Jul 8, 2010

Draft of Combined Board

Based on the responses to the choice between two proposed layouts, I decided to go with a single board for Municipality. I think I've finalized the layout and am curious as to what everyone thinks. For comparison, here is the version 6.2 board:



Now here is the version 6.3 board:



The only thing missing are the bridges, which will be in the same general location.

What does everyone think?
Labels: , ,

3 comments:

  1. My only comment is that it seems like a bad idea to put game-functional elements (bridges, that park in the upper right) under other functional elements like tracks, particularly if, as I assume, player tokens will be placed on those. I played a game of RoboRally a few weeks back where a player's placement of his pawn inadvertently covered a wall at the edge of the space he was on, and once revealed this blew my carefully conceived plan to smithereens! This was just an accident of piece placement in that case; in your game, having to remind players "yes, that is a park under the score track", or "yes, those spaces are connected by that bridge under the white piece on that track there" will be much more frustrating for players -- especially if you send it out for a blind playtest -- than if just avoid the problem altogether by moving those tracks to a different part of the board.
    ReplyDelete
  2. (Oops, I mean "park in the upper left")
    ReplyDelete
  3. That is a good point. I haven't seen this be a problem in previous versions (the approval track has always overlaid one of the bridges), but I should be careful about the potential for confusion.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)