Eurasia Map [Old thread]

[natty dread]

I think, I'd rather go for a simple design like this - seems to me to fit the style of the map:

Click image to enlarge.

[Kabanellas]

somehow i miss the towers... and they are important as a representative aspect of the Great Wall....

[The Bison King]

I'd say that's the right direction

[Victor Sullivan]

I have some gameplay suggestions

West Europe - I think this should be reduced to a +2; it's off in the corner, and Spain's border with Maghreb isn't much of one, given Africa has no bonus, so no one's really going to be competing much in that area.
Near East - 8 regions, 4 borders; Given Iraq and its relative centrality, you could probably go as much as +6 here (and as low as +5, if you wish), but certainly no more.
Central Russia - I think this one should be +6: 6 borders, 8 regions, 5 adjacent bonus areas. I think a good comparison/contrast would be to European Russia, which is a suitable +7: 6 borders, 10 regions, 6 adjacent bonus areas.
West Siberia - 7 borders, 8 regions, and a striped region (East Sakha) - I think you could easily go +7 here. Perhaps +8, but I think it's a stretch.
East Siberia - Despite its being off in a corner, I think a +4 may be appropriate here, given its 4 borders and East Sakha.
West India - With its 5 borders and striped region (Central India), I think this warrants an up to +5. I might consider upping East India to +4 for similar reasons, but given the relative feasibility of obtaining the super bonus, I think it's best to leave East India as a +3, so as to not force the super bonus to be upped to +10.

-Sully

[natty dread]

somehow i miss the towers... and they are important as a representative aspect of the Great Wall....

I'd say that's the right direction

I agree with both.

West Europe - I think this should be reduced to a +2; it's off in the corner, and Spain's border with Maghreb isn't much of one, given Africa has no bonus, so no one's really going to be competing much in that area.

I don't think so... Africa is still a border, it's a quick route between north and south here, and I'm sure people will be using it after the early game at least.

Near East - 8 regions, 4 borders; Given Iraq and its relative centrality, you could probably go as much as +6 here (and as low as +5, if you wish), but certainly no more.

Near east has 9 regions.

Central Russia - I think this one should be +6: 6 borders, 8 regions, 5 adjacent bonus areas. I think a good comparison/contrast would be to European Russia, which is a suitable +7: 6 borders, 10 regions, 6 adjacent bonus areas.

Central russia is also in a much more... central... position. But I could go for a 6 here and reduce the Asian Russia bonus further.

West Siberia - 7 borders, 8 regions, and a striped region (East Sakha) - I think you could easily go +7 here. Perhaps +8, but I think it's a stretch.
East Siberia - Despite its being off in a corner, I think a +4 may be appropriate here, given its 4 borders and East Sakha.

Don't think of them as one bonus here... West Siberia is likely to be expanded to from East Siberia and held as one big Siberia, and that bonus combination will only have 6 borders and 12 regions - +9 is a much more suitable bonus for the combination than +11.

West India - With its 5 borders and striped region (Central India), I think this warrants an up to +5. I might consider upping East India to +4 for similar reasons, but given the relative feasibility of obtaining the super bonus, I think it's best to leave East India as a +3, so as to not force the super bonus to be upped to +10.

India is one of the best defensible areas on the map, you can hold the entire India with 5 borders or 4 if you also take Tibet & Myanmar. Therefore I don't think increasing either is a good idea.

[Victor Sullivan]

West Europe - I think this should be reduced to a +2; it's off in the corner, and Spain's border with Maghreb isn't much of one, given Africa has no bonus, so no one's really going to be competing much in that area.

I don't think so... Africa is still a border, it's a quick route between north and south here, and I'm sure people will be using it after the early game at least.

Fair enough, I suppose.

Near East - 8 regions, 4 borders; Given Iraq and its relative centrality, you could probably go as much as +6 here (and as low as +5, if you wish), but certainly no more.

Near east has 9 regions.

