Dark Continent (Colonial Africa) [Quenched]

[ender516]

I think the Spanish and Ottoman flags need a slight change too, to make them period.




And if we're talking late 19th century then Portugal should be changed too. It changed to the current one in 1910.

I thought what you have here for Spain and Ottoman was what TBK had (if there is a difference, it is too small for my eyes), and I thought this map was set in 1914, which is why I thought the modern republican (green/red) Portuguese flag would suit our needs.

[tokle]

I think the Spanish and Ottoman flags need a slight change too, to make them period.




And if we're talking late 19th century then Portugal should be changed too. It changed to the current one in 1910.

I thought what you have here for Spain and Ottoman was what TBK had (if there is a difference, it is too small for my eyes), and I thought this map was set in 1914, which is why I thought the modern republican (green/red) Portuguese flag would suit our needs.

I think the map is meant to represent a whole era, rather than being set on one specific date.

The Spanish and Ottoman flags are slightly different. I can see it. It might not be such a big deal, but I tend to find minor details like that annoying.

[ender516]

I took a closer look, and I do see the different crests on the Spanish flags. That is probably worth fiddling with. What is the difference on the Ottoman flags, the positioning of the star?

Representing an era is a fine goal, but unfortunately, when it comes down to deciding what borders and names to use, typically a date is selected. I am pretty sure The Bison King did make a call on this, but finding it in the previous twenty-five pages is not easy. I am hoping he will recall.

[tokle]

I took a closer look, and I do see the different crests on the Spanish flags. That is probably worth fiddling with. What is the difference on the Ottoman flags, the positioning of the star?

Representing an era is a fine goal, but unfortunately, when it comes down to deciding what borders and names to use, typically a date is selected. I am pretty sure The Bison King did make a call on this, but finding it in the previous twenty-five pages is not easy. I am hoping he will recall.

It's the size and position of the moon and star.

[iancanton]

Representing an era is a fine goal, but unfortunately, when it comes down to deciding what borders and names to use, typically a date is selected. I am pretty sure The Bison King did make a call on this, but finding it in the previous twenty-five pages is not easy. I am hoping he will recall.

i believe the majority of the map is based on 1914, but with some poetic licence in places.

ignore what i said about adding a third neutral to lourenco marques in my previous post, since there are no longer any southern african neutrals.

my bonus recommendations are: south africa +3 (+4) instead of +2 (+3), east africa +4 (+6) instead of +3 (+4), libya +3 (+4) instead of +2 (+3), egypt +3 (+4) instead of +2 (+3), angola +3 (+4) instead of +2 (+3) and french sahara +7 (+10) instead of +5 (+9). in every case, this is to make the bigger bonuses more worthwhile when compared with the 2-region bonuses; spanish morocco, belgian congo, ottoman empire and cameroon are fairly valued already. can we see the neutrals on the map?

ian.

[The Bison King]

I seem to remember there being a discussion about this at an earlier stage, and there might have been a new one that I've missed. But "Greece" is a very wrong label for that territory. I would suggest Rumelia or Balkan.

And again, is there no-one else who think it looks wrong to have the present-day flags for historical countries?

Balkans fixed.

I'm going to Address the Flag situation. I didn't do it on this update because I was mostly focusing on changes that had an impact on the gameplay.

The German and Italian flag I will definitely be changing. The differences on the Spanish and Ottoman ones are so minimal that changeing it would probably not even be noticable. As for Portugal that's a toss up. Technically either could be fine seeming as the flag switch right in the middle of this maps intended era. So really it'll just come down to which one I think looks better.

Bosnia and Herzegovina was in Austria and Hungary from 1878, and southeastern half of Romania was never part of Austria and Hungary(and with that Austria and Hungary didn't had access to black sea)

Interesting. but I'll probably leave it as though. I prefer keeping that path to Ottoman open, and the alternative would be recombining Austria-Hungary and the Balkans and that definitely would be less accurate.

