Land and Sea [Quenched]

[InkL0sed]

right now I'm not worrying about graphics at all (though I'd rather get someone experienced (no offense)).

No offense taken.

On to game play. This is what I think:

The continents for land should be the continents. For water, just make it the major oceans. So, the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Indian, and the Arctic. So basically as you have it now, except I'd like to see Europe separated from Asia if possible.

Land-water connections:

North America:
Eastern US - Carribean
Central America - Carribean
Central America - Pacific
Greenland - Arctic
Alaska - Pacific

Probably would make NA worth a +5

South America: I like it as you have it now. Probably worth +2, since you can't expand too easily from it. Same reasoning as in Classic.

Africa:
North Africa - same territory that connects to Brazil in the Atlantic
South Africa - as you have it now
The Horn - Indian Ocean

Bonus: +4

Europe (assuming you add another territory and make it a separate continent):
Western Europe - Atlantic
Scandinavia - Arctic
Bonus: + 2/3, depending on how it works out

Asia:
Eastern Russia/Siberia/Kamchatka - Pacific
India - Indian Ocean (as you have now)

Bonus: +5

Oceania:
Philippines/New Guinea - Northern Pacific

Bonus: +1

Antarctic: exactly as it is now

Oceans:
Arctic: +2 (only 2 borders)
Pacific: +4 (4 borders, 5 territories)
Atlantic: +6 (5 borders, 7 territories, and a central position)
Indian: +3 (could be +2, but I prefer a 3)

[whitestazn88]

i think its a step forward because it doesn't seem like there are so many attack points.

but at the same time, i still think they could be more accurately placed if you're gonna drop down to that few.
for example: the one in alaska is do-able because one can think that the bering strait is pretty shallow, land bridge, etc. same with the one in the new york harbor, and the mexico one is roughly placed where one could picture the rio grande.

but then what of the two africa ones? don't really make sense... move one to western europe instead of north africa in my opinion, and maybe move the one in se africa to the other coast? i think the tanzania or congo rivers flow out to that side.

[Juan_Bottom]

Shouldn't S. America be worth +2? Each of it's territories is an attack point.

I think you should drop Antartica, shrink it down, and try and add some other territories. Who ever would attack Antartica in real world?

[edbeard]

Inklosed. your post is quite long and I'll respond to each piece by either implementing those changes or not in an update. thanks!

btw, europe is crowded as it is. I'm keeping Eurasia because it makes for a nice big bonus area and because I don't think any other map has Eurasia so I might as well be the first.

i think its a step forward because it doesn't seem like there are so many attack points.

but at the same time, i still think they could be more accurately placed if you're gonna drop down to that few.
for example: the one in alaska is do-able because one can think that the bering strait is pretty shallow, land bridge, etc. same with the one in the new york harbor, and the mexico one is roughly placed where one could picture the rio grande.

but then what of the two africa ones? don't really make sense... move one to western europe instead of north africa in my opinion, and maybe move the one in se africa to the other coast? i think the tanzania or congo rivers flow out to that side.

I don't think we can take the "try to be real" perspective. We have to go with what works for gameplay. I do, however, think that the connection to western Europe works well. probably the se atlantic to africa as well. it would make Indian more of a +3 and add to making Atlantic a 'big' bonus area like it is (and like Inklosed pointed out).

I do appreciate your post, but I can't really use the perspective you're coming from.

Shouldn't S. America be worth +2? Each of it's territories is an attack point.

I think you should drop Antartica, shrink it down, and try and add some other territories. Who ever would attack Antartica in real world?

I had meant to make the attack route be to Colombia since it already serves as a border but I guess I put it in the wrong spot. 3 territories. 2 borders. +1. not a killer if someone gets it from the drop but who doesn't like an extra army?

Who would ever attack the South Indian Ocean in the real world? Who would ever attack Greenland in the real world. If you want to convince me (which you're not going to be able to on this by the way) your argument will need solid logic and reasoning. thanks for the post though!

p.s. from a gameplay perspective, it's good to have the land as a 'dead end' on the south whereas we have the arctic ocean as a 'dead end' up north. I'd rather have one area where everything spreads out (in a way) instead of three bonus areas stopping at one point with nothing there. also having it be four territories is good because we already have two continents of three territories

[MrBenn]

right now I'm not worrying about graphics at all.

Has anybody mentioned that these graphics suck? Get a decent draft up if you want to be taken seriously...

On a slightly more serious note, have you put any thought into the 'golden' number of starting territories? I can't remember if 51 is considered golden or not?

[InkL0sed]

I'm a fan of these graphics actually. Obviously needs a little touching up, but if you don't pay attention to the details... it looks nice.

[edbeard]

right now I'm not worrying about graphics at all.

