Nordic Countries [Quenched]

[ender516]

I like what you did with the title but I haven't found what the other changes are yet, maybe they're to small to notice ?

Just keep comparing this and the previous image, it'll come to you...

hint: lower right corner

I noticed the new iron work yesterday but didn't have time to praise it. It's a nice extra.

[natty dread]

I noticed the new iron work yesterday but didn't have time to praise it. It's a nice extra.

Thanks. I also made another variant, now we can choose which one is better:

v.35

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

Ok, so I got some input from the gameplay mods, so I wanted to bring this to the discussion, to gauge the opinion of the general public as well.

Suggestion #1: Getting rid of Svalbard

Pros: making the map less cluttered, and easier access from Iceland to the mainland (although the benefit of this is debatable). Also Svalbard not being in scale with the rest of the map, may seem strange to some.

Cons: Svalbard acts as an easy way to expand from N.Norway. Also it balances the bonuses of Norway & Finland: All of Finland gives 12 troops, with 4 borders to defend. All of Norway only gives 10, with 5 borders. With Svalbard, Norway also gets 12 troops, with 6 borders to defend... Without it, the only reasonable way to expand would be taking Iceland, so Finland would have a big advantage against Norway, possibly making Norway a dead zone.


If this is done, Faroe could be used to give a bonus when held with either South Norway or Denmark...


Suggestion #2: Merging South & Central Finland, giving it a bonus value of 4 or 5


Ok, so this could be a way of making the Finland area more balanced. It could work.

Possible Alternative: add another impassable between South Finland & Central Finland, making south finland a +3 and central finland a +2, making the total bonus of them a +5.

This would help with the bonus balance, if Svalbard is removed.

So, opinions anyone?

I could go either way. On one hand Svalbard brings a nice add to the gameplay, but on the other it does look a bit messy, having all those insets there.

With regards to Finland... well, another big bonus area could be nice, and it would balance the strength of finland a bit... but on that other hand again, I'm a bit worried, would Finland become a dead zone if this was done? Would the combined south & central Finland be too hard to take?

[Evil DIMwit]

Suggestion #2: Merging South & Central Finland, giving it a bonus value of 4 or 5

Ok, so this could be a way of making the Finland area more balanced. It could work.

Possible Alternative: add another impassable between South Finland & Central Finland, making south finland a +3 and central finland a +2, making the total bonus of them a +5.

The reason behind the suggestion to merge is that the map already has quite a few small, continents; and that anyone who holds South Finland would probably aim to expand to Central Finland anyway, and vice versa.

[natty dread]

The reason behind the suggestion to merge is that the map already has quite a few small, continents; and that anyone who holds South Finland would probably aim to expand to Central Finland anyway, and vice versa.

Ah, ok... well then... that does make sense.

[natty dread]

OK, here's a version with south & central finland merged to one bonus area. Svalbard is still included, as I'm not yet sure if it should stay on the map or no.

Also a connection between Faroe & Trondelag has been added.

Click image to enlarge.

edit..

The possible gameplay options concerning svalbard:

1. Keep Svalbard; keep the map as it is now.

2. Remove Svalbard and edit the bonus for Faroe: It would give +1 if held with Denmark, and +2 if held with All Norway. If both are held, the higher bonus counts.

Also, if we go with the merged south&central Finland, Kainuu border will be modified so it borders Kemijärvi, this will give the area 3 borders.


edit2.

Also: if Svalbard is removed, we need to consider which 3 territories will be made to start neutral. Faroe & Åland are out of question, as they are starting points. This leaves the other dead-end territories... Bornholm & Pohjois-Karjala both only connect to 1 other territory. Gotland & Vestfirdir connect to 2, but they could also be considered.

[natty dread]

Ok just a quick update, made the font better (I think)

v.36a

Click image to enlarge.

In case people didn't notice, I put up a poll about the Svalbard issue... Svalbard vs. No Svalbard is 2-0 for Svalbard atm... Svalbard is winning... Go Svalbard... But of course Svalbard would like it more if you would post your Svalbard-related opinions here in the thread...

[Gillipig]

Ok, so I got some input from the gameplay mods, so I wanted to bring this to the discussion, to gauge the opinion of the general public as well.

Suggestion #1: Getting rid of Svalbard

Pros: making the map less cluttered, and easier access from Iceland to the mainland (although the benefit of this is debatable). Also Svalbard not being in scale with the rest of the map, may seem strange to some.

Cons: Svalbard acts as an easy way to expand from N.Norway. Also it balances the bonuses of Norway & Finland: All of Finland gives 12 troops, with 4 borders to defend. All of Norway only gives 10, with 5 borders. With Svalbard, Norway also gets 12 troops, with 6 borders to defend... Without it, the only reasonable way to expand would be taking Iceland, so Finland would have a big advantage against Norway, possibly making Norway a dead zone.


