Nordic Countries [Quenched]

[natty dread]

Ok, I've been thinking about the bonuses. I came up with something like this:

Iceland +2

North Norway +4
South Norway +3
All Norway +8 total

North Sweden +5
South Sweden +5
All Sweden +12 total

Denmark +2

North Finland +4
South Finland +4
All Finland +9 total

Estonia +2

And a +1 autodeploy for each capital.

So, what do you think? I think the supercontinent bonuses would fit well in here.

[natty dread]

Version 4

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

I was also thinking of adding another bonus: "hold all capitals for +5"

Or, maybe get rid of the +1 autodeploy for capitals, and instead make a stepped bonus system for holding capitals. Like:

3 capitals +1
4 capitals +2
5 capitals +3
6 capitals +5

Or maybe a victory condition, hold all capitals to win the game?

I'd like to do something with the capitals, anyway.

[thenobodies80]

Some starting thoughts:

• the texture doesnt' work very well, specially with that font. the map looks a little too futuristic. Not the best choice for this map, your map is a big coloured harlequin; where are snow, woods, lakes?
• I think you have to develope the map with a regional perspective, rather than basing the gameplay on cities, but it's just a personal thought.
• The iceland inset could be placed a bit more on the left because i don't think you can use that unused space in the left corner.
• The sea. it's very dark and with land textures it creates a sort of "Northern Europe on acid".
• Aland, it's not clear if it is a part of south finland or south sweden.
• Not sure about the link between Tallin and Helsinki (both with a +1 autodeploy)
• Bonuses (values with autodeploy):
  
  • Denmark +1 (+2)
  • Estonia +2 (+3)
  • Iceland +1 (+2)
  • N.Norway +3
  • S.Norway +3 (+4)
  • N.Sweden +4
  • S.Sweden +4 (+5)
  • N.Finland +4
  • S.Finland +4 (+5)

[natty dread]

Thanks, that's given me lots of thought. I think I will modify the land texture somewhat, but I don't want to touch the sea too much, because IMO it quite accurately represents the look of the baltic sea. The baltic sea is a very dark and sinister looking sea.

I think you have to develope the map with a regional perspective, rather than basing the gameplay on cities, but it's just a personal thought.

Any reason for this? This is a region of europe that not many people are familiar with. I thought that the cities would at least be somewhat more recognizable than some obscure regions that nobody knows, except the few people that live in that area...

The iceland inset could be placed a bit more on the left because i don't think you can use that unused space in the left corner.

Yeah, I was thinking of that too. Will do for the next update.

Aland, it's not clear if it is a part of south finland or south sweden.

Finland, but I'll try to make it more clear. Moving the army circle should do it?

Not sure about the link between Tallin and Helsinki (both with a +1 autodeploy)

This I intend to keep as it is. In reality there is a ferry connection between those cities, which is used by lots of people. So it will stay.

Bonuses (values with autodeploy):

* Denmark +1 (+2)
* Estonia +2 (+3)
* Iceland +1 (+2)
* N.Norway +3
* S.Norway +3 (+4)
* N.Sweden +4
* S.Sweden +4 (+5)
* N.Finland +4
* S.Finland +4 (+5)

Thanks. Appreciated very much. Are these from the bonus calculator or your own estimate?
Why +1 on denmark when it has to defend 2 borders? Is it because it is the smallest "continent" with only 3 territories?

Also, how do you feel about the supercontinent bonuses? Where you get additional +1 for holding both norways or both finlands, and an additional +2 for holding both swedens?

As always, you give extraordinarily useful feedback, which I appreciate. Thanks.

[thenobodies80]

Any reason for this? This is a region of europe that not many people are familiar with. I thought that the cities would at least be somewhat more recognizable than some obscure regions that nobody knows, except the few people that live in that area...

no reason, just a personal preference
And yours is a good point.

I don't want to touch the sea too much, because IMO it quite accurately represents the look of the baltic sea. The baltic sea is a very dark and sinister looking sea.

i trust you
Maybe with the new texture it will look different.

Are these from the bonus calculator or your own estimate?
Why +1 on denmark when it has to defend 2 borders? Is it because it is the smallest "continent" with only 3 territories?

