First Nations of North America [Quenched]

[lt_oddball]

found something:
Can you go from Ioway to Koy-goo ? (=half river half line border) ?


and run a check over all indian names; a lot of them have illegible letters because the letter runs over a (same colour) borderline.

chrs

and another thought:

The PLAINS bonuszone is too large in the middle.
The problem being that smart players hit for the (preferably small) corner bonuszones first (covering their back) like caribbean, mexico, california Arctic, etc..
The unfortunate player that appears to be stuck in the middle with what seems to be relatively concentrated terr. there, will not be able to conquer all of the PLAINS in time and prepare defenses in all corners before the other players have accumulated bonusses and are able to hit the center player.
The classic "Arctic Map" problem of the john in the middle.

Also, in case all players roam around the periphery of your map, it is detrimental for gameplay to have such a large center region as those players will sit and wait and make truces with other players before making the next moves.
(Again , so many Arctic Map games got screwed because of this, with all the accusations of secret diplomacy).

So, instead of a LARGE bonuszone in the center, make it a clutter of SMALL ones.
Well, at least split the PLAINS into 2 bonuszones.
Then there won't be an urge to tempt others into open/secret diplomacy and the gameplay is fair in itself.

[Tisha]

my map isn't going to temp people into secret alliances.. please stop

if they are going to do it, it is not because of my map. I have played artic a few times and had never had the problem you are talking about. I have the bonuses of 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 5... there are plenty of small bonuses to go around

[mibi]

this map looks real solid. the only thin I don't like is the overall color range is very cool and blue which I don't tihnk fits very well with the first nation aspect. not really a big deal, but this is my personal preference.

Click image to enlarge.

[Scott-Land]

this map looks real solid. the only thin I don't like is the overall color range is very cool and blue which I don't tihnk fits very well with the first nation aspect. not really a big deal, but this is my personal preference.

Click image to enlarge.

Only area I see that is blue is the northern part of the map-- which is supposed to be cold. Whereas the overall map color is more on the warm side-- yellow. You must be referring to the slight hint of green -- if anything it's, not cool. If she were to color correct the image.. it would be blue that she would have to add.

[Tisha]

this map looks real solid. the only thin I don't like is the overall color range is very cool and blue which I don't tihnk fits very well with the first nation aspect. not really a big deal, but this is my personal preference.

Click image to enlarge.

the coloring is off in that, that is not the coloring I have on my laptop. I had it a little more red in the background, but someone complained..

[whitestazn88]

this is my first peek in here, and i must say it looks really good. hopefully once its out i'll do better on this than the regular north america map.

be back for more detailed comments later on

[the.killing.44]

the coloring is off in that, that is not the coloring I have on my laptop.

That's the point, he said that's his "personal preference." And I sorta agree with it — it adds to the aged look …

.44

[Hatchman]

Colours are perfect from my POV. Don't mess with it Tisha.

[Tisha]

Colours are perfect from my POV. Don't mess with it Tisha.

I yellowed it a little, not as much as he did. it's good, don't worry..

[lt_oddball]

this is my first peek in here, and i must say it looks really good.

Your avatar also looks really goood

[lt_oddball]

my map isn't going to temp people into secret alliances.. please stop

if they are going to do it, it is not because of my map. I have played artic a few times and had never had the problem you are talking about. I have the bonuses of 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 5... there are plenty of small bonuses to go around

You don't seem to understand it , hm ?
The map is always the basis for such strife..that and a bunch of clueless players / openly supporting players.

If you can detect such a flaw in the map and remedy it, then one basis for such despicable game play is taken away (because we cannot control clueless players, can we ?).
And if it is a VERY SIMPLE change to implement, then why not support it ?


Look at the map again:

You are in a field with 8 players; WHERE will you think they will start ?
I help you: The small bonuszones in the mapcorner: 1) MesoAmerica 2) caribbean 3) California 4) North-West 5) Great Basin 6) Plateau
So these players fight for it over these places..2(of the 8. ) have to find a place elsewhere (or they fight it out immediately in one of the above 6).
So let's say you are one of the unlucky ones but have a slight majority of 3 terr in the PLains.