If this is done, Faroe could be used to give a bonus when held with either South Norway or Denmark...


Suggestion #2: Merging South & Central Finland, giving it a bonus value of 4 or 5


Ok, so this could be a way of making the Finland area more balanced. It could work.

Possible Alternative: add another impassable between South Finland & Central Finland, making south finland a +3 and central finland a +2, making the total bonus of them a +5.

This would help with the bonus balance, if Svalbard is removed.

So, opinions anyone?

I could go either way. On one hand Svalbard brings a nice add to the gameplay, but on the other it does look a bit messy, having all those insets there.

With regards to Finland... well, another big bonus area could be nice, and it would balance the strength of finland a bit... but on that other hand again, I'm a bit worried, would Finland become a dead zone if this was done? Would the combined south & central Finland be too hard to take?

If you're going to have Åland, Föröarna and Bornholm you got to have Svalbard as well. It would be unfair to include a mini Island like Färöarna but not include Svalbard (which is much bigger). Like you said it also brings more value to the northern part of the map, which otherwise isn't as attractive (from a strategic points of view) as the southern. Keep it for sure!

[Gillipig]

Ok just a quick update, made the font better (I think)

v.36a

Click image to enlarge.

In case people didn't notice, I put up a poll about the Svalbard issue... Svalbard vs. No Svalbard is 2-0 for Svalbard atm... Svalbard is winning... Go Svalbard... But of course Svalbard would like it more if you would post your Svalbard-related opinions here in the thread...

Yeah somehow it's less complicated for the eye with that font!

[natty dread]

If you're going to have Åland, Föröarna and Bornholm you got to have Svalbard as well. It would be unfair to include a mini Island like Färöarna but not include Svalbard (which is much bigger). Like you said it also brings more value to the northern part of the map, which otherwise isn't as attractive (from a strategic points of view) as the southern. Keep it for sure!

Gotcha... Svalbard is winning 4-0

Yeah somehow it's less complicated for the eye with that font!

Hehe... actually, I kinda tricked you. It's the same font, but with drop shadow instead of outline!

[skepticCS]

First of all, you need to make Åland it's own continent with +10 bonus in recognition of it being the awesomest autonomous, demilitarized protectorate ever!

Other than that, I say keep Svalbard. I don't feel the map is cluttered, I just think you are effectively using the space you've got. I think figuring out what do with the gap its removal would leave would be more troublesome. The balance it brings to N. Norway is probably the best reason for keeping it.

I'm on the fence about combining in Finland. Sure you run the risk of it being useless divided, but you run an equal risk making it so big no one can take/hold it. Maybe you should increase the impassibles on the border between the two bonuses to make them slightly easier to hold. That might be a bad idea though...

[natty dread]

First of all, you need to make Åland it's own continent with +10 bonus in recognition of it being the awesomest autonomous, demilitarized protectorate ever!

Oh sure. Why don't I make it a game objective while I'm at it, so whoever holds Åland wins automaticly

Other than that, I say keep Svalbard. I don't feel the map is cluttered, I just think you are effectively using the space you've got. I think figuring out what do with the gap its removal would leave would be more troublesome. The balance it brings to N. Norway is probably the best reason for keeping it.

Svalbard - No Svalbard 5-0.

I'm on the fence about combining in Finland. Sure you run the risk of it being useless divided, but you run an equal risk making it so big no one can take/hold it. Maybe you should increase the impassibles on the border between the two bonuses to make them slightly easier to hold. That might be a bad idea though...

Well, the strong position of holding all of Finland would make up for it... I think it's appropriate that taking Finland will be hard, but when you manage to hold it you'll have a very strong position against rest of the map.

Finland is already quite easy to defend, when you manage to take it. Compare Finland vs. Norway:

Norway: bonus +10, 5 borders, 14 territories
Finland: bonus +12, 4 borders, 15 territories

Here's where Svalbard comes in, as with Svalbard you can have

Norway + Svalbard: +12, 6 borders, 15 territories

...Anyway, I have confidence that the GP mods knew what they were talking about, when they asked me to merge south & central Finland. It'll be fine.

Thanks for the feedback!

[natty dread]

Since the new font style was well received, I went ahead and changed all of them.

Click image to enlarge.

[ender516]

If you are not going to use the ironwork frame for the inset map, which I did rather like, I will say that I like the colour of the new frame (looks like polished granite). But could you fix the jaggies at the rounded corners?

[natty dread]

If you are not going to use the ironwork frame for the inset map, which I did rather like, I will say that I like the colour of the new frame (looks like polished granite). But could you fix the jaggies at the rounded corners?

Coincidence much? I just fixed them about 5 minutes ago. Haven't saved the new version as png yet though, so you'll have to wait until tomorrow to see it, I'm going to sleep...