Has anybody mentioned that these graphics suck? Get a decent draft up if you want to be taken seriously...

Oh! I did! I did!

On a slightly more serious note, have you put any thought into the 'golden' number of starting territories? I can't remember if 51 is considered golden or not?

according to Benjikat...
52,53 - the best sizes for slightly larger than standard maps

I have 51 so adding one territory somewhere might be a good idea (pacific ocean?). 52 is better than 51 since 52/4 = 13. whereas everyone would have 12 with 51.


I'll take your post as a 'I'm interested in doing your graphics' post so chop chop.

ok ok. I'll send you the psd to make it easier then chop chop.

[MrBenn]

I'll take your post as a 'I'm interested in doing your graphics' post so chop chop.

ok ok. I'll send you the psd to make it easier then chop chop.

u nit wit

[edbeard]

I'll take your post as a 'I'm interested in doing your graphics' post so chop chop.

ok ok. I'll send you the psd to make it easier then chop chop.

u nit wit

you're heartless




I think the extra territory definitely has to be in the Pacific. I'd rather not add another border as keeping it as a +4 region seems smart to me. I could see it going in the area that borders alaska to baja-california and maybe spreading southwards to about that area where there looks to be a gap in the border. that way the north pacifc still borders the central-east pacific.

or

have it border china.

or

have it border alaska but not go west enough for it to border the bering strait

[MrBenn]

You could add a territory into the Med??

Instead of using arrows, surely ports/docks would make sense? Is there any real-world rationale for picking the places you have?

[edbeard]

You could add a territory into the Med??

Instead of using arrows, surely ports/docks would make sense? Is there any real-world rationale for picking the places you have?

that'd be quite a mess considering how crunched up it is already in the europe area. And, this is the large map.


like I said, I'm just using the arrows for gameplay discussion but a good suggestion to keep in mind for whoever does the graphics.

there really isn't much real-world rationale for them. I'm shamelessly doing them for gameplay purposes because this is for a game. I'm sure I can find rivers and ports in all those areas and rationalize them that way (but that's not what you mean) but, yea, it's about the gameplay right now.

[InkL0sed]

Yeah, that's the way to go, honestly. Game play trumps accuracy anyway.

[The Neon Peon]

Split the map into way more territories, and this will have good gameplay. Just enlarge it, split it, and then some more. And after you think you are done, divide it up into even more territories.

[edbeard]

Split the map into way more territories, and this will have good gameplay. Just enlarge it, split it, and then some more. And after you think you are done, divide it up into even more territories.

seems like a weird request. why would you say something like th...what's that? click here?

oh. ohhh.


yea I don't think so. sorry. this is the territory size I want for this map.

[InkL0sed]

Aww, and I thought there was something going on in this thread...

What's the latest on this map?

[edbeard]

nothing at the moment. when Haiti gets quenched I'll do a gameplay update and see if I can get a few more people in here to seriously figure out if the gameplay is working. one thing I need to do is add another territory. like I said before it'll probably go in the pacific.

I'll probably have to put territory names and circles and see how the small map is going to look.

[edbeard]

I posted this idea in a foundry discussion thread but I'll post it here to see what people think.

At one point while thinking about this map I thought about using the Classic image and adding water territories but I didn't do that for a few reasons. The number of water territories wouldn't be that high. The image would be very crowded. And, most importantly, I wanted this map to have it's own identity. But, considering the old map is gone, maybe it'd be something people would enjoy and I'm open to it. Anyone have a copy of the old image? perhaps PM it to me so I can see how much of a possibility it'd be.

[MrBenn]

I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about this map...

Ed, give us some direction

[Natewolfman]

you should turn the arrows into ports i think... when i see arrows i usually think passage way over mountains or over the river or something... but making them look like ports would seem more natural to this map i think

[edbeard]

Click image to enlarge.

What you need to know:

1. 52 territories (31 land and 21 water)
2. 10 continents

I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about this map...

Ed, give us some direction

me too. more about this below.

you should turn the arrows into ports i think... when i see arrows i usually think passage way over mountains or over the river or something... but making them look like ports would seem more natural to this map i think

maybe. I'll leave this to whoever does the graphics. Again, I'm not gonna do 'em. If I have to get a gameplay stamp first before getting a graphicitician that's fine. I appreciate the comment but how about some gameplay comments!?!



DIRECTION and FOCUS

1. Gameplay, gameplay, gameplay. I realize the image looks very shitty. I'm not working on that. It's more than good enough for us to hammer out the gameplay. Let's get the gameplay done.


2. Lack of discussion is partly due to the lack of gameplay talk. I've added another territory to the pacific continent so we're at a good starting number. If you make a gameplay comment, I'll respond to it and other people will do the same.