Representing an era is a fine goal, but unfortunately, when it comes down to deciding what borders and names to use, typically a date is selected. I am pretty sure The Bison King did make a call on this, but finding it in the previous twenty-five pages is not easy. I am hoping he will recall.

i believe the majority of the map is based on 1914, but with some poetic licence in places.

ignore what i said about adding a third neutral to lourenco marques in my previous post, since there are no longer any southern african neutrals.

my bonus recommendations are: south africa +3 (+4) instead of +2 (+3), east africa +4 (+6) instead of +3 (+4), libya +3 (+4) instead of +2 (+3), egypt +3 (+4) instead of +2 (+3), angola +3 (+4) instead of +2 (+3) and french sahara +7 (+10) instead of +5 (+9). in every case, this is to make the bigger bonuses more worthwhile when compared with the 2-region bonuses; spanish morocco, belgian congo, ottoman empire and cameroon are fairly valued already. can we see the neutrals on the map?

ian.

I made all the changes in bonus value on this version and, I updated it with little 88's on the neutral territories (large map only).

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

And after a few earlier changes it on;y turn out to have 18 neuts on it now.

[iancanton]

And after a few earlier changes it on;y turn out to have 18 neuts on it now.

make that 19. french congo is missing 2 neutral troops.

8 start positions plus 46 non-neutral regions gives 19 regions each for 2-player and 13 regions each for 4-player. good numbers.

ian.

[The Bison King]

make that 19. french congo is missing 2 neutral troops.

Oh durf! good call.

8 start positions plus 46 non-neutral regions gives 19 regions each for 2-player and 13 regions each for 4-player. good numbers.

Good good!

[natty dread]

8 start positions plus 46 non-neutral regions gives 19 regions each for 2-player

It gives 18 for 3-player though...

[The Bison King]

8 start positions plus 46 non-neutral regions gives 19 regions each for 2-player

It gives 18 for 3-player though...

Whats wrong with 18?

Divisible by 3?

[natty dread]

8 start positions plus 46 non-neutral regions gives 19 regions each for 2-player

It gives 18 for 3-player though...

Whats wrong with 18?

Divisible by 3?

Yeah, the starting player gets +6 troops, and gets to attack another player and drop him to +5... It's an advantage to whoever starts first. That's why there are the "golden numbers" for starting territory amounts.

[tokle]

All my issues have been addressed, then. Thank you.
It's looking good. Well done.

[The Bison King]

One small self imposed changed before stampage.

Removing the River Impasse that blocks Zululand. I think it's just better to leave that a little more open.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[iancanton]

8 start positions plus 46 non-neutral regions gives 19 regions each for 2-player

It gives 18 for 3-player though...

isn't it 17 regions each for 3-player? 2 start positions plus 15 other regions for each player, with 2 leftover positions neutral and 1 random region neutral? i assume that all 8 start positions are coded as underlying neutral, since they have an auto-deploy bonus.

removing the river opens up mozambique, which is probably a positive move.

does eritrea and djibouti landing points being adjacent cause any unfairness? in new world, this would be an easy way to eliminate someone. here, any colonial power can attack any landing point, so that doesn't apply. i'd say there's very little wrong with this arrangement and both players just have to be very careful of each other.

ian.

[natty dread]

isn't it 17 regions each for 3-player? 2 start positions plus 15 other regions for each player, with 2 leftover positions neutral and 1 random region neutral? i assume that all 8 start positions are coded as underlying neutral, since they have an auto-deploy bonus.

Yeah, if the starting positions are coded as neutral, then it's 17.

[The Bison King]

What does "underyling neutral" mean? The start positions Are the Colonial powers which are intended to be divided amongst the players.

does eritrea and djibouti landing points being adjacent cause any unfairness? in new world, this would be an easy way to eliminate someone. here, any colonial power can attack any landing point, so that doesn't apply. i'd say there's very little wrong with this arrangement and both players just have to be very careful of each other.

It makes absolutely no difference since you don't have to attack Colonial powers from landing points. It's actually a longer route to attack Djibouti to Eritrea to Italy when you could just attack Austria Hungary to Italy.

[natty dread]

What does "underyling neutral" mean?

Means the territory is coded both as neutral and a starting position. Which means the leftover starting positions will be made neutral. Ie. if you have 8 starting positions in a 6 player game, each player gets 1 and 2 positions start neutral.

[The Bison King]

What does "underyling neutral" mean?

Means the territory is coded both as neutral and a starting position. Which means the leftover starting positions will be made neutral. Ie. if you have 8 starting positions in a 6 player game, each player gets 1 and 2 positions start neutral.

OH! Roger that! then yes that is correct, they should be underlying Neutrals.