I don't know, I could go back to the ironwork frame. That can be decided in the gfx shop though, where we can get much more opinions on graphics. I think I now have what, 3-4 different frame designs to choose from...

[natty dread]

I did something with the frames... check it out:

Click image to enlarge.

[ender516]

The new frame is nice, but might be overdone. I think I prefer the original ironwork.
Also, I just noticed the ghostly writing about the island bonuses. Good idea. Does this mean that the other legend is not necessary, or would it be if the ghostly text were more obvious? And if that other legend were gone, would it be worth reconsidering the Lappland bonus, using the hoofprint texture as we discussed earlier?

[natty dread]

The new frame is nice, but might be overdone. I think I prefer the original ironwork.

Yeah... just something I wanted to try. Well, the ironwork frame was nice, but it kinda seems to me that the stone frame might fit the overall visual theme of the map better... I don't know. I guess we'll find out in the graphics workshop. One option would be to use the ironwork for the insets, and the stone frame for the minimap... Perhaps I'll do a version like that to see how it looks.

Also, I just noticed the ghostly writing about the island bonuses. Good idea. Does this mean that the other legend is not necessary, or would it be if the ghostly text were more obvious?

I was kinda thinking I could just keep both of them. After all it's how it's done on the third crusade map, the territories that are "extensions" to larger bonuses are marked twice, with the "+1":s in the map and with a more verbose explanation in the legend. Which seems like a good system to me, when you look at the map you'll see instantly that this region has some kind of bonus, but if the brief text isn't clear to you then you can consult the longer text in the legend which explains it more thoroughly.

And if that other legend were gone, would it be worth reconsidering the Lappland bonus, using the hoofprint texture as we discussed earlier?

Yeah... I'm still a bit on the fence on that one. On one hand, it'd be a nice addition. I'd like it if Lapland had some recognition in this map. After all, half of my family is from lapland... But on the other hand... I'm afraid it would throw off the gameplay balance again. It'd either become a too strong bonus that would overpower the rest of the map, and even if it would fit the gameplay it wouldn't be very realistic: if there actually was a war in the nordic countries, the lapland region wouldn't probably be a very strong area... No major cities, sparse resources... The other possibility would be that the bonus wouldn't be very useful in the gameplay and nobody would try to hold it.

Anyway, holding north norway and finnish lapland together is already a kind of a "lapland bonus". It will give you +7 troops, and if you add svalbard to that it will become +8. But maybe something like holding the northern areas of all 3 countries could give an extra +1 or +2... it could be considered.

[Gillipig]

I did something with the frames... check it out:

Click image to enlarge.

If South Norway and South Finland gets 4 and 5 in bonus what's the logic in Norrland getting 6? They both have 3 more territs and South Finland has 3 equally many borders to protect as Norrlnad. I feel as if south finland in particular has becomed almost useless to take! Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you've overrated the difficulty of holding Norrland and given South Finland too many territs!
Just trying to be constructive .

[natty dread]

If South Norway and South Finland gets 4 and 5 in bonus what's the logic in Norrland getting 6? They both have 3 more territs and South Finland has 3 equally many borders to protect as Norrlnad. I feel as if south finland in particular has becomed almost useless to take! Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you've overrated the difficulty of holding Norrland and given South Finland too many territs!
Just trying to be constructive .

Norrland and South Finland both get as many troops. Norrland gets 6, South Finland gets 5 +1 from the capital autodeploy.

Norrland has less territories, but on the other hand it has a very central position. It borders a lot of other bonus areas. Btw Norrland has 4 borders, while south finland and south norway both only have 3.

South Norway gets 5 (4+1) so this might be appropriate to raise to 6 (5+1) especially now that it connects to faroe, and isn't so isolated anymore... I'm not sure. Have to think about it.

[skepticCS]

Well, now that you have combined the Finland bonuses, I don't see the point, gameplay-wise, of keeping the forest impassible at Pohjoiskarjala. Might as well remove it, unless you've got some good reason for keeping it.

[natty dread]

Well, now that you have combined the Finland bonuses, I don't see the point, gameplay-wise, of keeping the forest impassible at Pohjoiskarjala. Might as well remove it, unless you've got some good reason for keeping it.

Well, South Norway also has an impassable inside the bonus area. However, there's actually a mountain there, and the forest was only put in for gameplay reasons. So I guess I'll remove it.

[natty dread]

ok revised the bonus values a bit. Made norrland a +5 and south finland a +4. this way finland is a +10 and sweden is a +15.

Click image to enlarge.

[iancanton]

first of all, natty, let me say that u've made excellent progress since about page 15, especially in adding strategic impassables and making the north look just a little more like vast wilderness and not a collection of metropolises. although i haven't posted my personal opinions yet, i have been following this map quietly. the layout with a 3-zone sweden plus 2-zone finland seems to give more natural bonus zones than any other combination that we've tried so far.

