Nordic Countries [Quenched]

[natty dread]

Ok here's what I think I'll do.

I'll extend the mountain to block the connection between Troms & Norra Lappland.

I'll also move the forest of Rovaniemi/Oulu in between Kemijärvi & Kainuu. (For that matter, I can redraw the Kainuu border back as it should be, thus the impassable would be between oulu&kemijärvi)

This will make Norrland, Finnish Lapland and North Norway 3 borders each, but keeps All Finland at 4 borders.


What I'd also like to do would be to put a forest between Södermanland and Östergötland, and make a one-way connection over the forest from Södermanland to Östergötland. This would reduce the borders of Sweden Proper, but keep Gothland as it is at 3 borders. How does this sound?

[natty dread]

here's v37. Gameplay is starting to look real nice to me.

Click image to enlarge.

Ok, this seems very balanced to me. Look at bonus combinations:

Bonus combo / Borders / Troops

Denmark,Faroe & Iceland / 3 / 7

Norway / 5 / 10
Norway & Svalbard / 6 / 12

Finland / 4 / 10

Sweden / 7 / 14

All in balance. With Finland, you can get a very easily defendable position, and gain 10 troops per turn. With Norway, you'll get the same troops with 1 more border, but if you add Svalbard you'll have 2 more borders and 2 more troops. Sweden has 1 more border than Norway+Svalbard and gets again 2 more troops. Seems fair to me!

And the Denmark - Faroe - Iceland combo will give 7 troops with 3 borders. Denmark, Faroe & Gothland would be the same, 3 borders and +7 bonus.

Iceland, Svalbard & North Norway would be almost same: 4 borders and 7 troops. Finland gives 10 troops with the same border count. So Iceland is easy to grab in the beginning, but taking a bigger piece of land like Finland or Norway pays off better in the long run. Like it should be, IMO.

[iancanton]

Gameplay is starting to look real nice to me.

it is coming together.

So Iceland is easy to grab in the beginning, but taking a bigger piece of land like Finland or Norway pays off better in the long run. Like it should be, IMO.

iceland is still a bit too powerful because of its corner position, especially in multiplayer. a +1 bonus fits better than a +2 because of the autodeploy - there are only 2 borders to defend and both of these have a buffer region can be passed back-and-forth for spoils, since there's no point in defending svalbard unless u also have north norway. austurland is better connecting to troms and not to svalbard (which can certainly keep its special bonus even if it's a dead-end - there's no contradiction here) because finnish lapland can then hit iceland in 2 steps, and vice versa, so that it's harder to sit safely in the corner.

from føroyar, perhaps change the connection to be with hordaland, which is the location of bergen, norway's second city, instead of with trøndelag.

This would add another border to South Norway. I want to avoid that, because making Norway any harder to hold would make it a useless wasteland.

agreed. the trøndelag route is better for holding south norway.

isn't there a huge forest, the taiga, in northern lapland? i suggest that we put a whole lot of trees between finnmark and finnish lapland (covering a large area, not just a single line of trees), so that the only way from finland to norway is from kasivarsi to troms - travel up there is supposed to be difficult!

Why is it supposed to be difficult? There are roads, you know. This is a map of the modern time nordic countries after all...

there are roads, but it's not the same as in the south, where there are major highways in all directions to connect big cities. some roads remain impassable for months during the winter. i again suggest a big impassable forest between finnmark and finnish lapland and, if u don't want to close off finnmark completely, then let kasivarsi attack both finnmark and troms. this will ensure that iceland is not the only easy bonus.

ian.

[natty dread]

So Iceland is easy to grab in the beginning, but taking a bigger piece of land like Finland or Norway pays off better in the long run. Like it should be, IMO.

iceland is still a bit too powerful because of its corner position, especially in multiplayer. a +1 bonus fits better than a +2 because of the autodeploy - there are only 2 borders to defend and both of these have a buffer region can be passed back-and-forth for spoils, since there's no point in defending svalbard unless u also have north norway. austurland is better connecting to troms and not to svalbard (which can certainly keep its special bonus even if it's a dead-end - there's no contradiction here) because finnish lapland can then hit iceland in 2 steps, and vice versa, so that it's harder to sit safely in the corner. [/quote]

Hmm.

