Dark Continent (Colonial Africa) [Quenched]

[The Bison King]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanganyika


... oh wait maybe it should.

[Victor Sullivan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanganyika


... oh wait maybe it should.

Lol, looks like it.

-Sully

[ender516]

First to respond to all these edits:

P.S. I see that what started as Djibouti, and then became B. S. ( ) (British Somaliland, I presume) has been turned over to the Ottomans as a landing point named O. S. I presume that means we want to call it Ottoman Somaliland, a term slightly out of date by 1914, but acceptable I think for the sake of gameplay.

Yes, a necessary change, it's a shame but I was rather fond of B.S.

Okay, going ahead with Ottoman Somaliland. You should add the abbreviation somewhere in the legend.

P.P.S Some of the bonus region names seem a bit anachronistic. I would suggest the following changes:

Tanzania -> Tanganyika

Please explain that one for me. I've never heard that one and I'm curious.

I see you and Victor have worked this out. I learned about this in Grade 5 geography (no slam at you intended, I'm just reminiscing). I always thought it odd that a relatively small island (or archipelago) like Zanzibar would get equal billing in the unified name.

Angola -> Portuguese West Africa

Mozambique -> Portuguese East Africa

Namibia -> German South-West Africa

Those are just too long to fit, at the moment, if some space opens up I'll consider changing them.

Fair enough.

Cameroon -> Kamerun [it was a German colony, so the German spelling seems appropriate]

I think that's how I had it originally.

On further reflection, the map is using all English spellings now, so it may be best left alone.

Also, when the shading goes onto Germany and Portugal, I find their colours hard to distinguish. I guess it's because Portugal is a small area and most of its yellowness is shaded over. The distinction is clear in the mini-maps, but on the main map, I just don't see the colour connection between Portugal and its colonies. I suggest swapping the colours of Germany and Portugal. That way, in Europe, there will be a larger yellow area which will be more clearly yellow, while the brown will be shaded and still brown.

Maybe we'll see about that. Yellow just seems to "happy" for Germany. All of the colors are bound to change so this problem will probably disappear at the hands of an alternative solution later on.

Germany, not happy? Obviously you have never been to Oktoberfest.

I have never been really comfortable with continents and territories sharing names. It is legal, but just seems like something that might be confusing at some point. So, I would like to suggest using "Spanish Sahara" for the bonus zone in place of "Spanish Morocco", and "Anatolia" in place of "Ottoman" (the European homeland).

A bit pet peevish but I have no problem with those changes, you might have to remind me later on though.

Yes, I suppose I am being peevish. I won't push hard for these changes, but I thought I would put them out for consideration. Perhaps others will comment one way or the other.

[The Bison King]

Germany, not happy? Obviously you have never been to Oktoberfest.

From Various websites:

Oktoberfest-Zinzinnati is the biggest Oktoberfest in Cincinnati and America. Stretching almost 5 blocks on one of the major thoroughfares in downtown Cincinnati

Oktoberfest-Zinzinnati, the second largest Oktoberfest in the world next to Germany's famous celebration. They are not kidding around here either. What was once a tiny festival in downtown has become a monstrous party of drinking and eating and drinking and polka and drinking and funny hats and drinking and drinking and drinking. Also, drinking.

Cincinnati is the proud owner of the largest Oktoberfest in the United States, and it is a weekend filled with beer, food, and the occasional lederhosen or dirndls. It is standing up and being proud of our city's German heritage and our status as a sister city to Munich.

But that's a little off topic... what did you think of the start locations I posted Ender?

[ender516]

I would dispute the claim to second largest, unless the meaning is Germany's is largest out right, and Kitchener-Waterloo in Ontario is the largest next to that, and Oktoberfest-Zinzinnati (love that spelling) is the second largest. But we digress.

I have not had time to study the start locations yet. The first thing I wanted to understand was why there were nine landing points and eight European powers. Does Great Britain get an extra because it must defend against so many other powers?

