Eastern Hemisphere [Quenched]

[yeti_c]

Good spot on the mountains...perhaps simply a little more coastline, with an alteration of the route around the mountains (either above or below), would help clear that up...as it does look odd.

geez, you people... you tell me to put the mountains in eastern australia, then you tell me that they look impassable. If it weren't for this silly "community" I would make perfect maps the first time.

But yes, I'll nudge both the mountains and the attack route from NZ. And I agree with the above sentiments on the border to the Horn of Africa - compared to everything else on the map it is overdrawn and a bit exaggerated.

Put the attack route from Sydney to Wellington.

C.

[MrBenn]

... and where's that gameplay stamper??

Here I am!

I'll sit down with a mug of cocoa and have a good look/think about this tonight.

Here is a list of the things I'll be looking at:

• Is Europe too powerful?
• Trading Co's
• Legends/Clarity
• Colours
• Ocean attack routes
• Balance of Play (taking note of New Africa)

[oaktown]

Click image to enlarge.

The only color change I made was swapping Horn and S. Africa - moving the green next to the brown would cause my eyes trouble, and what I really wanted to do was get the gray away from the middle east. I've also lightened up the gray, so I don't think it looks like the browns - but my eyes have their own, special way of seeing color, so you guys tell me.

The scratches next to Iceland were islands - shetlands, etc. I've moved them south, away from the attack route - if they just look like junk they are easy to delete.

The smaller land masses of S Africa, Europe, and Oceania have their own layers and a thinner glow.

Australia/NZ attack route now goes in/out of Brisbane rather than Sydney... I'm told the people of Sydney have gotten soft anyway.

Here is a list of the things I'll be looking at:

• Is Europe too powerful?
• Trading Co's
• Legends/Clarity
• Colours
• Ocean attack routes
• Balance of Play (taking note of New Africa)

Alright Benn, looking forward to your thoughts. The point on this list that may most need addressing is Europe - given that it has quasi-powers across the globe, how do I structure its bonus? And with six attack points it will be a tough region to defend, but I think appropriately so given the context of this map - this is the eve of WWI, so there should be war back and forth between the European states.

[yeti_c]

Good swap Oak - North Africa no longer looks like it's on a precipice above the horn!!

C.

[whitestazn88]

i could do without the island above the europe title in the map area, the one under looks ok though because its close enough to the whole gb/uk area

[oaktown]

i could do without the island above the europe title in the map area, the one under looks ok though because its close enough to the whole gb/uk area

Done!

And if anybody's curious, this is what it's looking right now as a small map. These army circles are 22 pixels wide (big image circles I cranked up to 24: x.75, added 2 pixel stroke to each. There are clearly a few places that need some adjusting to keep the circles where they belong, but I'd be happy to hear overall impressions - font too small, borders that you can't see in small, etc.

[pamoa]

2 points could create problems with 3 digits armies: netherlands/germany and rhodesia/portugese east africa, but it looks good in general

[asl80]

looking good oaktown ... just a couple of quick ones;

- For the small map, is korea included in the japanese empire now?, and the letters in persia look like presia ???

- Have the nuetrals/any starting positions? been discussed, thinking especially of the imperial powers, and access to them etc., and of how much advantage it is thought they would bring to their bearer in the game? (i think the attack/bombard situatino here is good ... it's just a shame that all the imperial powers are european and thus all lumped together, (don't you remember that the russians had their colony of australia, the japanese were stepping all over the swedish, and the tibetans, the worst of all, practically anaexed the middle east?)

... in any case, i think there could be grounds for arguing that each of the african continent bonuses, looking at them seperately by borders and bombardable territories, could be raised by +1, that europe, on account of its imperial advantage could come down by +1 or 2, and that the middle east, with only three defendable territories that all link to eachother should almost certainly come down to +2, and possibly even to +1. ??? the rest seem well balanced to me.

interested to hear your thoughts, good luck.


+ 1 more ... the Great Dividing Range in australia actually does a slight dog leg and heads further north up the coast (similar distance from the ocean as you've got there already) i think ... looks a bit weird at the moment.

[oaktown]

2 points could create problems with 3 digits armies: netherlands/germany and rhodesia/portugese east africa, but it looks good in general

Thanks pamoa... fixed and fixed.

- For the small map, is korea included in the japanese empire now?, and the letters in persia look like presia ???

fixed.

- Have the nuetrals/any starting positions? been discussed...

Yes, but they can be discussed further... only starting neutrals are the trading Co's, and I was thinking to just start them as the normal 3. Any less and they are just easy early cards for the european powers, and more and they don't get hit for a while. DIffering opinion on this?

... in any case, i think there could be grounds for arguing that each of the african continent bonuses, looking at them seperately by borders and bombardable territories, could be raised by +1, that europe, on account of its imperial advantage could come down by +1 or 2, and that the middle east, with only three defendable territories that all link to eachother should almost certainly come down to +2, and possibly even to +1. ??? the rest seem well balanced to me.

