England Map [Quenched]

[sailorseal]

I understand that please read my entire post

Ah, yes, I'm wrong you're right. He'd totally make the small map 150px over the limit.

.44

Actually I never said he made this the big map, please think before you post and read what you are commenting on

[Serbia]

I understand that please read my entire post

Ah, yes, I'm wrong you're right. He'd totally make the small map 150px over the limit.

.44

Actually I never said he made this the big map, please think before you post and read what you are commenting on

Please don't post full stop. (the smiley makes it an anti-flame post)

[the.killing.44]

Actually I never said he made this the big map, please think before you post and read what you are commenting on

How this oozes with hypocrisy.
————
Your Comment:

I would hope you will make this the big map

My Comment:

He'd totally make the small map 150px over the limit.

Your comment implies that you think this could be the small map, to which I replied, sarcastically, that there was definitely the possibility of this being the small.

.44

[Rustovitch]

Surely middlesex should be renamed london/greater london?

And the region of East Anglia should be renamed, as that refers to a specific far smaller locale. Perhaps just call it east.

[MrBenn]

Surely middlesex should be renamed london/greater london?

And the region of East Anglia should be renamed, as that refers to a specific far smaller locale. Perhaps just call it east.

Thanks for the feedback Rustovitch

A google search for maps of East Anglia shows a variety of different county groupings for the region... Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire are the only counties that appear to be most often missing, although there are several maps there that include the whole of the East of England (not just Norfolk and Suffolk) in East Anglia.

Personally I think that East Anglia sounds a bit nicer than East of England... unless there are any other objections, I think I'd keep it as is

As to London... there are no cities on the map, and I've gone for historical/traditional counties rather than current administrative areas. I played around with putting London on the map as an inset, but nothing seemed to look or feel right.

[walnutwatson]

Just congratulating you on a cool looking map, I love the motorway roadsign with the bonuses on it.

Keep East Anglia definitely, that's what everyone I know calls that area, don't know why Rustovitch would want it changed in the first place.

Just wondering though if you've tried putting any natural barriers in there to mix it up a bit, there are plenty of rivers to choose from if you need ideas.

[Jook1]

Yep, keep it as East Anglia for sure.

Still don't see what the problem with the roadsign is, I think it's brilliant.

[Teflon Kris]

Gameplay

Bonuses and Maths- Questions for Merciless Wong
You must have spent some time with your calculations. Just wondering if you might be able to PM me to explain some of your maths Wong? For example, when you write "For 7 territs with 5 to get a starting bonus..", what are the 7? And, in general, is your maths referring to the probability of regions bonuses, or the +1 for 3 etc. ('build your own') system, or both seperately, or a combination of both?

Straightforward observation
Look at the midlands. +3 for 5.
There are 19 terits in the Midlands.
+3 seems pretty likely in 1 v 1 and 2 v 2, and probably more than one player.

Bonus Clarification
Sorry if you have already answered this Mr Benn: is the 'build your own' system relating to any or every x territories? e.g. +1 for 3 in the North, still +1 for 6, or would it be +2 for 6?

Also, does your first post still stand re, the 'normal' territory bonus system: 'I've just realised that the 'No territory bonus' text has been dropped since I've rejigged the legend. Please bear this in mind when thinking about the gameplay...'?

[MrBenn]

Right, I've had a bit of a think about the build-your own bonuses, and came to the conclusion that the probability of dropping them were too high. With that in mind, I'm planning to amend the build-your own for each region to require half (or slightly over half) of the territories in the area (ie North, Midlands, South).

I've updated tentative values, and while I think I'm settled on the number of terrs required, the actual bonus values for regions is still very much up for debate.

On the graphics side, I wasn't really happy with the roads in the background, so have tried a whiter version, but am still not convinced. I've experimented with a wooden sign, but it looked even worse than the green one, so the green one is back - it fits the green theme at any rate The sign has had a minor overhaul: I've moved the poles to go off the side of the map (which looks a million times better than having them disappear into Cornwall); and I've added a slight texture to the sign but am not that keen on it...

For Discussion Please: Bonus values

[Teflon Kris]

Wow - amazingly quick response - lol

So here's some quick, initial feedback on gameplay changes:
Amendments to the number of territories required for the 'build your own bonus' are just what the doctor ordered, great solution - I will analyse in depth of course to re.probability of fair drops etc. Somebody has created an excellent tool lol.

First glance at the bonuses suggests a big bonus for the north-west - again I will analyse in more depth.