That means you''ll have to conquer 6 more terr. and defend the SIX borders before the first bonus of 7 troops kicks in.
Let's assume that you can take ONE territory of 3 adversary troops at a turn..so this will take you AT LEAST (bad dices, inpour of other troops) 6 turns.
Now let's see how far the player going for Great Basin will get:
he has 2 out of 3 for the beginning; takes the other left over in the first turn; after the 6th turn he has accumulated already 5x2 = 10 more troops.
Possibly he has already manoeuvred into Plateau (+1), but it is OB-VI-OUS that he has already more troops at his border than the one toiling in the PLains.
Next to him we'll find the mesoamerican player; he took 2 turns to get it and so he accumulated at least 4x3 = 12 extra troops which would have brought him into Southwest at a majority before the plains is covered by the unlucky player..
The same for the caribean player: 5x 2 = 10 and by turn 6 already fistdeep in South east..

Look, trust me, split the PLAINS in half and game play WILL improve.

Technically there never should be huge differences between the largest and smallest territories if there are too few small territories for everybody..
Everyone (from the first to the 8th player!!)should have equal opportunity to win the map..
By having a map that is sure to favour a few players (choice of small bonuszone aside a medium bonuszone) against the other players (no small bonuszone left..only wide open space of large bonuszones ) you'll violate that requirement for having a good balanced map.

Put it this way; what was your reason to have these small zones (plateau ?!? Basin !?) on one hand and the Indians of the plains or subarctic combined in a very VERY large area on the other hand ?
Similar race ? language ? DNA ?

Split the PLAINS ( and possibly also Arctic or Sub-Arctic)

[lt_oddball]

found something:
Can you go from Ioway to Koy-goo ? (=half river half line border) ? confusing..is it impassible or not ?


and run a check over all indian names; a lot of them have illegible letters because the letter runs over a (same colour) borderline.
And we are not talking one or two here..I counted already 10 incidents..

chrs

[Tisha]

found something:
Can you go from Ioway to Koy-goo ? (=half river half line border) ? confusing..is it impassible or not ?


and run a check over all indian names; a lot of them have illegible letters because the letter runs over a (same colour) borderline.
And we are not talking one or two here..I counted already 10 incidents..

chrs

I have read this, and haven't posted an update since I have read it.... no need to quote it again


and there are a couple 5 men bonus you just seem to look over in your little story


If you are looking for something completely even, go play Chinese checkers or something
I'm not splitting the artic, subartic and plains... I have said this from the beginning. I have 72 territories, and plenty of bonuses to work with. There are a lot of maps that have some bonus that are harder to hold then others.. even classic.

if my map doesn't make it then oh well I guess...

[lt_oddball]

well, it certainly proves a girl mapmaper is not necessarily less hardheaded than any of the male mapmakers...
No need to go "soft" because she's a girrrl

You re right that there are maps with unbalanced bonuszones..but that is then EXACTLY my point.
The fact that they exist doesnt mean that they are good !
Probably made by likewise stubborn heads.
But let's look at the Risk's original: ever learned about a player starting in Asia and win the map ?!? (given that nobody deadbeats, everybody plays independently and plays smart)
Notice that the asia continent is not a pivotal center continent of the map ?

Your map is a circle map, and more precise a V map in which the majority of mapwinners will originate from the bottom of the V . meso america./caribean .
Split the PLAINS in 2 bonuszones and that certainty is reduced.

[Blitzaholic]

looking good tisha



I am surprised you have not created an epic tamriel map

same concept as tamriel but maybe add like 8 lands kinda like what gimil did with feudal for a future idea

[Scott-Land]

my map isn't going to temp people into secret alliances.. please stop

if they are going to do it, it is not because of my map. I have played artic a few times and had never had the problem you are talking about. I have the bonuses of 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 5... there are plenty of small bonuses to go around

You don't seem to understand it , hm ?
The map is always the basis for such strife..that and a bunch of clueless players / openly supporting players.