I ran the updated configuration through a spreadsheet and here's what I get for bonuses:
+7.95 Europe
+8.10 Russia
+4.35 N Africa
+6.45 S Africa
+2.75 middle east
+3.45 SE Asia
+3.95 Oceania
+4.70 Chinese
+2.55 Japan
+1.70 horn

So yeah, North Africa could certainly go up to +4, and Southern Africa could go up as high as +6, though this seems really high to me. If you don't take into consideration the bombardments - which many games may not see early - then S. Africa rates in the high 4s. What if we started the TCs with a neutral value of 4? That gives a player with an African start a little breathing room early, and helps justify bonuses that may be a bit less than the calculator comes up with. They'd still have to deal with the european powers a bit later in the game as people turn in cards/collect bigger bonuses and drive through the TCs.

making the TCs harder to hit would also make me feel better about the +8 for europe - it's 12 territories with 7 borders after all, which is going to be a bitch to conquer and hold, even on a large map.

Middle East I think rates a +3 because it is in right in the way of everybody - whoever holds africa will hit it, and Europe can hit it, Russia can hit it in two places, and SE Asia can hit it. Trouble is Japan is the exact same size, but since it is out of the way seems to be worth less.

interested to hear your thoughts, good luck.

I have many thoughts... which would you like to hear? My thoughts on oil prices and coastal drilling? Obama v. McCain? Universal health care? Fog of War v. Sunny Side Up?

[ZeakCytho]

interested to hear your thoughts, good luck.

I have many thoughts... which would you like to hear? My thoughts on oil prices and coastal drilling? Obama v. McCain? Universal health care? Fog of War v. Sunny Side Up?

Oil prices and coastal drilling, please!



I think 4 neutrals is good for the trading companies. Certainly no more, or there's no incentive to go for them. I could see an argument for 3, and I was thinking that would be best for a while, until you mentioned giving Africa breathing room, which sounds great.

[oaktown]

Click image to enlarge.

Neutral 4, higher values for N. Africa and S. Africa, text .5 pts larger, some circles moved to avoid bumping/covering up borders.

"If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither."

[cairnswk]

oaktown, i know it's only a representation, but that mountain range in Australia should run the entire length of the east coast

[oaktown]

oaktown, i know it's only a representation, but that mountain range in Australia should run the entire length of the east coast

right, but then I get more complaints about how technically New Zealand can't attack Australia through the impassable mountains. I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Some of the other mountains aren't in the perfect places or at the perfect angles either, but I think they iare close enough to reality that they accurately represent where impassables and attack routes should be - Alps, Himalayas, upper Mongolian ranges, etc.

[cairnswk]

oaktown, i know it's only a representation, but that mountain range in Australia should run the entire length of the east coast

right, but then I get more complaints about how technically New Zealand can't attack Australia through the impassable mountains. I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Some of the other mountains aren't in the perfect places or at the perfect angles either, but I think they iare close enough to reality that they accurately represent where impassables and attack routes should be - Alps, Himalayas, upper Mongolian ranges, etc.

oh i didn't think they would present that sort of problem since they don't occupy a country's border like the other mountains. and you have that line connecting the australia mainland and NZ anyways....
I just don't want youngsters to get the wrong impression in thinking that the Great dividing Range in Australia only runs that far down the continent, when it runs the entire eastern seaboard, this is the first time we've seen mountain range featured on any map.
but OK i understand. i won't bother you anymore.
Map looks good.

[MrBenn]

I've had a good long look at the map, and have the following thoughts:

Europe & Trading Co's
I think that the 4 neutrals start is a good move for the Trading Co's.
Europe has a lot of terrs, and lots of borders; there is no bonus for holding 'European Power+Trading Co', so there is no real incentive to go for them early on in the game. However, I have a suspicion that people will still try and go for them for the ranged attack possibilities.
All the powers are based in the same continent, and I can't really see people using the Trading Cos to attack until continent bonuses are secured, but that could just be me(?)

Factoring this into the equation, I'm not concerned about a perceived overpowering of Europe; although this balance will be distorted in few-player games (but that's what you get on large maps!)

Colours/Legends/Clarity
The colours look reasonable to me. I'm not totally convinced by the neighbouring greys in Africa, and the Pink/Lilac of SE Asia/Middle East... You could possibly switch a grey with the lilac - that might fix both issues?
I'd personally like to see a tiny flash of region colour on the legend. I know you experimented with a coloured shadow before (which didn't work)... is there anything else we could suggest/attempt? Either that, or switching the order of regions in the legend so that your eye can easily match up an area on the map to it's legend entry...
I've only looked briefly at the small map - from memory the font was a little small, but I don't recall much else...
Other than that, I still think the mountains look a little dubious