Please let me know re. the 2 questions above:
1. Is the 'build your own' bonus for every or any x territories?
2. Does the first post still stand re. not having the 'normal' territory bonus (+4 for 12 terrs, +5 for 15 ...)?

And, as gameplay stamper, I should have given my general overall view above before launching into detail:
As with the Wales map, your gameplay style is excellent and rarely used. It will generate extra interest and intrigue for players. Classic gameplay would have been perfectly acceptable given the attraction of the location and graphics of the map. Hats off to you for going the extra mile with the gameplay.

P.S. Graphics amendments are great, especially moving the poles of the sign.

[MrBenn]

Please let me know re. the 2 questions above:
1. Is the 'build your own' bonus for every or any x territories?
2. Does the first post still stand re. not having the 'normal' territory bonus (+4 for 12 terrs, +5 for 15 ...)?

1. I'm inclined to think 'every'. There are 9 terrs in the North, 18 in the Midlands, and 16 in the South. There will only be one 'set' for the North, and then two sets each for the others.
2. I think so... but I keep changing my mind

edit: Bumping image to new page:

[Danyael]

On the graphics side, I wasn't really happy with the roads in the background, so have tried a whiter version, but am still not convinced. I've experimented with a wooden sign, but it looked even worse than the green one, so the green one is back - it fits the green theme at any rate The sign has had a minor overhaul: I've moved the poles to go off the side of the map (which looks a million times better than having them disappear into Cornwall); and I've added a slight texture to the sign but am not that keen on it..

i like the way the sign is it goes perfect with the rest of the colours as well i like the texture makes it looks slightly weathered

as for gameplay
i can't really comment on any changes or problems because it seems very even to me
and with the forced starting positions adds to the evenness

[MrBenn]

The North
The bonus for the Northwest probably needs to be the same as Northeast and Yorkshire combined, as they are virtual mirrors of each other. Both halves require 4 terrs to be defended, so a +3 seems reasonable, although this could be dropped to a +2. The 'build your own 6' will encourage fighting between the two halves; possibly more so at +2 than +1.
The whole of the North can be defended by holding Cheshire, Derby and West Riding, for a total bonus of (currently) +8.

The South
Thames Valley is the same size as the northwest, but is totally surrounded and doesn't really offer any easy expansion opportunities. The South East and South West are fairly similar in terms of size and defendability, both containing 6 territories with three borders. The 'build your own 7' could be extended to be a 'build your own 8' without too much worry.In team games this will mean that the South can be happily shared (there are 16 terrs in the South)...
Unlike the North, there are no easy defend points, so the bonuses here should be slightly richer. On balance I'm inclined to think the area bonus should change to Any '8 territories for +2', Thames Valley is a borderline +4/+5, and I'll leave South East/West at +3 each. Middlesex will start neutral to prevent anybody dropping the Thames Valley bonus

The Midlands
I envisage that the middle of the country will be a bit like Asia on Classic, in that any battle for it will take place later in the game. The regions are slightly larger than elsewhere on the map, and will possibly be chipped at from both sides once they are held (depending on the drop). With that in mind, I think the bonuses should be slightly higher than currently, with a much smaller +1 for holding any 4, for example... I wonder if that would actually encourage people to build in the middle, and then expand into a region; without being an overwhelming advantage on the drop...
So, the Midlands could change to: Every 4 territories +1; West Midlands +3; East Midlands+4; East Anglia +6

Thoughts on this?

[Teflon Kris]

The North
I agree with the mirroring point - in the main - although the N East (inc. Yorkshire) is 5 terr and North-West is 4. I agree it could be either +2 or +3.

The South
Sounds fine to me in principle.

The Midlands & The Drop
My concern here would be with the drop. I would imagine that the probability of getting a bonus of +1 for having 4 of the 18 territories is pretty high in a 2 player game and is 100% in a 4-player game (e.g. 2 v 2) . Possibly, most often, 2 players would get +1. However, without looking at the maths, sometimes it could be +2 for one player 0 for others. In 2 v 2, one team could hold 2 x +1 and the other nothing, or worse (here is where I need the bonus probabilities calculator). When there are region bonuses out there which players could drop onto as in all classic games, the unfavourable-drop scenario appears to be more likely than on most maps.

Once we can establish that there is no significant problem with the drop then considering bonuses later in the game is probably much easier.

Mid- End Game
I too,imagine that games would take a similar development - becoming a north-south battle. This would be extremely attractive to many englishmen.