3. Specifically...

a. how do you think the bonuses are? What would you change?

b. how do you like where the land-water connections are? which would you change (don't forget to comment on how this should/would change the continent bonuses)?


4. What doesn't really help are comments that are purely about changing the direction to something you'd prefer (EG: "you should put more territories on the map"). I think the basics are good on this map. However, if you disagree, tell me why and give me reasons why your idea would work. Hopefully you'd also give me ideas on ways to improve the way I have the map in the direction I'm taking it.

[edbeard]

who is the guy that frequently does long analysis on gameplay and bonuses on maps? I'd like to PM him to take a look here and see if we can get discussion going.

[ZeakCytho]

I think you're usually the one who does that, Ed I'm not as good as you, but I'll try.

And...I just had a really long post written out, but my browser ate it. Here's the short version:

I'd make Oceania and South America +2 instead of +1, but they could work as +1s
If you keep those two the same, I'd make the Indian Ocean +2 instead of +3. If you change them, keep this the same.
You might want to consider making the Atlantic a +5
Consider adding another territory or two to Eurasia so it is a more justifiable +6
Perhaps make the Pacific +5?

All of your bonuses just seem a bit low, but maybe they work better that way. As I said, I'm not very good at this.

[edbeard]

I think you're usually the one who does that, Ed I'm not as good as you, but I'll try.

And...I just had a really long post written out, but my browser ate it. Here's the short version:

true but there's someone else who does them on occasion but I can't remember his username or any map threads which he/she's done it. too bad about losing the post.

I'd make Oceania and South America +2 instead of +1, but they could work as +1s
If you keep those two the same, I'd make the Indian Ocean +2 instead of +3. If you change them, keep this the same.
You might want to consider making the Atlantic a +5
Consider adding another territory or two to Eurasia so it is a more justifiable +6
Perhaps make the Pacific +5?

All of your bonuses just seem a bit low, but maybe they work better that way. As I said, I'm not very good at this.

The +1's are because I hate people dropping a small +2 continent and dominating because of it. But, we'll see how other people feel.

I don't buy the Indian Ocean remark because it has 3 borders against 5 continents. Plus being 5 territories means it won't be gotten on the drop that often.

Yea Atlantic is definitely at least a +5. I don't like making something a large bonus simply because it borders a ton of continents but it does border 8 continents which means only one continent does NOT border the Atlantic. hmm. perhaps this should change somehow.

I'm a bit surprised by your Eurasia comment. 9 territories is a lot. It does only have 4 borders against 4 continents though. maybe something should change here too. more territories is something I'd like to avoid simply because space is a big issue.

Pacific does border 6 continents. it has 6 territories. 4 of them are borders though. 5 is something to consider though.

thanks!

[edbeard]

it's onbekende who I was thinking of

carry on

[ZeakCytho]

The +1's are because I hate people dropping a small +2 continent and dominating because of it. But, we'll see how other people feel.

It is annoying seeing people drop with +2s (A certain Haiti game comes to mind...), but if no one drops with them, would anyone really put the effort into taking 4 territories with two borders for just a +1? I guess if the other bonuses are relatively low this isn't an issue.

I don't buy the Indian Ocean remark because it has 3 borders against 5 continents. Plus being 5 territories means it won't be gotten on the drop that often.

Okay, keep it the way it is then.

Yea Atlantic is definitely at least a +5. I don't like making something a large bonus simply because it borders a ton of continents but it does border 8 continents which means only one continent does NOT border the Atlantic. hmm. perhaps this should change somehow.

Well, it's going to be hard to really mess with the borders, unless you remove a land-water connection to the Atlantic, which I'd advise against, because then you lose a part of the connection between land and water. If the whole point of this map is the dual existence of land and water, shouldn't you have as many connections as possible? I suppose if it makes for better gameplay you could drop one of the connections. I can't see a way to redraw the territories to reduce the number of borders. Thus I think just giving it a +5 is the easiest solution.

I'm a bit surprised by your Eurasia comment. 9 territories is a lot. It does only have 4 borders against 4 continents though. maybe something should change here too. more territories is something I'd like to avoid simply because space is a big issue.

+6 is a lot of men for just holding 4 borders. I think 9 territories is a bit too easy to get the +6 with. Consider Classic in Europe, which is only 7 territories with 4 borders but has a +5. At the same time, though, +5 is too low for Eurasia. So I think increasing the number of territories to 10 would make this a clearer +6.

Pacific does border 6 continents. it has 6 territories. 4 of them are borders though. 5 is something to consider though.

When I counted the Pacific, I thought it was 9 territories . I assumed that each side of the map had separate territories; not that the territories wrapped around. I assume this will be much clearer in the good graphics version, but the +4 makes much more sense to me now.

thanks!

No prob