Europa [Quenched]

[yeti_c]

I've updated the Balearics-Sardinia route - a refresh will load the updated images ^^

Works for me.

C.

[MrBenn]

Looks like I updated it just in time - it's live already!

[Shatners Bassoon]

don't know if this has been highlighted yet,but you don't seem to be receiving your bonus armies for holding Transcontinental.


see DAZMFC's position in Game 3510697

actually i was right the first time,the above post still stands.

[MrBenn]

don't know if this has been highlighted yet,but you don't seem to be receiving your bonus armies for holding Transcontinental.


see DAZMFC's position in Game 3510697

actually i was right the first time,the above post still stands.

You might notice a new line of text on the map that says 'transcontinental includes kaliningrad/kgd, an exclave of russia'

[Shatners Bassoon]

don't know if this has been highlighted yet,but you don't seem to be receiving your bonus armies for holding Transcontinental.


see DAZMFC's position in Game 3510697

actually i was right the first time,the above post still stands.

You might notice a new line of text on the map that says 'transcontinental includes kaliningrad/kgd, an exclave of russia'

nope,don't see that anywhere i'm afraid.

[MrBenn]

You might notice a new line of text on the map that says 'transcontinental includes kaliningrad/kgd, an exclave of russia'

nope,don't see that anywhere i'm afraid.

Look in the bottom right-hand corner...

[yeti_c]

Press F5!!!

C.

[Shatners Bassoon]

Press F5!!!

C.

Ok,done.....sorry i didn't know about the "magic button"!

[Nikolai]

Okay, from previous Foundry experience I know this is going to come off as me being a jerk, so I want to be clear that I've been avoiding the Foundry for a while, and I know I'm coming in late to this thread, and haven't really contributed enough to "earn" an opinion... but I think one productive purpose of the "Beta" status is to incur comments like this one, from fresh users who haven't been involved with the map from the beginning, so don't take this personally.

I think this map, in terms of graphics, looks... hideous. Following the overseas connections is hard on the eyes, requiring actual concentration to determine what connects where - something that needs to be very intuitive. The color and texturing is very flat and boring, resulting in a distinctly childish look. Beyond looks, a name key so extensive is indicative of a map that is attempting to do too much in too little space. The continent values do not seem to have taken choke numbers into account with any regularity, and seem decidedly unbalanced. It's not clear whether Kaliningrad is part of "transcontinental" or not. And while the cities in Italy are an interesting idea, it leaves me extremely confused with regards to how Andorra and Gibraltar are supposed to work.

This map still needs a lot of work, if it's a doable idea at all within the established size constraints. My inclination is to say that it won't work because the premise is an accurate map of Europe, and today's European map wasn't made by people looking for a balanced game... it was made by politicians. Turning it into a playable map is going to take more effort, and making it look decent will take even more.

[ZeakCytho]

Okay, from previous Foundry experience I know this is going to come off as me being a jerk, so I want to be clear that I've been avoiding the Foundry for a while, and I know I'm coming in late to this thread, and haven't really contributed enough to "earn" an opinion... but I think one productive purpose of the "Beta" status is to incur comments like this one, from fresh users who haven't been involved with the map from the beginning, so don't take this personally.

I think this map, in terms of graphics, looks... hideous. Following the overseas connections is hard on the eyes, requiring actual concentration to determine what connects where - something that needs to be very intuitive. The color and texturing is very flat and boring, resulting in a distinctly childish look. Beyond looks, a name key so extensive is indicative of a map that is attempting to do too much in too little space. The continent values do not seem to have taken choke numbers into account with any regularity, and seem decidedly unbalanced. It's not clear whether Kaliningrad is part of "transcontinental" or not. And while the cities in Italy are an interesting idea, it leaves me extremely confused with regards to how Andorra and Gibraltar are supposed to work.

This map still needs a lot of work, if it's a doable idea at all within the established size constraints. My inclination is to say that it won't work because the premise is an accurate map of Europe, and today's European map wasn't made by people looking for a balanced game... it was made by politicians. Turning it into a playable map is going to take more effort, and making it look decent will take even more.

I'm going to have to disagree with pretty much everything you said. The sea connections were hard to read, but after the fix, they're much better. The coloring and texturing are personal preference, but I like them. I don't see why using the ISO codes is bad - the abbreviations are for gameplay, the key is for those interesting in knowing what places are what. I don't have a problem with the bonus values, though perhaps some of them are not as great as they could be - do you have a specific problem? Also, how could Kaliningrad not be part of the Transcontinental bonus - look at the bottom right corner! The "cities" in Italy only border Italy, that's clear by their shape. Andora and Gibralter are larger territories than just cities, so they appear as very small countries, but it's the same premise.