Also, how do you feel about the supercontinent bonuses? Where you get additional +1 for holding both norways or both finlands, and an additional +2 for holding both swedens?

yes, bonus calculator. (btw, if you don't have a program to open the xls file you can downlaod openoffice, it's free)
usually you have to adjust values and keep in mind that calculator understimate the bonuses in the middle.
danmark is a fair +2 but the +1 autodeploy on one border should make it too strong, specially in the early rounds...(i think )
And yes +2 for all sweden and +1 for all finland look good.

[natty dread]

danmark is a fair +2 but the +1 autodeploy on one border should make it too strong, specially in the early rounds...(i think )

Well, what if I were to get rid of the +1 autodeploy for capitals, and instead make them a collection bonus?

like thus:

3 capitals +1
4 capitals +2
5 capitals +3
6 capitals +5

[natty dread]

Ok here's two possible new versions.

v.5 - Old ocean, no glow around land

Click image to enlarge.

v.5a - Ocean modified a bit, glow around land, land colour saturation reduced

Click image to enlarge.

I didn't change the bonuses yet. I'll do that later...

Anyway, which looks better? Or, if you like some things in one version and some things in the other, I can combine them for the next version.

Feedback plox!

edit. made another one:

V.5b - otherwise same as 5a except different ocean, flags added

Click image to enlarge.

[soundman]

Flags don't seem to fit. You should pull Iceland down some so the space is even with the left side. I think I like 5a better...

[natty dread]

Flags don't seem to fit. You should pull Iceland down some so the space is even with the left side. I think I like 5a better...

Hmm, down with the flags then.

Aah, crap, it's such a pain moving that iceland... do you know how many layers there is, which I need to align? Paint.net doesn't even allow moving multiple layers at once, unless you merge them and then there's no way to separate them again... I'll probably do it, just wanted to vent, as it is a pain in the ass...

Yeah I'll probably go with 5a, but I'm going to decrease the saturation on that ocean a bit, it seems a bit too bright now that I look at it...


Also, someone said the font of the territory names is not good, so I made samples of some different fonts to choose from:



First one is current font- I think it was Tahoma.

2nd is Batang with an outline.

3rd is Dotum with bold, and a drop shadow.

4th is Palatino Linotype with an outline.

[whitestazn88]

looks pretty cool, but the only thing i'll say about it is that i don't know if northern europe is a good title or not... i'm not a huge geography buff, and i don't quite know what constitutes northern europe, but i feel like you can't have estonia w/o latvia & lithuania (maybe it's just a personal reason...) and what about russia? doesn't it go just as far north as scandinavia?

just something to think about. i don't think it would really be a big issue if the title was kept or not.

[natty dread]

i feel like you can't have estonia w/o latvia & lithuania (maybe it's just a personal reason...)

I included Estonia, because it's culturally very close to Finland. They're almost the same people, the language is almost the same... Latvia and Lithuania, not so much. Besides, that's where the legend is

and what about russia? doesn't it go just as far north as scandinavia?

Yes, but Russia is not considered to be a part of Europe.

just something to think about. i don't think it would really be a big issue if the title was kept or not.

Well yeah. Thanks for your interest though, and I have a feeling I'll get to explain the title quite a few times before this map is done

I named the map Northern Europe because it sounds better than "The Nordic Countries and Estonia", ok?

[whitestazn88]

i feel like you can't have estonia w/o latvia & lithuania (maybe it's just a personal reason...)

I included Estonia, because it's culturally very close to Finland. They're almost the same people, the language is almost the same... Latvia and Lithuania, not so much. Besides, that's where the legend is

and what about russia? doesn't it go just as far north as scandinavia?

Yes, but Russia is not considered to be a part of Europe.

just something to think about. i don't think it would really be a big issue if the title was kept or not.

Well yeah. Thanks for your interest though, and I have a feeling I'll get to explain the title quite a few times before this map is done

I named the map Northern Europe because it sounds better than "The Nordic Countries and Estonia", ok?

russia isn't part of europe?

[natty dread]

No, it's not. It belongs to Asia. Hey, look at the classic map! Where is Russia? Not in Europe...

[Incandenza]

Visually, it's coming along.