Having no normal territory bonus (i.e. 4 for 12, 5 for 15 ...) would increase the likelihood of this scenario too.

Conclusion
Putting all this together, making the Midlands into the final battleground of the map could be best achieved by reverting back to something along the lines of +3 for 9 on build your own and perhaps a sight increase in the three midland region bonuses.

[Merciless Wong]

Is the nth, middle, south bonus now not for territories in a province?
That makes starting bonuses way more likely.

How a bout a scroll for the sign. Blake wrote with feather and ink, no?

[Teflon Kris]

Re: your question Wong, I am assuming that the 'build your own' bonus is related to territories in the whole area - e.g. 7 territories accross the entire south.

[iancanton]

the new scheme sounds like an improvement.

Middlesex will start neutral to prevent anybody dropping the Thames Valley bonus

if u code thames valley as a set of four start positions, then there's no need for a neutral on middlesex. the starting neutral can then be put on durham, which needs it a lot more, since (unless i'm mistaken about the way start positions work) the north-east counties will be allocated randomly if there are 3 or more players.

ian.

[yeti_c]

the new scheme sounds like an improvement.

Middlesex will start neutral to prevent anybody dropping the Thames Valley bonus

if u code thames valley as a set of four start positions, then there's no need for a neutral on middlesex. the starting neutral can then be put on durham, which needs it a lot more, since (unless i'm mistaken about the way start positions work) the north-east counties will be allocated randomly if there are 3 or more players.

ian.

If you have 4 starting positions then it will affect upto 4 player games.

Instead of having any neutrals - then you could combine the starting positions into the up north.

I also think it's a shame to lose the previous bonus system which looked interesting and unique - with a fairly simple boring "standard" one - but this thread has turned nasty so I doubt we'll be able to go back.

C.

[MrBenn]

I also think it's a shame to lose the previous bonus system which looked interesting and unique - with a fairly simple boring "standard" one - but this thread has turned nasty so I doubt we'll be able to go back.

I'm ambivalent about some of the recent changes I've made... I guess my heart's not fully in it any more <sigh>

I'll keep plodding on though - will get there in the end...

[gho]

I also think it's a shame to lose the previous bonus system which looked interesting and unique - with a fairly simple boring "standard" one - but this thread has turned nasty so I doubt we'll be able to go back.

C.

I agree. It seems nowadays in the forum a lot of maps get to a really good standard that should be quenched, but then get played around with too much leading to a more ordinary map.

[Teflon Kris]

I also think it's a shame to lose the previous bonus system which looked interesting and unique - with a fairly simple boring "standard" one - but this thread has turned nasty so I doubt we'll be able to go back.

Not quite sure you're meaning there Yeti.

The bonus system is great, it was looking to me that we were fine-tuning rather than moving away from 'build your own' to never return. Working out a fair drop and how the two types of bonus work together was always going to be a bit tricky. The current question is around the Midlands - whether, considering sceanrios with the drop, it would be better to stick with +3 for 9 as per the current version or MrBenn's suggested +1 for 4?

[walnutwatson]

I too,imagine that games would take a similar development - becoming a north-south battle. This would be extremely attractive to many englishmen.

Ha, ha, we really are quite predictable aren't we?

[Merciless Wong]

Can we put a poll up to see if anyone else thinks the modern sign clashes with the older poem?

[yeti_c]

I also think it's a shame to lose the previous bonus system which looked interesting and unique - with a fairly simple boring "standard" one - but this thread has turned nasty so I doubt we'll be able to go back.

Not quite sure you're meaning there Yeti.

The bonus system is great, it was looking to me that we were fine-tuning rather than moving away from 'build your own' to never return. Working out a fair drop and how the two types of bonus work together was always going to be a bit tricky. The current question is around the Midlands - whether, considering sceanrios with the drop, it would be better to stick with +3 for 9 as per the current version or MrBenn's suggested +1 for 4?

Seems like it's not "build yer own" anymore - just bonus for collection territories.

i.e. NorthWest = 6/9, Midlands = 9/18 (2 bonuses available - if you hold both of that then you've won), South = 7/16 (2 bonuses available - again if you hold all of that then you've either won or about to.)

C.

[walnutwatson]

Can we put a poll up to see if anyone else thinks the modern sign clashes with the older poem?

I think it does, but that's a good thing, it's like England - very traditional and rooted in history in one sense, and bureaucratic and Orwellian in another sense. Spot on I think.