I say that designers can vote. Many of those who made boards know what it takes, and know what makes a good board. Just don't let them vote for their own. as long as they're not in communication with each other, this should give the best map more votes 

Also, i don't see anything in Sleestaktica that denotes it as a Pangaea themed map... I played a game on it and had no clue it was intended to be in the competition... (that being said, it's fun!)

"Friends and fellow Sleestak,
The vast and mighty empire our ancestors knew is now falling away to the whims of great mother Earth. She has called upon the gods of Ocean and Earthquake to split our lands apart, casting our tribes adrift like so many scales tossed upon a boiling sea."

The emphasis is on the start of the split of Pangaea (which Pirates of Pangaea also seems to have some emphasis on) as opposed to Pangaea itself. 

If Sleestaktica is one of Yuma's "maps on file", and he just popped it in the designer and entered it, more power to him. It would simply be testament to the range of his map-making prolificacy.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a wonderfully valid entry.  It wouldn't have raised an eyebrow if he had named it "Pangia: An Alien Experiment Gone Horribly Wrong"

Thanks for showing interest in the Sleestaktica board. I thought it would be useful for everyone to know that it's an original board that was conceptualized and built specifically for the Pangaea competition. For me, the most interesting thing about Pangaea isn't that it was an ancient supercontinent, but that it was an ancient supercontinent that eventually split up. The sleestaks thing is just a layer of story added to give meaning to gameplay -- much like Raptor's ingenious revisionist history and description of his Pirates of Pangaea concept.

If it still seems too random, just think of what Sid and Marty Krofft would have done with the idea. Enjoy.

I just joined/started a game on each board, thinking we would get to vote...I hadn't thought about voting mine in as 1st, but I hadn't thought about not voting for it either.  I was thinking I would come up with some sort of system for evaluating all the boards (ie gameplay, graphics, theme, originality, etc.) in order to come up with with 1/2/3, that way I could have some sort of (semi-) justifiable reason if I ended up voting for mine.  But I'm good with whatever the group comes up with.

No offense Yuma - I think it's an amazing looking board, and cool concept.  I think part of the reason I didn't see much connection with Pangaea is because I was not familiar Sleestaks/Land of the Lost.

Johnny Yuma wrote:

-- much like Raptor's ingenious revisionist history and description of his Pirates of Pangaea concept.

Thanks, you should have seen my first concept.  I was going to justify why it wasn't played on the land because "that's where the aliens lived", complete with a little stonhenge and pyramids.  Oh and there was something in there about ancient major generals. :)

By the way I totally got your concept.

Yertle wrote:

I just joined/started a game on each board, thinking we would get to vote...I hadn't thought about voting mine in as 1st, but I hadn't thought about not voting for it either.  I was thinking I would come up with some sort of system for evaluating all the boards (ie gameplay, graphics, theme, originality, etc.) in order to come up with with 1/2/3, that way I could have some sort of (semi-) justifiable reason if I ended up voting for mine.  But I'm good with whatever the group comes up with.

+1 my thoughts as well.

Kjeld wrote:

I agree that the mapmakers shouldn't get a vote -- keeps everything clean and fair. Other than that, I see no reason why they can't play in some of the games.

Well I would assume (and hope) that each boardmaker would vote for their own... it sorta cancels it all out, so why not? maybe one of them would admit that someone else's is better. at worst, no harm done, but giving them the freedom to choose would be deliciously democratic!

I just hoped any Simulgear boards wont be punished by players who won't bother to learn the concept...  I remember reading some bad reviews on BAO boards many times, just cuz people were clueless and that was somehow the board's fault...

It's hard to review SG boards when they don't make a lot of sense.  I never know who goes first, the mechanics of fortifying and attacking don't make "real"-life sense to me, and ultimately the game goes slower because movement is limited.   Oh yeah, and I'm though I think I understand how attack dice work, I don't understand why it is advantageous to attack when the standard attack vs. looks disadvantageous.

Is there a SG submission? I didn't think it made the cut.

Cumberdale pulled his SG map.  I am not a big SG fan but I actually liked his a lot.  It was going to have some balance issues and a potential stalemate situation.  But it was easy to play and would have been fun to master.

M57 wrote:

It's hard to review SG boards when they don't make a lot of sense.  I never know who goes first, the mechanics of fortifying and attacking don't make "real"-life sense to me, and ultimately the game goes slower because movement is limited.   Oh yeah, and I'm though I think I understand how attack dice work, I don't understand why it is advantageous to attack when the standard attack vs. looks disadvantageous.

Where is the post (I think Alpha made it) that explains some of these things?

I replied to you under "Simulgear questions" (to avoid posting here!), but you may be referring to a different post altogether.

Hopefully you are referring to Hugh's post as I don't remember discussing SimulGear recently.

Yeah -- it's Hugh's post -- I get you guys mixed up.  Funny, ..you don't look the same.

Hugh is the more articulate one, I'm the one who needs an editor.

Yertle wrote:

I just joined/started a game on each board, thinking we would get to vote...I hadn't thought about voting mine in as 1st, but I hadn't thought about not voting for it either.  I was thinking I would come up with some sort of system for evaluating all the boards (ie gameplay, graphics, theme, originality, etc.) in order to come up with with 1/2/3, that way I could have some sort of (semi-) justifiable reason if I ended up voting for mine.  But I'm good with whatever the group comes up with.

I'm going to lean quite heavily on gameplay alone, as that is how I judge almost all boards. There is quite a lot to the aesthetics to the boards created, and I hope others vote with more of a weight on graphics, but I'm just not a good judge of such things. 

I'm not sure we've reached consensus on mapmakers voting. I trust this group enough - I know it can be gamed depending on when the votes are cast, but we should at least allow votes of 1/2/3 of the maps the mapmaker didn't create. (And it's a $100, not a $1000 or $10000 prize fund!) They created the maps, they should be able to partake in the fun that is the voting.