Thematically... well, it's kind of an odd grouping of countries, it's sorta like "popular American conception of Scandanavia and oh yeah Estonia too". Your stated reason for including Estonia is that it shares a lot culturally with Finland... well, then, why is Iceland there? It's only nominally a Scandinavian country, much in the same way that y is only sometimes a vowel, and it's such a singular little culture that I'd be surprised if there was much in common between the average Icelander and the average Swede (tho a Bjork-ABBA mashup wouldn't be devoid of entertainment).

I can also tell you that the unsexy title isn't doing you any favors (plus, when I think of northern Europe, places like northern Germany and northern Poland spring to mind much more readily than the various countries you have arrayed here).

And now that I've totally shit in your punchbowl, I'll say that you clearly have some talent, I just don't think you've found the right killer project yet. You could probably navigate this map into the final forge with a great deal more work, but you'll end up with a pretty run-of-the-mill CC map. And I've already made clear the risks you run pushing forward with Proteins 101... I dunno, it's just rare to see much in the way of graphic oomph in the drafting subforum, but here in the service of a map that, personally, leaves me with a sort of "meh" feeling. It's sort of a European version of the USA Map Pack, which (no offense to wids) I loathe.

[natty dread]

Thematically... well, it's kind of an odd grouping of countries, it's sorta like "popular American conception of Scandanavia and oh yeah Estonia too". Your stated reason for including Estonia is that it shares a lot culturally with Finland... well, then, why is Iceland there? It's only nominally a Scandinavian country

Well the starting point was the Nordic Countries, which includes all countries here except Estonia. And Iceland has lots of common with Denmark and Norway... Vikings, ever heard of? And I have already stated why I wanted to include Estonia.

But, if it's such a big deal, that my map can't move forward without fixing it, then I can just scrap Estonia and call the map The Nordic Countries or something. How's that? Would also save me lots of time, not having to answer a zillion more questions of "why is Estonia on the map"...

I think the trouble here is that I have two or three distinct cultural groups of countries. The Denmark-Norway-Iceland group, which are the descendants of the Vikings, and Sweden might be included to this group by some definitions, although personally I feel Sweden is the odd one here, although linguistically they share a lot with Denmark and Norway. Then there's the Finland & Estonia group, which can hardly be called a group because it only has 2 members...

So, you think this map would be any good without Estonia, or should I just forget about the map? In your opinion?

[snufkin]

I had never heard of Gäddede before - apparently it´s a small village with 456 inhabitants.

If you move it to the extreme south of your green area then you can call it Östersund which is a hundred times larger.

[natty dread]

I had never heard of Gäddede before - apparently it´s a small village with 456 inhabitants.

If you move it to the extreme south of your green area then you can call it Östersund which is a hundred times larger.

Thanks, that's a good idea. I think I'll do that for the next version.

[Incandenza]

So, you think this map would be any good without Estonia, or should I just forget about the map? In your opinion?

Well, dropping estonia would certainly help your overall theme... If nothing else, it would stop all the questions about its inclusion.

As to the larger question... well, it's your map, but you're treading extraordinarily well-worn ground here. Speaking as another foundry-goer and not as a FA, I'd be perfectly happy if the foundry never produced another basic-gameplay medium-size geographical map ever again, especially ones depicting Europe and North America. CC's straining at the gunwales with such maps, to the point where few (if any) new ones stand out. For instance, Vancouver's a great trips map, but it's not necessarily any better than Triple Alliance, and IMHO it doesn't really add much of anything to the site, especially when you consider the amount of time and effort put into the map by shakeycat and all the commenters in the thread.

Just my $0.02

[natty dread]

Well, dropping estonia would certainly help your overall theme... If nothing else, it would stop all the questions about its inclusion.

I might take it into consideration.

As to the larger question... well, it's your map, but you're treading extraordinarily well-worn ground here. Speaking as another foundry-goer and not as a FA, I'd be perfectly happy if the foundry never produced another basic-gameplay medium-size geographical map ever again, especially ones depicting Europe and North America.

Yeah, well, what kind of maps would you like to see? Just wondering...

I for one think there would be room for a map of this region. Granted, there are maps of europe, but almost all of the countries in my map are severely underrepresented in CC. Denmark and Iceland are the only ones which have their own map. There's no map of Scandinavia or Nordic countries either. So IMO there definitely is a niche for a map of this region.