I still don't get, why Iceland is a problem with 2 borders, when Denmark is the same? They both have good expanding possibilities.

Well, I had a feature in mind... I was thinking about a triangle of one-way connections between Austurland, Svalbard and Troms. It would go like:

Austurland one-way attacks Troms.
Troms one-way attacks Svalbard.
Svalbard one-way attacks Austurland.

Although this may be a too complex structure for it. What do you think?

Anyway, as for lowering the bonus... well, I guess that could be done, but then I wonder if the area would become too weak... Now, when you hold Iceland, Faroe and Denmark you get 7 troops for 3 borders. If Iceland was a +1 you'd only get 6 troops...

I don't know, there has to be some kind of solution here.

isn't there a huge forest, the taiga, in northern lapland? i suggest that we put a whole lot of trees between finnmark and finnish lapland (covering a large area, not just a single line of trees), so that the only way from finland to norway is from kasivarsi to troms - travel up there is supposed to be difficult!

Why is it supposed to be difficult? There are roads, you know. This is a map of the modern time nordic countries after all...

there are roads, but it's not the same as in the south, where there are major highways in all directions to connect big cities. some roads remain impassable for months during the winter. i again suggest a big impassable forest between finnmark and finnish lapland and, if u don't want to close off finnmark completely, then let kasivarsi attack both finnmark and troms. this will ensure that iceland is not the only easy bonus.

ian. [/quote]

...ok, well ... I also have doubts with this. See, Finnish Lapland already has only 3 borders. You can already hold all of Finland with only 4 borders. If I put a forest between Pohjois-Lappi and Finnmark, Finnish Lapland becomes only 2 borders, which is fine by itself, but then the whole of Finland is only 3 borders, and this would make it too strong when compared to other areas... The Iceland, Denmark & Faroe combination also has 3 borders, and you only get 7 troops for it currently. Where's the logic if Finland gets a shitload more troops with the same border count? (well, a few more troops anyway. But the imbalance would still be there.)

Also: Iceland is not the only easy bonus. There's Denmark.

Again this could be done with one-way borders. But I'm not at all sure if I want to implement one-way borders on this map.

But hey, please don't get discouraged with my attitude... It's just that the development of the gameplay has come a long way, so I want to chew this through good so that all the possible scenarios are dealt with, before going through with the changes.

[natty dread]

Oh, one more thing, about Svalbard. I feel I need to explain my position a bit...

I don't want Svalbard to be a dead-end, because it would lose part of the strategy... Currently, Norway has to defend 5 borders, but if you add Svalbard to it, you get 1 more border to defend while gaining +2 more troops.

If you could take Svalbard with no border gain it would make Norway too strong. Also there's extra strategy to decide if you want to only defend 5 borders and get 10 troops, or if you want to defend 6 borders for 12 troops.

[natty dread]

Ok ian, regarding the northern forests, how's this for a compromise? I put the forest between Käsivarsi and Finnmark, making the travel there a bit more difficult but still maintaining the number of borders in both countries. I think it's a good solution, hope you do too.

v37a:

Click image to enlarge.

Now, regarding Svalbard: for the reasons stated in my last post, I'd rather keep it as it is. But if changing it to a dead end territory is what it takes for me to get a GP stamp, then I'll do it, reluctantly.

As for Iceland, I really don't see how Iceland is any stronger than Denmark. In fact I consider Denmark to be stronger, as it can take Faroe and get even more troops. But again, if my GP stamp depends on it I can lower the bonus.

[natty dread]

OK, the poll results seem pretty clear-cut by now. 75% likes Svalbard so Svalbard stays.