Balance of Play
Europe and the Trading Co's will obviously be a focus for this map. I mentioned earlier that I think this is partially misguided, as you still require strength to attack, and that Europe is not a good place to start if you're looking for a quick bonus!
Africa looks like a reasonable place to be, now that you've added in The Horn - that was a smart move I think that S Africa is a borderline 5/6, but +5 is fine
Russia looks like a fairly unattractive prospect... it's been referred here as Russian Wasteland, and I expect that's what it will become... it's a bit like Classic Asia on growth hormones! Is there any way you could split it into 2: Western Russia (Finland, St Petersburg, Poland, Ukraine, Perm, Stavropol) and Eastern Russia (Turkestan, Siberia, Taymyr, Sakha, Amur, Kolyma)? It might not be empirically accurate, but would help gameplay a little
Middle East and Japan both look like good places to start. Middle East is stuck in the middle of the map, so is likely to be attacked from everywhere, but can expand easily into the SE Asia bottleneck; which I think works well here.
Japan on the other hand, does not offer any easy expansion opportunities. The bonus is currently a 2; you need to defend 3 borders, and you can't expand easily to reduce your borders at all... on the plus side, there is no need to worry about the Trading Co's later... I'm still undecided about whether Japan should be +2/+3... It's your call

Back to the Trading Cos
I still wonder if the trading co's should only bombard, but could be one-way attacked by any territory with a matching flag??
I mentioned earlier the lack of 'european power+trading co' bonus... Ideally it could be a conditional autodeploy, but as that XML functionality isn't available, could you make them a couple of extra +1's
These are only semi-serious ideas, and I will not be worried about them being ignored!

AOB
I dislike the way that Burma overlaps the middle of the SE Asia label
Is it possible to move the label for The Horn around with Somaliland so that there is no overlapping there too?
The map title appears to be 'sunken' embossed, and your sig looks raised. I know it's petty, but I'd like to see your sig embossed/sunken too
Andy mentioned a while ago that the German ship looks slightly ghosted/faded when compared to the others, and it still looks a bit jaded...
The Siam peninsular looks a tiny bit close to the Sumatra flag. Can you distort the shape to give a bit more 'gap', or move Sumatra a bit West and a bit (less) South?
Was Finland ruled/occupied by Russia in 1910? I've no idea - it looks a little out of place, and I just wondered
The sea off the Japanese coast looks a bit empty... maybe add some whales or something? (possibly a pink hippo?)
There is a tiny bit of red bleeding into the mountains between Russia and China that looks a bit inconsistent.
Oh, did I mention that I still think the mountains look a little dubious

That's about it for now - sorry it's all a bit of a 'splurge'!
I really like the way this map is heading. Keep up the very good work

[ZeakCytho]

"Dubious" is a good word for the mountains. I agree that they look off.

[whitestazn88]

is there no army circle on morocco?

i don't see it

[ZeakCytho]

is there no army circle on morocco?

i don't see it

It's in the top right of the country.

[whitestazn88]

i see it on the large... its a lot more difficult to see in the small

not that it makes a big difference to me, but i dunno... it just seems like its gone in the small version

[oaktown]

is there no army circle on morocco?

i don't see it

It's still there on the small map - I used a shade of brown for the circles, and that particular circle happens to blend right into the brown inner glow of the region's border.

Army circles serve two purposes: they create a solid background for the army counts, and they provide contrast against the black outline of the counts. In the case of this map the background is already very light, so really the circles are just there to create a more solid background in places like Korea, where the count could be difficult to read over the border lines. If a circle blends into the background and is hard to see in a place such as Morocco where the army count sits on a color change, it's doing its job.

[whitestazn88]

ok, i mean, i knew you didn't have to have army circles, it was just that i saw all the other ones, and didn't know if you forgot to add that one or something

[jako]

i really liked the beginnings of this map but i just find that the trading co.'s just over complicate things on an otherwise beautiful battlefield to play on.

just stating my own opinions on this but i liked it before all the flags and ships were added. it looked more appealing to me while now its highly crowded and just distracting.

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Leonardo da Vinci

just my 2 cents.

[oaktown]

just stating my own opinions on this but i liked it before all the flags and ships were added.

Ah, come on - most of the maps I do are classic gameplay, can't I have just a little fun?

I only like adding gameplay twists to my maps if the twists somehow reflect real/historical conditions, which I think in this case they do. Anyway, unless somebody presents an argument as to how the trading co's negatively impact the gameplay I'm inclined to keep them.

[AndyDufresne]

I cannot argue against the use of the Trading Companies (and I am heavily standard/classic game play enthusiast).


--Andy

[edbeard]

Anyway, unless somebody presents an argument as to how the trading co's negatively impact the gameplay I'm inclined to keep them.

well south africa is a horrible place to try and hold. you can be attacked in 7 places. africa in general is terribly difficult. if you start out in chinese empire an expand by getting the japanese empire, you're doing quite well. I compare these two areas because they're relatively the same size. if you think about oceania, it's almost the same size but only has 3 borders and gets 1 less bonus army.

my 'problem' with the trading companies is that they make the gameplay that much more difficult to balance in terms of defending routes and bonuses.

if this was a 'classic style' map then it'd be quite easy to do the bonuses and it seems like it could be a very cool map. I wish there was some way to compare it to this version with the trading companies because this one might be quite good as well.



my argument against the trading companies is that the map could be very good without them. I don't realy have a good argument that they make for 'bad' gameplay. just more difficult to balance and a more complicated play.