[hulmey]

Okay, from previous Foundry experience I know this is going to come off as me being a jerk, so I want to be clear that I've been avoiding the Foundry for a while, and I know I'm coming in late to this thread, and haven't really contributed enough to "earn" an opinion... but I think one productive purpose of the "Beta" status is to incur comments like this one, from fresh users who haven't been involved with the map from the beginning, so don't take this personally.

I think this map, in terms of graphics, looks... hideous. Following the overseas connections is hard on the eyes, requiring actual concentration to determine what connects where - something that needs to be very intuitive. The color and texturing is very flat and boring, resulting in a distinctly childish look. Beyond looks, a name key so extensive is indicative of a map that is attempting to do too much in too little space. The continent values do not seem to have taken choke numbers into account with any regularity, and seem decidedly unbalanced. It's not clear whether Kaliningrad is part of "transcontinental" or not. And while the cities in Italy are an interesting idea, it leaves me extremely confused with regards to how Andorra and Gibraltar are supposed to work.

This map still needs a lot of work, if it's a doable idea at all within the established size constraints. My inclination is to say that it won't work because the premise is an accurate map of Europe, and today's European map wasn't made by people looking for a balanced game... it was made by politicians. Turning it into a playable map is going to take more effort, and making it look decent will take even more.

I'm going to have to disagree with pretty much everything you said. The sea connections were hard to read, but after the fix, they're much better. The coloring and texturing are personal preference, but I like them. I don't see why using the ISO codes is bad - the abbreviations are for gameplay, the key is for those interesting in knowing what places are what. I don't have a problem with the bonus values, though perhaps some of them are not as great as they could be - do you have a specific problem? Also, how could Kaliningrad not be part of the Transcontinental bonus - look at the bottom right corner! The "cities" in Italy only border Italy, that's clear by their shape. Andora and Gibralter are larger territories than just cities, so they appear as very small countries, but it's the same premise.

that incorrect! having been to both fine places i can guarantee you that they are alot smaller than most cities!

[ZeakCytho]

Okay, from previous Foundry experience I know this is going to come off as me being a jerk, so I want to be clear that I've been avoiding the Foundry for a while, and I know I'm coming in late to this thread, and haven't really contributed enough to "earn" an opinion... but I think one productive purpose of the "Beta" status is to incur comments like this one, from fresh users who haven't been involved with the map from the beginning, so don't take this personally.

I think this map, in terms of graphics, looks... hideous. Following the overseas connections is hard on the eyes, requiring actual concentration to determine what connects where - something that needs to be very intuitive. The color and texturing is very flat and boring, resulting in a distinctly childish look. Beyond looks, a name key so extensive is indicative of a map that is attempting to do too much in too little space. The continent values do not seem to have taken choke numbers into account with any regularity, and seem decidedly unbalanced. It's not clear whether Kaliningrad is part of "transcontinental" or not. And while the cities in Italy are an interesting idea, it leaves me extremely confused with regards to how Andorra and Gibraltar are supposed to work.

This map still needs a lot of work, if it's a doable idea at all within the established size constraints. My inclination is to say that it won't work because the premise is an accurate map of Europe, and today's European map wasn't made by people looking for a balanced game... it was made by politicians. Turning it into a playable map is going to take more effort, and making it look decent will take even more.

I'm going to have to disagree with pretty much everything you said. The sea connections were hard to read, but after the fix, they're much better. The coloring and texturing are personal preference, but I like them. I don't see why using the ISO codes is bad - the abbreviations are for gameplay, the key is for those interesting in knowing what places are what. I don't have a problem with the bonus values, though perhaps some of them are not as great as they could be - do you have a specific problem? Also, how could Kaliningrad not be part of the Transcontinental bonus - look at the bottom right corner! The "cities" in Italy only border Italy, that's clear by their shape. Andorra and Gibralter are larger territories than just cities, so they appear as very small countries, but it's the same premise.

that incorrect! having been to both fine places i can guarantee you that they are alot smaller than most cities!

Andorra is 181 sq. miles. I was wrong about Gibralter, it's only 2.6 sq. miles. San Marino is 23.5 sq. miles, and the Vatican is 0.17 sq. miles.

Perhaps, then, Gibralter should be made smaller and San Marino slightly larger. Andorra is fine as is.

[MrBenn]

Nikolai, thanks for taking the time to post your feedback.

The aesthetics of the map are very subjective. If I was to start the process again now, I am convinced that the map would end up looking very different... I have definitely learnt a lot about photoshop over the past 11 months!