As for the Svalbard/Iceland issue, I made another happy compromise that should satisfy all parties. I connected Austurland to Troms, but left the Svalbard connections intact. This way the strategy wrt. Svalbard & Norway is preserved, but Iceland is more balanced, as now whoever holds North Norway will have good incentive to take Austurland, and Austurland now has to defend against two attackers, and Iceland can be easily assaulted from Finland as well.

In fact, with this tweak, I feel the gameplay is as good as it's going to get. If there are any flaws, they can be found and fixed in the beta period, so can I has GP stamp now?

verzion 38:

Click image to enlarge.

[Gillipig]

OK, the poll results seem pretty clear-cut by now. 75% likes Svalbard so Svalbard stays.

As for the Svalbard/Iceland issue, I made another happy compromise that should satisfy all parties. I connected Austurland to Troms, but left the Svalbard connections intact. This way the strategy wrt. Svalbard & Norway is preserved, but Iceland is more balanced, as now whoever holds North Norway will have good incentive to take Austurland, and Austurland now has to defend against two attackers, and Iceland can be easily assaulted from Finland as well.

In fact, with this tweak, I feel the gameplay is as good as it's going to get. If there are any flaws, they can be found and fixed in the beta period, so can I has GP stamp now?

verzion 38:

Click image to enlarge.

Not to bug you or anything but I don't like the added mountain chain, I took a road through there to get to Lofoten which by the way was stunningly beautiful. The area is not an impassable! (However we did have to sleep in the car because there were no motels there whatsoever. ) Anyhow I like the map and would like to play it as soon as possible .

[natty dread]

Not to bug you or anything but I don't like the added mountain chain, I took a road through there to get to Lofoten which by the way was stunningly beautiful. The area is not an impassable! (However we did have to sleep in the car because there were no motels there whatsoever. ) Anyhow I like the map and would like to play it as soon as possible .

Lots of areas that are impassables in maps are not actually so in real life. However, there really is a mountain in that area, and that's good enough for me. When impassables are required for gameplay reasons, we use whatever we can: mountains, rivers, forests... no matter if there actually are passes, bridges or roads through them

[Evil DIMwit]

Poll results are in:
Keep Svalbard.......12 (75%)
Remove Svalbard... 4 (25%)

In fact, with this tweak, I feel the gameplay is as good as it's going to get. If there are any flaws, they can be found and fixed in the beta period, so can I has GP stamp now?

Given the fairly recent changes, I think what I'll do is give a couple of days for people to point out any major gameplay flaws we may have missed, and if there's nothing disastrous that needs fixing, I'll stamp it then.

[Evil DIMwit]

Poll results are in:
Keep Svalbard.......12 (75%)
Remove Svalbard... 4 (25%)

In fact, with this tweak, I feel the gameplay is as good as it's going to get. If there are any flaws, they can be found and fixed in the beta period, so can I has GP stamp now?

Given the fairly recent changes, I think what I'll do is give a couple of days for people to point out any game-breaking flaws we may have missed, and if there's nothing disastrous that needs fixing, I'll stamp it then.

[natty dread]

Am I seeing in double?

Given the fairly recent changes, I think what I'll do is give a couple of days for people to point out any game-breaking flaws we may have missed, and if there's nothing disastrous that needs fixing, I'll stamp it then.

Ok, that sounds fair enough. Thanks.

[Coleman]

I'm glad I have nothing constructive to say because it would push your map back another 3-5 days. Just wanted to pop in to say I love this and I wish more people were making maps of this kind. Not all new maps have to be brain teasers.

[natty dread]

I'm glad I have nothing constructive to say because it would push your map back another 3-5 days. Just wanted to pop in to say I love this and I wish more people were making maps of this kind. Not all new maps have to be brain teasers.

Well thanks! You know, I kinda agree. I just started my first game on Das Schloss, and my first turn my face looked like for about 15 minutes before I made move... that's not to say I don't enjoy maps that require more thought, it's just they all need some dedication and usually more than a few games before you get the hang of the strategy. However I mostly like to play the simple maps, the ones that you can take one look at and figure it out. Guess I'm kinda lazy...