If you can detect such a flaw in the map and remedy it, then one basis for such despicable game play is taken away (because we cannot control clueless players, can we ?).
And if it is a VERY SIMPLE change to implement, then why not support it ?


Look at the map again:

You are in a field with 8 players; WHERE will you think they will start ?
I help you: The small bonuszones in the mapcorner: 1) MesoAmerica 2) caribbean 3) California 4) North-West 5) Great Basin 6) Plateau
So these players fight for it over these places..2(of the 8. ) have to find a place elsewhere (or they fight it out immediately in one of the above 6).
So let's say you are one of the unlucky ones but have a slight majority of 3 terr in the PLains.

That means you''ll have to conquer 6 more terr. and defend the SIX borders before the first bonus of 7 troops kicks in.
Let's assume that you can take ONE territory of 3 adversary troops at a turn..so this will take you AT LEAST (bad dices, inpour of other troops) 6 turns.
Now let's see how far the player going for Great Basin will get:
he has 2 out of 3 for the beginning; takes the other left over in the first turn; after the 6th turn he has accumulated already 5x2 = 10 more troops.
Possibly he has already manoeuvred into Plateau (+1), but it is OB-VI-OUS that he has already more troops at his border than the one toiling in the PLains.
Next to him we'll find the mesoamerican player; he took 2 turns to get it and so he accumulated at least 4x3 = 12 extra troops which would have brought him into Southwest at a majority before the plains is covered by the unlucky player..
The same for the caribean player: 5x 2 = 10 and by turn 6 already fistdeep in South east..

Look, trust me, split the PLAINS in half and game play WILL improve.

Technically there never should be huge differences between the largest and smallest territories if there are too few small territories for everybody..
Everyone (from the first to the 8th player!!)should have equal opportunity to win the map..
By having a map that is sure to favour a few players (choice of small bonuszone aside a medium bonuszone) against the other players (no small bonuszone left..only wide open space of large bonuszones ) you'll violate that requirement for having a good balanced map.

Put it this way; what was your reason to have these small zones (plateau ?!? Basin !?) on one hand and the Indians of the plains or subarctic combined in a very VERY large area on the other hand ?
Similar race ? language ? DNA ?

Split the PLAINS ( and possibly also Arctic or Sub-Arctic)

I only skimmed through this post-- clueless is right. You don't want to chop up a map into numerous small bonuses for several reasons. I'll only give you a couple so you can understand.

Unlike your reasoning, a lot of small bonuses will decrease the level of play-- strategically. It becomes endless attacks on players weakening or isolating them. Crippling them to the point they won't have enough armies to survive. In a sense, you get hung unintentionally-- or noobed.
Secondly, when you chop up a large bonus into smaller ones... this in turn creates territories that were not of importance that become a stackable territory-- roadblocking players from holding a multi-access important territory that was rendered useless by creating the bonus. Let's use this odd example you provided.....

But let's look at the Risk's original: ever learned about a player starting in Asia and win the map ?!? (given that nobody deadbeats, everybody plays independently and plays smart)
Notice that the asia continent is not a pivotal center continent of the map ?

Why certainly not-- Asia is never held outside of no card games. It doesn't mean that it's not a pivotal center of the map. Let's take China ( Kandinsky ) and Siberia ( Reinhardt )..... two of the five best territories you can hold on the map ( for escalating). Of course you only need one of the two, asking the most elite players-- you will get mixed results... some prefer China whereas some Siberia-- nonpivotal continent.
If you chop up a large bonus, certain terr's lose value and become less important whereas the beforehand useless territories become a terr players now stack to protect their bonus. You want large bonuses for that very reason-- you don't want all the territories to be of importance.... only some where the more skilled players will recognize and use.

Your overall tone is quite annoying. Perhaps have a better understanding of the game before you try to strategically alter a map.