If South Norway and South Finland gets 4 and 5 in bonus what's the logic in Norrland getting 6? They both have 3 more territs and South Finland has 3 equally many borders to protect as Norrlnad.

we do need more impassables in the north, where moving around is currently very easy on the map. from the wikipedia map below, the scandinavian mountains can be extended northward to the head of the river, so that they separate norra lappland from troms. this reduces the number of border regions in norrland to only 3 and lets us bring down this bonus to a more reasonable +4.

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

I like the change, I think it balances the map out more. Before it looked too much like players were going to grab Denmark and Iceland or both and then win the game.

iceland is still looking too powerful, since it's in the corner and connects to another small bonus zone. remove the imaginary connection with svalbard (which is nearly 2,000 km away - it just looks close because of where we have the inset) and have the austurland sea route go to føroyar instead - passenger ferries really do make this journey! a +1 bonus is enough for iceland because of the +1 autodeploy for reykjavik. iceland should not become everyone's favourite way to win here.

http://www.smyril-line.com/Sailing_Schedule.aspx

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

Finland is full of forests. Lots and lots of trees.

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! if we keep svalbard on the map, but as a dead-end region not connected to iceland, then possible bonuses look more as we expect: perhaps +2 for north norway (+3 including svalbard) and +2 for finnish lapland.

http://www.pasvik-taiga.no/winter_adven ... pasvik.htm

I feel as if south finland in particular has becomed almost useless to take!

from the map below of railways in finland, the only railway between north and south goes from oulu to rovaniemi. although it doesn't affect the gameplay too much, i feel that the oulu-rovaniemi border ought to be open and the trees (plus maybe lake kemijarvi) be between kemijarvi and south finland. if south finland has only 2 borders (oulu and åland), as originally, then this gives someone a great chance of holding this large zone, which is a bit like classic north america - not useless at all!

http://www.vr.fi/eng/aikataulut/reittik ... rtat.shtml

i support ur decision of having neither a multinational lapland bonus nor a baltic islands bonus, especially as the scandinavia map already has these.

ian.

[natty dread]

Wow, that's a lot of radical ideas there Iancanton! Thanks. I'll have to think these through, but some of them seem quite intriguing...

we do need more impassables in the north, where moving around is currently very easy on the map. from the wikipedia map below, the scandinavian mountains can be extended northward to the head of the river, so that they separate norra lappland from troms. this reduces the number of border regions in norrland to only 3 and lets us bring down this bonus to a more reasonable +4.

Hmm. Mountains between Norra Lappland and Troms seems reasonable. My only concern is, that this could make North Norway even more isolated. However, I like the idea otherwise.

iceland is still looking too powerful, since it's in the corner and connects to another small bonus zone.

I disagree. Svalbard and Faroe are useless to Iceland. They can't be used to grow the Iceland bonus. If you want to expand from Iceland you need to go through Faroe to Denmark or South Norway. To expand to Denmark you must take 8 territories, for South Norway you need 11. Or you can expand to North norway through Svalbard. For this you need to take 5 territories. And if you do this you'll have 2 more borders to defend.

Actually it seems to me that Denmark is much stronger than Iceland as it is now. Denmark can take Faroe with no border gain, and grow it's bonus to 4 total. It can also expand to Gothland, gaining only 1 more border, which grows it's bonus by 3.

remove the imaginary connection with svalbard (which is nearly 2,000 km away - it just looks close because of where we have the inset) and have the austurland sea route go to føroyar instead

Firstly: I don't want to make Svalbard a dead-end territory that just sticks out of Norway. It would be utterly pointless, I could just as well merge it into norway then.

Secondly: What you propose here, would only make iceland more isolated. Reykjavik already connects to faroe. If I would connect Austurland to Faroe too, You could just take iceland and faroe and then fort everything on faroe and hold the whole bonus with only one border.

Thirdly: Yes, all the sea connections are not 100% realistic. I think we should have some leeway here, as the purpose is to make a playable map after all. I don't think it matters that there is no real connection between Iceland and Svalbard. Iceland needs to be connected to Norway, and Svalbard being a dead-end territory doesn't make sense, so with all respect, I think I'm gonna pass on this one...

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.

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...

if south finland has only 2 borders (oulu and åland), as originally, then this gives someone a great chance of holding this large zone, which is a bit like classic north america - not useless at all!

Hmm. I'll have to think on this.

I'll get back to you on the changes... I'm willing to consider most of these suggestions, but I'm not going to touch Iceland or Svalbard (unless Svalbard is removed alltogether, but the voters seem to like Svalbard...) If I'm adding impassables to the lapland area, then there's no point messing with Iceland. And like I said, making Svalbard just an extension of Norway would erase a huge part of the strategy that the territory brings, and I don't want that.

Anyway, thanks for your comments and ideas. You have given me lots to think about.