It's funny though. I started making the Proteins 101 map, and people say it won't make it, because the subject is too obscure and unorthodox, nobody wants to conquer a protein. So I start to make a geographical map, and now you say there's no room for any more geographical maps, that new maps should be something else. Just saying, it's kinda funny. What kind of maps should I make then?

A propos, here's another update of this map, version 6a:

Click image to enlarge.

[whitestazn88]

the capitals don't stick out enough for me.

and while i agree w/ incan's sentiment that there are a shit-load of geographical medium-territory sized maps, this one i like.

[natty dread]

the capitals don't stick out enough for me.

I'll see what I can do about that. Do you have any suggestions, how would you improve the capitals? I wouldn't want to make the troop circle too "egtravagant". Simplistic it should be. Maybe something with the city name font?

and while i agree w/ incan's sentiment that there are a shit-load of geographical medium-territory sized maps, this one i like.

Why thank you... at least somebody does

[Incandenza]

Yeah, well, what kind of maps would you like to see? Just wondering...

I for one think there would be room for a map of this region. Granted, there are maps of europe, but almost all of the countries in my map are severely underrepresented in CC. Denmark and Iceland are the only ones which have their own map. There's no map of Scandinavia or Nordic countries either. So IMO there definitely is a niche for a map of this region.

It's funny though. I started making the Proteins 101 map, and people say it won't make it, because the subject is too obscure and unorthodox, nobody wants to conquer a protein. So I start to make a geographical map, and now you say there's no room for any more geographical maps, that new maps should be something else. Just saying, it's kinda funny. What kind of maps should I make then?

What kind of maps would I like to see? I think the large and huge map niches are quite underfilled, and I'm always amenable to more complex maps (tho it can go a bit far, I spent a decent while last night trying to work through cairns' cricket map, and the only result was a severe brain hemorrhage). If we're talking about maps in this general niche, the mid-sized basic-gameplay geographical map, I'd like to see more cities (especially cities outside of North America and Europe) and more under-represented regions of the world (as Andy has often said, some more Africa maps would be a nice addition).

It's not that I don't like your map, and it's not that I don't think it can be a perfectly acceptable CC map with the requisite amount of work... it just doesn't really do anything for me.

You make an interesting point about the protein map: it is indeed an obscure and rather unorthodox subject, and abstract maps (or any map that doesn't lend itself well to the whole world domination concept) are a tough sell to the membership, especially when your map is fighting for eyeballs with 141 other maps. Similarly, pure geographical maps, especially medium-sized ones, can be a tough sell, simply due to the overwhelming number of extremely similar maps.

Look at Third Crusade, for instance. While it can be argued that it's just another Europe map, the theme is interesting and the gameplay is refreshingly complex without being overwhelming or confusing.

The unfortunate truth is that this is a difficult time to be a new mapmaker: many map niches have been (over)filled, there hasn't been an xml update in forever, and more and more longtime foundrarians are becoming frustrated and/or bored with the foundry. There's a sense of "been there done that" that can be tough to overcome. One of the reasons for the underwhelming response to Proteins from foundry vets is that there are a good half-dozen science/anatomy maps in the recycle bin, some of them in a pretty advanced state, that simply failed to find any sort of audience. And the greater Scandinavian area has been tried a few times as well. So neither of your map concepts are really fresh enough to make people sit up and take notice, thus increasing the onus on you to really blow people away with graphics and/or gameplay. And while I realize it's a bit early in the process for you to be bringing out the big guns for graphics, as a newish mapmaker you're unfortunately going to be judged guilty until proven innocent when it comes to matching up with the top geographical maps on CC (i.e. anything that RJBeals has done).

Don't let me be the final arbiter here, like I said before it's your map. CC has a pretty sizable contingent of players from the depicted areas that might very well flock to the map. Hell, you're one of them. And I've been kicking around the foundry a long-ass time, so it's the rare map that really gets me to sit up and take notice.

[natty dread]

What kind of maps would I like to see? I think the large and huge map niches are quite underfilled, and I'm always amenable to more complex maps (tho it can go a bit far, I spent a decent while last night trying to work through cairns' cricket map, and the only result was a severe brain hemorrhage).