I will also try to load up MrBenn's calculator. It was helpful to me on Thyseneal, and once I have a solid understanding of the bonuses, I will be able to judge the starts.

[The Bison King]

I have not had time to study the start locations yet. The first thing I wanted to understand was why there were nine landing points and eight European powers. Does Great Britain get an extra because it must defend against so many other powers?

That and it has the most bonuses/terts in Africa.

[ender516]

Ok maybe I don't understand how start locations work entirely but I figured this would at least get the ball rolling. Here's my proposal on how to block bonuses at the start.

Of course this only predicts 8 player games....

Okay, a few thoughts:

If the starting positions give the Ottoman player a territory in British East Africa, shouldn't the Great Britain player get a territory in the Ottoman Empire? Those two bonus zones are at odds with each other anyway, what with the overlap in Egypt. I suggest using Mesopotamia and dropping Tunisia from the starting positions.

Also, there are eight zones which have two starting position territories in them. I think it would be best to mix the pairings as evenly as possible. As you have it now, Spain and Portugal are facing off in Libya and Namibia. Since these European powers are also adjacent to each other, we seem to be setting them up to spend a lot of time fighting each other, which may leave other(s) free to ignore them and make advances with less opposition. To achieve what I think would be a more even set of pairings, I suggest that, where possible, the pairs be taken from the following set:

• Ottoman v. France
• France v. Portugal
• Portugal v. Great Britain
• Great Britain v. Italy
• Italy v. Germany
• Germany v. Spain
• Spain v. Belgium
• Belgium v. Ottoman

None of these pairs border each other in Europe.

Now, these pairs should be placed so that neither one of the pair is the European power associated with the bonus zone being broken up. These are the zones, each with its European power:

• Spanish Morocco - Spain
• Libya - Italy
• Italian Somalia - Italy
• Cameroon - Germany
• Angola - Portugal
• Namibia - Germany
• South Africa - Great Britain

The last two starting territories would be Uganda and Mesopotamia, which should not be given to either Great Britain or Ottoman.

I am working on a spreadsheet that plots these regions against the set of pairs, where we can note what is forbidden and record combinations which might work, but I am too tired to get it all done and convert it for posting here.

Final thought for now: If possible, we should avoid putting pairs in Angola, Namibia, and South Africa which set up an unfair concentration of one player's territories. There might be other places where such considerations are important as well.

[The Bison King]

Ok maybe I don't understand how start locations work entirely but I figured this would at least get the ball rolling. Here's my proposal on how to block bonuses at the start.

Of course this only predicts 8 player games....

Okay, a few thoughts:

If the starting positions give the Ottoman player a territory in British East Africa, shouldn't the Great Britain player get a territory in the Ottoman Empire? Those two bonus zones are at odds with each other anyway, what with the overlap in Egypt. I suggest using Mesopotamia and dropping Tunisia from the starting positions.

Also, there are eight zones which have two starting position territories in them. I think it would be best to mix the pairings as evenly as possible. As you have it now, Spain and Portugal are facing off in Libya and Namibia. Since these European powers are also adjacent to each other, we seem to be setting them up to spend a lot of time fighting each other, which may leave other(s) free to ignore them and make advances with less opposition. To achieve what I think would be a more even set of pairings, I suggest that, where possible, the pairs be taken from the following set:

• Ottoman v. France
• France v. Portugal
• Portugal v. Great Britain
• Great Britain v. Italy
• Italy v. Germany
• Germany v. Spain
• Spain v. Belgium
• Belgium v. Ottoman

None of these pairs border each other in Europe.

Now, these pairs should be placed so that neither one of the pair is the European power associated with the bonus zone being broken up. These are the zones, each with its European power:

• Spanish Morocco - Spain
• Libya - Italy
• Italian Somalia - Italy
• Cameroon - Germany
• Angola - Portugal
• Namibia - Germany
• South Africa - Great Britain

The last two starting territories would be Uganda and Mesopotamia, which should not be given to either Great Britain or Ottoman.