D'oh! I missed Cyprus, ha. The point still stands, however. I still think +6 would be more well-suited.

Central Russia - I think this one should be +6: 6 borders, 8 regions, 5 adjacent bonus areas. I think a good comparison/contrast would be to European Russia, which is a suitable +7: 6 borders, 10 regions, 6 adjacent bonus areas.

Central russia is also in a much more... central... position. But I could go for a 6 here and reduce the Asian Russia bonus further.

True enough, however there are many bonus regions with central positions.

West Siberia - 7 borders, 8 regions, and a striped region (East Sakha) - I think you could easily go +7 here. Perhaps +8, but I think it's a stretch.
East Siberia - Despite its being off in a corner, I think a +4 may be appropriate here, given its 4 borders and East Sakha.

Don't think of them as one bonus here... West Siberia is likely to be expanded to from East Siberia and held as one big Siberia, and that bonus combination will only have 6 borders and 12 regions - +9 is a much more suitable bonus for the combination than +11.

Good point.

West India - With its 5 borders and striped region (Central India), I think this warrants an up to +5. I might consider upping East India to +4 for similar reasons, but given the relative feasibility of obtaining the super bonus, I think it's best to leave East India as a +3, so as to not force the super bonus to be upped to +10.

India is one of the best defensible areas on the map, you can hold the entire India with 5 borders or 4 if you also take Tibet & Myanmar. Therefore I don't think increasing either is a good idea.

[/quote]
Mmtrue. I wonder if connecting Oman to Mumbai instead of Pakistan would help? Just a random thought.

-Sully

[natty dread]

D'oh! I missed Cyprus, ha. The point still stands, however. I still think +6 would be more well-suited.

Yeah, I kinda agree. I'll lower it to 6. But I'll keep the Middle East superbonus at 22. It has more borders & regions than west europe so it should be a higher value.

Mmtrue. I wonder if connecting Oman to Mumbai instead of Pakistan would help? Just a random thought.

I don't think such a connection would make as much sense, thematically. Also I don't necessarily want to make India harder to hold. I think it's good as a small, easy superbonus.

[natty dread]

Here's an update!

Click image to enlarge.

[Victor Sullivan]

Groovy.

-Sully

[natty dread]

I got thinking, maybe the sea routes should be dashed?

Click image to enlarge.

[koontz1973]

The lines are better. As they go behind the land mass, the shorter lines look bad. You could make the lines for each route a slightly different length so you see all of the line near the land. A lot of working out for each one but the results should look far batter than what you have now.

[Victor Sullivan]

Eh, I prefer the solid lines.

-Sully

[natty dread]

Maybe something like this would work better...

Click image to enlarge.

[koontz1973]

Positive I have seen that style on a similar map before (RL map) but I stand by my original post. The lines going under the land detract from the overall look. Don't get me wrong, I love this style and hope you keep it, but the differences in length do detract from the overall look.

[natty dread]

That's something that can't really be helped... the length of the lines next to the land depends on the overall length of the route. There's just no way to make them all uniform when the routes are of different lengths, some are bound to be cut off.

[Victor Sullivan]

I think I still prefer the solid lines, but I think this is fine, too.

-Sully

[koontz1973]

That's something that can't really be helped... the length of the lines next to the land depends on the overall length of the route. There's just no way to make them all uniform when the routes are of different lengths, some are bound to be cut off.

I know and some can be forgiven, but if you look at Svalbard to Norway, it goes dash, dot, dash, dot, dot. By making the first dash shorter, you bring the last dash out more, giving it a more professional look. The same can be said between Maghreb and Greece. Some look really nice while others look like a layer in a file and not drawn/painted on. Ireland to England to France is a solid line. By breaking it up with the one dot next to England you continue the style. If you keep this, try to get the starting and ending dash the same length.

Does not matter if the first and last dashes are different lengths for different routes, but try to get them the same length for each of the individual routes.