[lt_oddball]

Unlike your reasoning, a lot of small bonuses will decrease the level of play-- strategically.(****1*****) It becomes endless attacks on players weakening or isolating them. Crippling them to the point they won't have enough armies to survive. In a sense, you get hung unintentionally-- or noobed.
Secondly, when you chop up a large bonus into smaller ones... this in turn creates territories that were not of importance that become a stackable territory-- roadblocking players from holding a multi-access important territory that was rendered useless by creating the bonus. Let's use this odd example you provided.....


Why certainly not-- Asia is never held outside of no card games. It doesn't mean that it's not a pivotal center of the map. Let's take China ( Kandinsky ) and Siberia ( Reinhardt )..... two of the five best territories****2*** you can hold on the map ( for escalating). Of course you only need one of the two, asking the most elite players-- you will get mixed results... some prefer China whereas some Siberia-- nonpivotal continent.
If you chop up a large bonus, certain terr's lose value and become less important whereas the beforehand useless territories become a terr players now stack to protect their bonus. You want large bonuses for that very reason-- you don't want all the territories to be of importance.... only some where the more skilled players will recognize and use.

Your overall tone is quite annoying. ***3***Perhaps have a better understanding of the game before you try to strategically alter a map.

****1****
I dont ask a LOT of small bonusses. Only split one (relatively) too large one into two.
Secondly: Without considering any specific map: strategically many(!) more small bonusses DOES improve gameplay as they represent CHOICE.
CHOICE of direction, choice of tactic, choice of strategy.
Kinda like you should have in a supercontinent.
Having FEW bonuszones, and FEW bottlenecks creates LIMITED choice as EVERYONE knows where to go and what to take.
Contrary to what you implied, the many endless attacks appear when a couple of players go after the same chokepoint/small corner bonuszone.
The winner of the battle being the one with the lucky dice...thus becoming too much a luck decided game instead of a halfluck half strategy game that a risk game should be.



****2****
That's an Example with a single condition: escalating cards (no one designs a map with that gameplay in mind).
Secondly..the 2 (china siberia) are CHoKEPOINTS for Australia and America and thus NOT good/special for conquering Asia per se.
So you did not prove a point that a large bonuszone (relative to the average of the others) improves gameplay.


****3*** So arrogance (of the mapmaker and let's face it, your last remark has it too) is an acceptable tone ?

[Tisha]

well it's my map.. and of course I have pride in it...
and I don't care if the internet people read that as arrogance

Since It is my map, and I would like to think I have some kinda say it in, especially when I don't agree with what is being proposed...

with 72 territories and the bonuses of 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8.. there are plenty of choices..

[Scott-Land]

Nice color adjustment TIsha-- looks great.

[lt_oddball]

Since It is my map, and I would like to think I have some kinda say it in, especially when I don't agree with what is being proposed...
***1***

with 72 territories and the bonuses of 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8.. there are plenty of choices..***2****

***1*** but then come up with a technical argument , not a snobbish one.
The Ratio should convince, not pride.

***2****
What you list now is no choice. (unlike the boardgame we do not place a military per turn on the board on any terr. before the game starts).
What I am after is that the 7th and 8th player have an equal chance (in any new map) of winning/starting good.
Most of the time these players get screwed because they lose a terr. before they start (e.g. 15-1 = 14 terr; 4 troops against the 5 troops for the first players).That situation normally lasts the 2nd and 3d round.
On top of that the first players kinda get the choice of starting in their best opportunity zone...
the last players donot have that luxury. The choice to go for the crumbles that the starters left over...that is no choice, baby.
So for these last players they AND start with less troops, AND are being pushed in the nether regions of the map.
The only thing that could turn their tide is deadbeating of others, vendettas between sworn enemies, stupid moves of others/noobs.

It's not like I'm asking for a rigorous map redesign. Just a simple but effective tweak for the benefit of all players starting as last.
that can happen to you too.