[Evil DIMwit]

Ian has communicated some conern to me:

still a bit uneasy on the fact that there are 3 adjacent northern bonuses that are the smallest in terms of number of regions, which can be addressed by either reducing iceland to +1 (total +2 - instead of +3 - for a 2-border region including autodeploy) or by reducing all capitals to 2 neutrals; 6 start positions will also have a more controlled effect than 9 (6 excluding copenhagen, which can be attacked by 3 regions - experience from castle lands shows that neutrals can be a big deterrent).

[natty dread]

Ian has communicated some conern to me:

still a bit uneasy on the fact that there are 3 adjacent northern bonuses that are the smallest in terms of number of regions, which can be addressed by either reducing iceland to +1 (total +2 - instead of +3 - for a 2-border region including autodeploy) or by reducing all capitals to 2 neutrals; 6 start positions will also have a more controlled effect than 9 (6 excluding copenhagen, which can be attacked by 3 regions - experience from castle lands shows that neutrals can be a big deterrent).

Hmm. Well, I think Iceland is quite balanced as it is now. I wouldn't want to disrupt that balance.

Check out the data on bonus combinations in the first post, where all the combinations that are most likely to be held in games are listed and added up. You'll see that they are currently in quite a good balance.

also, 6 starting positions would not work for 8 player games, and I want everyone to have a chance to go for the capitals even at 7-8 player games. I can reduce one starting point if you think that is appropriate.

Capitals reduced to 2:s... I'm a bit unsure on that. If they're too easy to take, won't it be possible that one player can get lucky and grab several in the early game which gives him the advantage? There was even talk of increasing them to 4:s, but as said it could render them useless, especially in escalating games. 3 seems a good value to me, but I'm not opposed to changing them to 2:s if you think it will be better for the gameplay.

edit: here's the bonus data.

Bonus combo / territory count/ border count / total bonus value, incl. autodeploy

N. Norway & Finnish Lapland / 8 / 3 / 6
Denmark & Gothland / 13 / 3 / 6

Denmark, Faroe & Iceland / 14 / 3 / 7
Iceland, Svalbard & N.Norway / 11 / 4 / 7
Denmark, Faroe & Gothland / 14 / 3 / 7
Finnish Lapland, N.Norway & Svalbard / 9 / 4 / 7

Gothland & Sweden Proper / 11 / 6 / 8
Sweden proper & Norrland / 12 / 6 / 9
All Norway / 14 / 5 / 10
All Finland / 15 / 4 / 10
Finnish Lapland, Norrland & North Norway / 15 / 5 / 10
^ the same + Svalbard / 16 / 6 / 11

All Norway & Svalbard / 15 / 6 / 12

All Sweden / 18 / 7 / 14
All Norway, Svalbard & Iceland / 21 / 6 / 15

All seem balanced to me. Also, if you run Iceland through the bonus calculator it gives the value 3.33.

[Evil DIMwit]

Capitals reduced to 2:s... I'm a bit unsure on that. If they're too easy to take, won't it be possible that one player can get lucky and grab several in the early game which gives him the advantage? There was even talk of increasing them to 4:s, but as said it could render them useless, especially in escalating games. 3 seems a good value to me, but I'm not opposed to changing them to 2:s if you think it will be better for the gameplay.

I agree with 3, since it seems to work perfectly well in Europe 1914.

[natty dread]

Ok. Here's a version with capitals changed into 2:s. Also new mountains.

Click image to enlarge.

edit. oh damn, now you agree with 3. Well, it's not hard to change back. Also I marked the starting positions with red 3:s, and decided to remove Bornholm from the starting point list, bringing the starting points down to 8.

