t that impactful, but bring some balance to the layout, and help complete the visual of a broken line of battlements running across the map, demarking the elevation change in front of the start zone. Not everyone is a fan of the end result, though. I spend a fair amount of time trying to polish my maps, with varying degrees of success. For better or worse, I just go with what I think looks best.

[Ulysses]

First of all; I am so glad you're bringing your voice and creations back for me to enjoy. As a map fiend and fellow tinkerer, I've gotten a lot of joy out of your output through the 5 or so years I've been playing.

Originally Posted by GameBear

This is the map that got me started. With uncapped columns now widely accepted, I wanted to revisit some of the concepts I had tried in Marpesia’s Glory. Once I realized standard terrain constraints were going to get in the way, I decided it was time to make a map set.

In line with your remix of Fulcrum (which is currently on my table awaiting some action) I remixed Marpesia's Glory a while back and am glad to see your fresh take on it, because it's such a lovely looking map. Sir Heroscape even has a video of him trying a game on it:

Here

I'm also very excited to take a stab at your terrain pack idea. I love playing with different restraints when it comes to various creative projects and I agree that it's time to open up the map meta and let it breath a bit.

Looking forward to future cartographical discussions!

[Typhon2222]

Originally Posted by GameBear

My use of battlements is almost entirely about: 1- access to height; 2- pathing; 3- visuals.

Access to Height
This is easily my #1 motivation for using battlements, particularly near start zones. Battlements allow me to increase the cost of taking high ground. On Viridis, the grass battlements prevent 6-walkers from reaching that perch in a single turn. The swamp battlements ensure that only one 6-walker from the left half of the start zone can even get to level 2.



The layout on Bad Moon Rising is more complicated, but similarly motivated, preventing 6-walkers from climbing onto the 7-hex rock. The arrangement also slows forward advancement on the road out of the gate, without restricting movement too much - any figure walking onto the road from the start zone must take at least one step sideways.

(Fun fact: I posted Bad Moon Rising exactly 11 years ago today.)



Pathing
Battlements help create paths (to the left or the right), which mean choices, which make maps more interesting (as long as the choices matter). @Mad_wookie covered pathing in detail here, and @dok also touched on the topic in one of his blog posts.

While access to height motivates the use of battlements, pathing considerations tend to determine the actual layout. On Bad Moon Rising, the outcrop and the battlements on the 7-hex rock create the desired pathing. With the road battlements not needed for that purpose, they are intentionally arranged with gaps to allow more freedom of movement laterally.

The battlements on Viridis attempt to funnel units to the sides of the map, and intentionally leave the right more open than the left. I typically limit battlements to just the ones I need, because they hamper movement - and placement of larger figures - so much. I was very tempted to wall off the whole left side of the level 2 swamp to make the path choices significantly more impactful, but I decided that would be too punitive for a tournament setting.

Visuals
This is pretty subjective, and I don’t have any magic formula. I try to connect battlement placement to other map features, such as elevation changes or terrain types, to give them a more cohesive appearance. The battlements on the right side of Bad Moon Rising aren’t that impactful, but bring some balance to the layout, and help complete the visual of a broken line of battlements running across the map, demarking the elevation change in front of the start zone. Not everyone is a fan of the end result, though. I spend a fair amount of time trying to polish my maps, with varying degrees of success. For better or worse, I just go with what I think looks best.

This is by far the best thing I've ever read on battlements. The concrete examples (and illustrative images) bring it home. Thanks for taking the time to formulate and type all that out, @GameBear .

And HAPPY 11 BIRTHDAY to Bad Moon Rising!

[Typhon2222]

Originally Posted by GameBear

New 3-Map Set: Exposure. 1 SM + 1 DD + 2 MH + 1 FA + 1 FF + 1 TT

I am very excited to share this set! The fun of mapmaking for me has always been in trying new ideas - structural, strategic, or visual. The map set approach allows mapmakers to pursue ideas that aren’t practical in individual maps (each of these maps requires pieces from at least 5 different terrain sets). It opens up so many new possibilities! Of course, no guarantees that the end product is any good (and critiques are always welcome), but I enjoyed putting these together.