Just play with real dices and do a bit of testing your map; you'll see the advantage of the players starting in the south end.
(try this for a brainer: pitting a player with one single big bonuszone with a couple of chokepoints against anaother player with the same bonustroops but divided over many smaller bonuszones dispersed over the map equally with a few chokepoints...: who'd you say will win ?..now look again at Arctic, sub-arctic and plains/ woodlands versus meso, southwest and caribb)

[Tisha]

Since It is my map, and I would like to think I have some kinda say it in, especially when I don't agree with what is being proposed...
***1***

with 72 territories and the bonuses of 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8.. there are plenty of choices..***2****

***1*** but then come up with a technical argument , not a snobbish one.
The Ratio should convince, not pride.

***2****
What you list now is no choice. (unlike the boardgame we do not place a military per turn on the board on any terr. before the game starts).
What I am after is that the 7th and 8th player have an equal chance (in any new map) of winning/starting good.
Most of the time these players get screwed because they lose a terr. before they start (e.g. 15-1 = 14 terr; 4 troops against the 5 troops for the first players).That situation normally lasts the 2nd and 3d round.
On top of that the first players kinda get the choice of starting in their best opportunity zone...
the last players donot have that luxury. The choice to go for the crumbles that the starters left over...that is no choice, baby.
So for these last players they AND start with less troops, AND are being pushed in the nether regions of the map.
The only thing that could turn their tide is deadbeating of others, vendettas between sworn enemies, stupid moves of others/noobs.

It's not like I'm asking for a rigorous map redesign. Just a simple but effective tweak for the benefit of all players starting as last.
that can happen to you too.

Just play with real dices and do a bit of testing your map; you'll see the advantage of the players starting in the south end.
(try this for a brainer: pitting a player with one single big bonuszone with a couple of chokepoints against anaother player with the same bonustroops but divided over many smaller bonuszones dispersed over the map equally with a few chokepoints...: who'd you say will win ?..now look again at Arctic, sub-arctic and plains/ woodlands versus meso, southwest and caribb)

you are stil not convincing me.. and I don't know why you are telling me to come up with a technical argument, when you don't even have one yourself. every time you post you are saying something else.

first it was secret alliances
then you say there shouldn't be a big differences in bonuses through out the map
then my map doesn't have choices, when there clearly are with the bonuses of 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8.. and 72 territories.
now you are worried about the 8th player not starting with 15 territories, when that isn't even possible on my map

72 divided into players 8 is 9 territories each
6 players is 12 territories each, and there are plenty of bonuses for 6 players to choose from

[Bavarian Raven]

i like the map the way it is...

[grandin]

Wow, heated debate. Be nice

I can definately see Scott_land's point when it comes to the Plains. Splitting Plains would turn the map into a complete mess, and i also understand his argument about non-important territories. I also fear the beauty of the map would be easy to loose. However, when it comes to the sub-arctic, i feel the matter is somewhat different.

Ok, on splitting the sub-arctic into two bonus regions (as i see it in my divine wisdom ) :

Pros:

* Flat rate games (which i prefer) and no spoils games will not be confined to the bottom half of the map.
* 22 territories are otherwise in all practicality more or less a non-playable area (sub-arctic + arctic) in said styles.
* The beauty of the map is more appreciated when you're forced to give more focus to all of it's territories.
* A split is historically justifiable, at least considering language families - algic and na-dene
* It might, depending on how it's done, add an easy-to-conquer region in the north/north-east part of the map, which is now completely lacking. Then, with no other such region close by, that could either make or break your game when conquered, depending on how well you play it. (and besides, i've always prefered northern hunter-gatherers over southern maize-growers, so i would definately go for that one )

Cons:

* It might clutter up the map if not done in a good way.
* ...can't really think of anything else, but it might just be me missing the obvious.

I propose a split either along Chipewyan/Nehilawe, or along Tlicho/Chipewyan with a revert of Tlicho into two territories as in version one through four (but keeping the pine-trees, of course). This way you still keep a big, hard-to-get bonus in the sub-arctic, and at the same time let the entire map be part of the fun in a flat rate/no spoils setting.


Tisha, you're doing a great job here. I love the map!

[lanyards]

Instead of white background, could you make it transparent? Just make it a PNG.

And the kayaks are meh.

[Tisha]

Instead of white background, could you make it transparent? Just make it a PNG.

And the kayaks are meh.

png makes my map blurry..

and they are canoes..