Large maps... hmm. Making them large just for the sake of being large doesn't really sit with me.

As for more complex maps... I've never really enjoyed the really complex maps. It takes too much time to learn all the nuances, let alone learn the gameplay in such a way that you can actually beat someone... I like the maps that are relatively simple, with a balanced gameplay. Good old-fashioned straight-forward kill or be killed. I don't enjoy the maps that seem to try to cram every possible XML/gameplay feature in them, just for the sake of using them...

If we're talking about maps in this general niche, the mid-sized basic-gameplay geographical map, I'd like to see more cities (especially cities outside of North America and Europe) and more under-represented regions of the world (as Andy has often said, some more Africa maps would be a nice addition).

Cities, eh? How about a large map with several cities, where each city would have airports or something that would connect to the other cities? Just an idea.

It's not that I don't like your map, and it's not that I don't think it can be a perfectly acceptable CC map with the requisite amount of work... it just doesn't really do anything for me.

You make an interesting point about the protein map: it is indeed an obscure and rather unorthodox subject, and abstract maps (or any map that doesn't lend itself well to the whole world domination concept) are a tough sell to the membership, especially when your map is fighting for eyeballs with 141 other maps. Similarly, pure geographical maps, especially medium-sized ones, can be a tough sell, simply due to the overwhelming number of extremely similar maps.

Look at Third Crusade, for instance. While it can be argued that it's just another Europe map, the theme is interesting and the gameplay is refreshingly complex without being overwhelming or confusing.

The unfortunate truth is that this is a difficult time to be a new mapmaker: many map niches have been (over)filled, there hasn't been an xml update in forever, and more and more longtime foundrarians are becoming frustrated and/or bored with the foundry. There's a sense of "been there done that" that can be tough to overcome. One of the reasons for the underwhelming response to Proteins from foundry vets is that there are a good half-dozen science/anatomy maps in the recycle bin, some of them in a pretty advanced state, that simply failed to find any sort of audience.

I know. I wonder why. A map of human anatomy would also be a fun thing to play. I don't believe we can ever have too many maps in CC. I mean, what's wrong with having lots of maps? There are so many people in CC, I don't see the issue of catering to just small parts of them. What does it matter if a map is "unpopular" if there is at least somewhat a fan base for them? Popularity changes over time, new people join the site all the time and they might have different map preferences...

And the greater Scandinavian area has been tried a few times as well. So neither of your map concepts are really fresh enough to make people sit up and take notice, thus increasing the onus on you to really blow people away with graphics and/or gameplay. And while I realize it's a bit early in the process for you to be bringing out the big guns for graphics, as a newish mapmaker you're unfortunately going to be judged guilty until proven innocent when it comes to matching up with the top geographical maps on CC (i.e. anything that RJBeals has done).

Yeah, it's hard for new mapmakers.

Don't let me be the final arbiter here, like I said before it's your map. CC has a pretty sizable contingent of players from the depicted areas that might very well flock to the map. Hell, you're one of them. And I've been kicking around the foundry a long-ass time, so it's the rare map that really gets me to sit up and take notice.

The problem with the foundry process, as I see it, is that not everyone even uses the forums, let alone visits the foundry. And too few people participate in the foundry process. So we can never get an accurate estimation of a map's popularity. Even if lots of people would like a map that's in development, we'll never know since they never visit the foundry... Then there's the old map makers, who can practically make any map and get it through, just because they have lots of friends who support any map that they make, and thus it's a lot easier for them to gather the "community support" for their projects. I'm not saying that the same standards don't apply to them, just that it's a lot easier for old mapmakers to get their projects approved.

However, at this point I have no idea how to fix the situation, so I'm just going to keep trying and hope that people like my maps. What else is there to do...

[natty dread]

Update v7. I didn't touch the capitals yet, as I couldn't make up my mind what to do with them. I'll save that for next update...

Actually I was just trying out things with the visual style. Also added a connection between lillehammar and östersund.

Click image to enlarge.

wow, uploading images is so much more convenient now. I found a plugin which lets me upload images straight from the drawing board -> imageshack... what will they think of next