I am working on a spreadsheet that plots these regions against the set of pairs, where we can note what is forbidden and record combinations which might work, but I am too tired to get it all done and convert it for posting here.

Final thought for now: If possible, we should avoid putting pairs in Angola, Namibia, and South Africa which set up an unfair concentration of one player's territories. There might be other places where such considerations are important as well.

All of this makes a great deal of sense. I give you full permission to implement the changes you have discussed. Can we get a look at this spread sheet you are working on?

[ender516]

Still fiddling with the spreadsheet. (Don't get too excited about it; it's just a structured note, nothing magic.)

Does anyone know why I can't attach files here, but I can in the Baltic Crusades topic? Is it only possible in Final Forge?

EDIT:
Here is a baseline version:

Click image to enlarge.

This just shows the obviously excluded possibilities. Now, I started to put in the restriction from my "final thought", but I realized that it would mean that only the Ottoman v. France, Spain v. Belgium, and Belgium v. Ottoman pairs would be available for Angola, Namibia, and South Africa, and that would be rather restrictive for Belgium (all clumped into the southern hemisphere) while still leaving it rather close to the Belgian Congo. So for now, I am not putting that second restriction into the sheet right now. Does anyone want to suggest a layout?

[The Bison King]

Ok we need to get this done. Is the idea to block as many bonuses with as few players as possible in the event of a 2v2 or does that matter?

[ender516]

To get things rolling, I decided to go ahead with the restrictions in Angola, Namibia, and South Africa. I will try to nail down specific territories for the starting positions and post them here this weekend, with a sample image.

Click image to enlarge.

[The Bison King]

Sorry for the long delay.

Click image to enlarge.

K, this sticks to your above chart for the most part. I changed a few things cause I thought Italy and Germany were a little bit at odds with each other. Also Ottoman/Belgium had a bit of conflict at the bottom of the map. I think this should work, right? It seems pretty fair.

[The Bison King]

Can I get some feed back on this? I'm a little lost in this department. I'm wondering how this will pan out in 2-4 player scenarios. Maybe it's best we just drop a neutral on all the +3's and have 55 start locations.

[isaiah40]

That's okay so am I. Marshal and Tactix are currently unavailable, so if you can please explain what you mean by:

Maybe it's best we just drop a neutral on all the +3's and have 55 start locations.

Maybe I'm just missing something here.

[The Bison King]

Well it's my understanding that the goal of this sticky is to resolve the issue of players starting with a bonus upon the initial drop before we move this into the graphics workshop. This was something we solved on Thyseneal by coding start locations into the XML, but pretty much Ender did that and I merely ok'd what he did. I'm kind of stabbing at what needs to happen here. On Thyseneal the 3 first players were coded to start a certain way so that the maximum # of bonuses were blocked with the minimum amount of players. On this map there MUST be 8 players coded to start a certain way since there are 8 European powers. Otherwise players might start with multiple European powers which is hugely unfair.


THEREFORE:

The question I pose now is: can we code different amounts of start locations to different players?

Can players 1, 2, & 3 start with 5 coded spots and players 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 only start with 1. They would start with the same amount of territories but more of the later joining players terts. would be random. Do you see? so that a 2-3 player game could start as fair as an 8 player game. Or do all players need an equal amount of coded start locations.

If the answer to this question is "No" then we should just dump a neutral on all 2-3 territory bonuses and only code 1 start territory (the European nations) to each of the 8 players so that a 2 player game can start as fairly as an 8 player game.

God I hope I'm making sense.

[natty dread]

no you can't.

[isaiah40]

Concerning the starting neutrals. I would go with setting one territory in each of the 2 and 3 territory bonuses as neutral. This way no one will get a lucky drop and start with a bonus. I'll look at it more in depth this weekend.