[natty dread]

Actually, now that I think of it, it doesn't make much sense to reduce the starting positions, since none of them start neutral anyway, so if only 8 of them is coded as starting positions, the one leftover will be given out randomly. As will happen to leftovers anyway. So having 9 starting positions makes more sense in 3 player games at least, and there's no difference in 4-8 player games. And e_dw wanted the capitals back to 3:s.

I don't know, I guess we could saw this back-and-forth ad nauseum, but it wouldn't make the map any better. I think the concerns regarding Iceland have pretty much been addressed with adding that one route between Troms and Austurland. If Iceland only had +1 bonus it would be pretty much worthless: if you need to take 6 territories, and you only get a bonus of +2 in return - and half of it autodeployed in one spot - I don't think anyone is going to bother with it.

Also: you guys do realize that the capitals are required for the bonus of the bonus area they are in? So I don't think there's that much worry about them being left untaken.

So here's again the version with n3:s in capitals, and 9 starting points.

Click image to enlarge.

How's this: I'll keep the gameplay as it is for now, and if beta testing shows any major imbalances, I will gladly agree to any changes to fix them...

[Evil DIMwit]

Pretty much my thinking. That's all concerns addressed in my book. Stamped.

[natty dread]

Yayy, thanks wit

* me does the happy-happy dance *




...and on to graphics development.

There have been several graphics suggestions during the gp shop that have been postponed until the map is in gfx shop, and now that it is I'd be glad to hear out any graphics nitpicks.

If I recall correctly, one was concerning with the colours, particularly Denmark caused some unsatisfaction. I think a light red / rose hue was suggested for the country.

Another subject was the frames, I think it was ender who liked the ironwork frames on the minimap better than the current stone/marble style. If you want to compare I can dig up a version with the ironwork frames...

Now, how do you like those new mountains? I think they fit the overall visual style better than the old mountains, although the old mountains did look a bit more natural...

Well, this should give some fodder for debate for a few pages...

[thenobodies80]

Welcome to the graphics workshop.

[natty dread]

Wow thanks nobodies. Should I wipe my shoes before I come in?

[jpcloet]

Congrats on making it to the next stage. Here is what I initially see....

1) The river impassible is very hard to see and some of the mid area beveling looks like a river. If there is only one river based on the smaller legend, then you need to find another way to separate the smaller bonus areas. I don't have a current suggestion but a slight change in texture is something I'd try first.

2) Due to placement of text, I can't tell if Askerhus is attached to Bohuslan. I would assum they are but I can't tell.

3) The dark blue text at the top (2 lines) and on the west (1 line) is on top of dark blue water and difficult to see

4) I am not a fan of outlining in a fuzzy color, I'd rather have a full color for the countries. Unless the grey in the middle of each bonus area means something.

[Gillipig]

Actually, now that I think of it, it doesn't make much sense to reduce the starting positions, since none of them start neutral anyway, so if only 8 of them is coded as starting positions, the one leftover will be given out randomly. As will happen to leftovers anyway. So having 9 starting positions makes more sense in 3 player games at least, and there's no difference in 4-8 player games. And e_dw wanted the capitals back to 3:s.

I don't know, I guess we could saw this back-and-forth ad nauseum, but it wouldn't make the map any better. I think the concerns regarding Iceland have pretty much been addressed with adding that one route between Troms and Austurland. If Iceland only had +1 bonus it would be pretty much worthless: if you need to take 6 territories, and you only get a bonus of +2 in return - and half of it autodeployed in one spot - I don't think anyone is going to bother with it.

Also: you guys do realize that the capitals are required for the bonus of the bonus area they are in? So I don't think there's that much worry about them being left untaken.

So here's again the version with n3:s in capitals, and 9 starting points.

Click image to enlarge.

How's this: I'll keep the gameplay as it is for now, and if beta testing shows any major imbalances, I will gladly agree to any changes to fix them...

May I suggest a change in colour for each country? Turn Sweden yellow, Denmark red, Norway more strongly blue and Finland white. These are colours that the countries have in their national flags.