[natty dread]

No, that's not something I'm going to do. It would require far too much work for very little gain, and I actually like the variation and imperfection in the lines. If more people have a problem with these lines, I'll just revert back to the solid ones.

[koontz1973]

Fine.

[natty dread]

Well, maybe I'll tweak them once I'm in graphics, but I won't promise anything... trying to adjust the dashes is really a huge pain in the ass and I don't see much gain in it.

[iancanton]

the mountains between caucasus and volgograd are an excellent addition. however, u've undone some of the good work by connecting volgograd to marmara. these two difficult bonuses simply don't need to be attacking each other.

cyprus logical links to israel, not to syria, to make reinforcing the border easier. u'll need to change the name from israel to something else or make the region a lot narrower, otherwise u're asking to be flamed.

i absolutely do not like the 3-region british islands bonus in the corner. if u must have a 3-region bonus there, then 2 neutrals is not enough for ireland. 3 is the minimum.

there is no "thematic" argument for a sea route between sri lanka and west indonesia. the indian pensinula super-bonus, at 10 regions and 4 borders to 4 bonuses (not counting sri lanka), is already more difficult than either europe or north america in classic, so i strongly question the desirability of a completely artificial route between two far-flung places such as this. it's certainly not necessary for gameplay.

the asian russia bonuses are misnamed: they ought to be, from left to right, west siberia, east siberia and far east.

more later, while i crunch the numbers!

ian.

[natty dread]

the mountains between caucasus and volgograd are an excellent addition. however, u've undone some of the good work by connecting volgograd to marmara. these two difficult bonuses simply don't need to be attacking each other.

I don't see how it is a big issue. Both Volgograd and Marmara are border regions (in both the bonuses and superbonuses) with or without that connection, and the connection provides some way of movement there - there's a large chain of impassables which makes movement hard in this area.

cyprus logical links to israel, not to syria, to make reinforcing the border easier. u'll need to change the name from israel to something else or make the region a lot narrower, otherwise u're asking to be flamed.

I could probably disconnect it from Iraq, but this would in turn create another border to the near east area. Also, then Syria's border would be wrong. I also don't think there's any name I could give to that region that wouldn't "offend" someone who's out looking to be offended.

I think most people understand that CC maps cannot always be 100% accurate representations of real world geopolitical situations. There just isn't a perfect solution to this issue here.

However, I can change the cyprus connection, it isn't a big deal to me.

i absolutely do not like the 3-region british islands bonus in the corner. if u must have a 3-region bonus there, then 2 neutrals is not enough for ireland. 3 is the minimum.

I can do this as well.

there is no "thematic" argument for a sea route between sri lanka and west indonesia.

Sure there is. India connects to a place with huge Indian cultural influence. It totally makes sense.

the indian pensinula super-bonus, at 10 regions and 4 borders to 4 bonuses (not counting sri lanka), is already more difficult than either europe or north america in classic, so i strongly question the desirability of a completely artificial route between two far-flung places such as this. it's certainly not necessary for gameplay.

I think you need to look at the bigger picture here. Every one of the other superbonuses (other than S.E. Asia) has at least 9 borders. In the scale of this map, 5 borders is nothing...

Also, you have to remember that by taking Myanmar and Tibet you can reduce the borders of the area to 4. Without the Sri lanka connection, that would be 3, and then it'd be way too strong an area and everyone would just go for India at the start. I want the map to have options, not one single place to go for at start.

the asian russia bonuses are misnamed: they ought to be, from left to right, west siberia, east siberia and far east.

There's already a Far East bonus on the map...

By some definitions, the entire Asian Russia area would be a part of Siberia. So maybe I should just rename the whole superbonus to Siberia and rename the bonuses to West, Central and East Siberia?

[natty dread]

So, like, some updates.

Click image to enlarge.

[The Bison King]

I guess I'll choose to believe you.

[isaiah40]

You could change Israel to Levant. If you take out the Sri Lanka - Indonesia connection then maybe lower the bonus to 7 from 8? Just a thought.