In the legend (top right) under 'Disputed Territories' you have "Congo-Required by both West French and German bonus" Should it read "Congo-required by both French Sahara and Cameroon Bonuses"? I looked for the West French bonus and couldn't find it. Also Egypt should be reworded to read "Egypt-required by both British East Africa and Ottoman bonuses". This will 1) make it easier for players to find, and 2) make it consistent with the bonus names you have an the map already.

Landing Territories. you use both assaulted and attack. To be consistent, use one or the other: i.e. "They can be attacked by any European power and can attack their corresponding power"

Other than these couple of items, gameplay is coming along quite nicely! Keep up the good work.

[The Bison King]

Concerning the starting neutrals. I would go with setting one territory in each of the 2 and 3 territory bonuses as neutral. This way no one will get a lucky drop and start with a bonus. I'll look at it more in depth this weekend.

In the legend (top right) under 'Disputed Territories' you have "Congo-Required by both West French and German bonus" Should it read "Congo-required by both French Sahara and Cameroon Bonuses"? I looked for the West French bonus and couldn't find it. Also Egypt should be reworded to read "Egypt-required by both British East Africa and Ottoman bonuses". This will 1) make it easier for players to find, and 2) make it consistent with the bonus names you have an the map already.

Landing Territories. you use both assaulted and attack. To be consistent, use one or the other: i.e. "They can be attacked by any European power and can attack their corresponding power"

Other than these couple of items, gameplay is coming along quite nicely! Keep up the good work.

K, all that sounds good to me. I'm going to be out of town all weekend and wont have time to work on that till I get back. If you want to run this by the other mods in the mean time that'd be swell.

[The Bison King]

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

K, here's the update, with start locations and neutrals. I also fixed the legends and added a little dirt and scuffing to the graphics.

A summary of how this starts:
All bonuses of 2-3 territories has a (2) neutral start on it to prevent an unfair initial drop. All landing territories have (3) neutral upon the start of the game. In addition to the random start locations all players will start with exactly one European power territory.

Hopefully that should address all remaining gameplay concerns.

[ender516]

Sorry to have been absent so long. I could have sworn I posted at least a short blurb after TBK's revision of my start positions, but I guess I didn't hit Submit on the Quick Reply.

If we are going the way of starting neutrals instead, I would recommend using Rhodesia in place of South Africa, so that the Zululand landing point is more like the others. Also, to avoid a clump of neutrals, I would use Bagamayo instead of Dar es Salaam and Lourenco Marques instead of Niassa.

EDIT:

I did a quick check with MrBenn's Bonus Calculator and realized it is out of date, as it does not deal with maps which set a maximum on the number of starting positions given to a player. This will affect the number of starting territories for games with less than 5 players. Unfortunately, I am too tired to correct the numbers by hand.

[isaiah40]

Looks good, but you forgot a neutral in Cameroon. Also can you please update the first post with the total territories, total territories starting neutral and any other information that is needed to see at first glance without having to go through the whole thread to find the information. Thank you in advance.

[The Bison King]

but you forgot a neutral in Cameroon.

No I didn't. Camaroon is 4 territories since the Congo is part of the bonus.

Also can you please update the first post with the total territories, total territories starting neutral and any other information that is needed to see at first glance without having to go through the whole thread to find the information.

Yep.

[isaiah40]

but you forgot a neutral in Cameroon.

No I didn't. Camaroon is 4 territories since the Congo is part of the bonus.

D'oh!

[The Bison King]

If we are going the way of starting neutrals instead, I would recommend using Rhodesia in place of South Africa, so that the Zululand landing point is more like the others. Also, to avoid a clump of neutrals, I would use Bagamayo instead of Dar es Salaam and Lourenco Marques instead of Niassa.

Sorry for the slow respond, this got bumped of the current page and I forgot about it.

On the case of using South Rhodesia instead of South Africa as a neutral point agree. Regarding the others I think I'll move Da es Salaam to Bagamoyo but leave Niassa alone, as to avoid creating a pocket tha'ts surrounded by neutrals.

[The Bison King]

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Boom, as such.