@GameBear , these are just a stunning trio.

It's always more difficult to evaluate asymmetrical maps, so I don’t quite know what I think of Barrentop yet. (In terms of gameplay, that is. In terms of aesthetics, it’s gorgeous, just a knock-out, as are the others — I do really love the look of Marvel.)

Judgment strikes me as a tour de force of theme, taking an abstract idea and making it ‘concrete’ <har har har>. Beautiful execution.

And I think Viridis is masterful in its deceptive simplicity.

[GameBear]

New map: Judgment Free. 1 MH + 1 FA + 1 FF + 1 TT
Glyphs: Wannok, Gerda, Erland

@infectedsloth called my terrain efficiency into question, so I felt compelled to create a standalone version of Judgment using fewer sets. This map matches the original apart from terrain substitutions. Judgment Free should be more accessible, as it only needs one Marvel set and is not part of a map set. And maybe more attractive to players who don't want their maps to be monochromatic?

[Typhon2222]

Originally Posted by GameBear

New map: Judgment Free. 1 MH + 1 FA + 1 FF + 1 TT
Glyphs: Wannok, Gerda, Erland

@infectedsloth called my terrain efficiency into question, so I felt compelled to create a standalone version of Judgment using fewer sets. This map matches the original apart from terrain substitutions. Judgment Free should be more accessible, as it only needs one Marvel set and is not part of a map set. And maybe more attractive to players who don't want their maps to be monochromatic?

It's still a looker.

[GameBear]

New map: Shamrock. (Exposure map #3b)
Glyphs: 2 random

In honor of Twosday, I have added a second option for map #3. Shamrock is a kinder, gentler version of Viridis, for those that find the original too restrictive. Viridis has also received a small update.

Shamrock


Viridis

[GameBear]

New Map: Underwood / Sunnywood. 1 DD + 1 MH + 1 FF / 1 MS + 1 DD + 1 FF
Glyphs: Astrid, Lurk in Shadows x2, Belt of Giant Strength

Lurk in Shadows (from Pelloth): If a figure in your army is on a shadow space, opponents’ figures must be adjacent to attack that figure with a normal attack.

I was surprised to find that I had only combined BftU and Marvel once before (Jack of Spades). This map is all about the new glyph, which hopefully reduces the need for LOS-blockers, allowing for a more open layout. (Also: mirror symmetry.)



I realized once I finished designing Underwood that I could probably build it using RotV instead of Marvel, resulting in Sunnywood.



Should a map’s grade take terrain requirements into account? The answer gets messier when a map can be built more than one way. Here are some questions I considered when deciding what to do with my new map.

Did I want to add anything to Sunnywood, using the abundant leftover terrain? No. If the answer to this question had been yes, I might have scrapped this design and just started over. Nothing jumped out at me, though.

Would I add anything if I had no restrictions? Yes. I would happily add a few more shadow tiles. And I would probably reconfigure the road, too. But minimizing terrain sets has always been about making maps as accessible as possible. Adding a second BftU or forest set would rule out the map for some players.

Would I have designed this map if I had started with RotV instead of Marvel? No. Never. Sunnywood is a horribly inefficient use of terrain. It isn’t even a decent candidate for a map set, because it uses most of the good bits.

Should I post both versions? Yes. Again, this is about accessibility. Some players own Marvel, but not RotV. Other players own RotV, but not Marvel. And some players who own both will like the look of one version more than the other. Options are good.

[quozl]

I love the new map and the new glyph!

[Tornado]

Very cool. Dig that glyph!

[GameBear]

I have created Online Heroscape versions of all my recent maps and a handful of my older maps (with a lot of help from superfrog). The first post of this thread contains direct links to the documents. Any issues, please let me know.