Howdy Gents,

A new Civilizaton variant was recently published in Fire and Movement #135 (F&M 135). This one provides a new map and rules for all of Africa. Check it out, it's something new to play with!

Also, I'd like very much to have someone write some articles covering the expansion to Adv. Civ. that is provided here on this website.

Take Care,
Tom Cundiff
tdcgsl@yahoo.com

Since I don't have a subscription, I just looked at the map. There are several problems with the borders as drawn. Especially involving the interface between water and land. Now, perhaps the rules deal with that , but as drawn, the board would be unusable.

Err, forgot to write some more

On the other hand, it is wonderful seeing people take the game to new parts of the world. Keep up the good work

I just reviewed the map. Whatever you see as being "unusable in the interface between land and water" is completely invisible to me. It works just fine. I've used it and it works just fine. Yes, there are some new rules for Sea Movement for this variant, because afterall, the African civilizations did not build ocean going vessels in the way the Greeks or Phoenicians did, or in fact the way that any other civilization did. African boats were strictly small craft used by no more than about a dozen oarsmen for purposes of coastal fishing. Ocean going trade between Africa and south east asia/arabian peninsula did exist, but it was solely the perview of Arabian and Asian civilizations who came to the shores in their own boats to trade in Africa.

So, you will find rules that restrict African use of boats. But, to flippantly say that the board is absolutely unuseable is as wrong as one can possibly be.

I appear to have hurt your feelings and was ruder than I intended. I am sorry. I was doing my best not to be flippant, but appear to have failed.

I did include a caveat in my message that the rules probably dealt with the problems. I never said absolutely, or anything else as rude. You probably scanned to the last sentence, got offended (as I would have done seeing the word unusable), and missed the rest.

As an example of my concern with the map (which is nice), lets look at Africa Map 1.jpg (although any map with coast will do). To narrow what we look at, there are the two provinces in the Portugal/Guijon area of the Iberian penninsula. The water connects the two in a way that differs from AdvCiv tradition. Now, your hint of the rules changes gives me a good idea of what you are shooting for.

On Map 7, you have a four corners situation that leaves adjacency unclear. On Map 9, Lake Victoria leaves adjacency unclear (although this is probably handled in your rules). On Map 11, the borders don't quite touch and it is unclear if this is intended or not. Since I'm having to take a wild guess at the new rules, the water boundries around the east side of Madagascar make little sense (the water doesn't connect two areas (unlike the other spots). I haven't a clue what is happening on Map 2 (besides looking vaguely like the AdvCiv boundries). Water boundries in the Caspian sea seem to serve little purpose (the style of the boundries is completely different from the rest of the map too (straight lines, no rounded endcaps)).

I'm sure everything is dealt with in the extra rules, and I will say it again, since you seem to have missed it in my first message. I'm sure the rules deal with what I am seeing.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time/money/friends to see a copy of your magazine, so I can do little other than look at pretty maps and sigh wistfully at what could be

Again, keep up the excellent work. I look forward to hearing feedback from someone better informed than myself.

Thanks,
Jeff

In short, having caveated in small print your knowledge failure on the subject, you proceed to bloviate upon what you know nothing of with pretended authority and intellect.

No doubt standard practice for Cronkite, Brokaw, and Rather, but very poor practice.

You're correct in only one thing ... that such behavior does offend me.

I'm sorry I tried to provide feedback

Wow, mcbeth tries to apologize and mention some of the places where he had a concern and rather than say something simple like "Yes, it might look like a problem but it's covered in the rules published", you take it as a personal attack and explain nothing.

This doesn't say much for you or the magazine you are representing.

I really take issue with the comments of TDCGSL. He accuses McBeth of being unworthy of providing feedback and not knowing enough to appropriately comment on the game map.

The people on this web site, and McBeth in particular, are in fact supremely knowladgable about ACiv, it's maps, design, and potential variants. To be so easily offended when confronted with valid specific criticizm says more about TDCGSL than his crude map.

I've probably offended him, and I don't care.

-JL

Probably, the unique intempt of TDCGSL between us is to sell his product.
He doesn't care about advices or whatever.

It is an idea I have since his first post here.
I am still on this idea.

Raffaele
Goblin's lair