I have another question but I think I know the answer. Is there any way to code a territory to start with more than 3 troops?

[tkr4lf]

What does "underyling neutral" mean?

Means the territory is coded both as neutral and a starting position. Which means the leftover starting positions will be made neutral. Ie. if you have 8 starting positions in a 6 player game, each player gets 1 and 2 positions start neutral.

OH! Roger that! then yes that is correct, they should be underlying Neutrals.

I have another question but I think I know the answer. Is there any way to code a territory to start with more than 3 troops?

There must be, because Third Crusade starting positions start with 6 troops.

[The Bison King]

What does "underyling neutral" mean?

Means the territory is coded both as neutral and a starting position. Which means the leftover starting positions will be made neutral. Ie. if you have 8 starting positions in a 6 player game, each player gets 1 and 2 positions start neutral.

OH! Roger that! then yes that is correct, they should be underlying Neutrals.

I have another question but I think I know the answer. Is there any way to code a territory to start with more than 3 troops?

There must be, because Third Crusade starting positions start with 6 troops.

Oh good! Then I would suggest that the Colonial start positions start with 5 troops each.

[iancanton]

location of landing points is fine. as u have already explained, the shortest route to a colonial power is directly thru europe.

I would suggest that the Colonial start positions start with 5 troops each.

probably not a good idea. in 1v1, player 1 starts with 4 auto-deploys. he'll use his free deployment of 6 troops in europe plus his four 5-stacks (which have become 6s because of the auto-deploy) to take his opponent's colonial powers. player 2 will probably be left with a free deployment of 5 plus 1 auto-deploy. 10 troops deployed for player 1 against about 6 for player 2.

3 starting troops instead of 5 would reduce the initial carnage. alternatively, keep the 5 troops but don't let the powers attack each other directly (i'm thinking of the layout in new world or lunar war or perhaps a variation of eastern hemisphere's naval superiority region).

ian.

[natty dread]

probably not a good idea. in 1v1, player 1 starts with 4 auto-deploys. he'll use his free deployment of 6 troops in europe plus his four 5-stacks (which have become 6s because of the auto-deploy) to take his opponent's colonial powers. player 2 will probably be left with a free deployment of 5 plus 1 auto-deploy. 10 troops deployed for player 1 against about 6 for player 2. 3 starting troops instead of 5 would reduce the initial carnage.

Doesn't lowering the amount of troops just make the difference in troops for 1st vs 2nd player greater?

Think, if the starting positions have 3 each, and each player will have 4 positions... then, that's 12 troops, so the 1st player gets 4 from autodeploys, 6 from regular deploys = 10 troops, so he'll have 22 troops against 12. So it's almost a 50% difference.

If the starting positions have 5 each, then the 1st player will have 30 against 20. Which is only a 33% difference.

I think the best solution could be to limit the amount of colonial powers to a max. of 2 each.

[The Bison King]

Whoa whoa whoa. Stop. Important detail: In a 1 v1 each player only gets 1 colonial power start position. The remaining 6 colonial powers revert to underlying neutrals.

Therefore it's his initial 5 + 1 + 6 = 12 vs. 5

that's still not very good actually....


what about each spot starting with 10?

10 + 1 +6 = 17 vs. 10

In higher player games the ratio would be even less right? It'd be like 14 or 13 vs. 11. I think that would be enough to deture the European Blitz from being a desirable opening strategy, or at the very least it would make it a risky one.

8 might be enough.

8+1+6= 15 vs. 8 That makes a it little more practical so therefore risky (since there is actually the allure of maybe pulling it off) That's where some of the fun comes from right? the risk?

[natty dread]

Important detail: In a 1 v1 each player only gets 1 colonial power start position.

That means that each player only gets 1 colonial power in any game type. You can't specify the limit only for 1v1 games.

Also, it would mean that each player would start with 12 territories in 4-player games. That's no good.

[The Bison King]

Well yeah just 1 for any amount of players was what I had in mind. I Actually played a game with 5 people on a real board. The way we did it was with 1 colony each starting with 5 troops while all the regular regions started with 3. That seemed to work pretty well.

Maybe it would work better with 4 and under games dividing the remaining start positions but I don't think so. I think limiting the Colonial powers in the start is the way to go. That way part of the early game is expanding in Europe, claiming the bits you want while you simultaneously expand in Africa.