As far as your comments about gameplay, it is obvious that you haven't played on the map (and a quick game finder search confirms it). The key is not essential for gameplay, as the abbreviations are clear in the drop-down lists (but then you wouldn't know that if you hadn't played it).. .Some of the bonus values could possibly be tweaked a little, but on the whole I think the balance is about right - but I remain open to any convincing arguments to the contrary...

The size of some countries (San Marino and Vatican City are in fact countries) has been distorted to make them visible... in addition to those already mentioned, Liechtenstein is also super-sized on the map! These (and a couple of other visual tweaks) were made to make the map playable.

[samuelc812]

I think it is fine as it is MrBenn i played and won my first game on it, so maybe i am a bit bias

[Nikolai]

Ah, I see where it says that kgd is part of transcontinental.

Lesse. Zeak: You're free to disagree, I won't get my feelings hurt. I only offer my opinions as opinions, not the judgement of God Almighty. The sea connections... well, this is why I was commenting as a person who hasn't been involved. I don't know about any fix. All I know is that I have to work to see what connects where, and I think it should be more intuitive. (This is probably exacerbated by the fact that the dotted lines aren't too different from the textures in the ocean, at a glance.) The look... yes, it's subjective. But I think it looks remarkably flat and boring.

Values: well... I think the only way I can explain my dislikes here is to give you a fast analysis (as a no cards/flat rate sequential player who tends to think in terms of choke points.)

Nordic region: 4 borders, potentially easy to reduce to three (By combining two borders into one by advancing one spot into a choke). Controls 3 other continents (in that simply moving the choke up 1 country will deny the continent without spreading the defense.) Excellent expansion operations. Valued 4. Ratio (value:borders, value:borders after reductions using chokes - ratios above 1 are better) 1:1, 4:3 ****** (Stars represent my estimate of tactical value given controls, expansion options, and number of countries - scale 1-6 [where 6 is I would always try for this in every game if I had the slightest chance and 1 is I would not ever try to start building here unless I was wiped out every other spot on the board and I would still try to mass and move].)
British Isles: 2 borders. Cannot be reduced. Few countries. At least one spectacular expansion option, one good option. Controls 1. Valued 3. Ratio 3:2 *****
Benelux: 3 borders. Cannot possibly be reduced, no expansion options. Controls none. Valued 2. Ratio 2:3 *
Baltics: 3 borders. Cannot be reduced, mediocre expansion option. Controls 1. Valued 2. Ratio 2:3 **
Hellenics: 3 borders. Cannot be reduced, v. poor expansion options. Controls 1. Valued 2. Ratio 2:3 *
Italic states: 3 borders, cannot reduce. Some expansion options. Controls 1. Valued 3. Ratio 1:1 ***
Transcontinental: 3 borders, cannot reduce. Excellent expansion options. Controls none. Valued 4 (assuming the motherland bonus doesn't stack with this continent). Ratio 4:3 *****
Western Europe: 4 borders. Can be reduced to 3. Excellent expansion options. Controls 2. Valued 5. Ratio 5:4, 5:3 ****
Central Europe: 2 borders, cannot reduce. Expansion options not good. Controls none. Valued 3. Ratio 3:2 **
Eastern Europe: 5 borders, cannot reduce. SPECTACULAR, UNBELIEVABLY GOOD expansion options. Controls 3 - four with one border advanced 2 instead of 1. Valued 6. Ratio 6:5 ******
Balkan States: 5 borders, can reduce to 4 by combining 3 borders into 2 chokes. Expansion options... not good. Controls 1 - 3 after combination of chokes. Valued 5. Ratio 1:1, 5:4 ***
Med Islands: 4 or 5 borders, cannot reduce. Expansion options very poor. Controls 2-3 by existing. Valued 3. Ratio 3:4/3:5 **

If I multiply each continent's best possible ratio by its tactical rating and simplify, I arrive at the following values:
Nordic Region: 8
British Isles: 7 1/2
Benelux: 2/3
Baltics: 1 1/3
Hellenics: 2/3
Italic States: 3
Transcontinental: 6 2/3
Western Europe: 6 2/3
Central Europe: 3
Eastern Europe: 7 1/5
Balkan States: 3 3/4
Med Islands: 1 1/2

It's not a perfect method, but it's decent. (Note however that it only works for geographic maps... any kind of bombardment/floating bonus/what-have-you is really hard to reconcile here.) With a distribution range of 7 1/3, there is kind of a wild disparity here. To offer a comparison, on the classical map the distribution range is only 3 1/6, and that's with several recognized frontrunners:

Africa: 1:1**** = 4
Asia: 7:4 ** = 3 1/2
Australia: 2:1 **** = 8
Europe: 5:4 *** = 3 3/4
South America: 1:1 ***** = 5
North America: 5:3 **** = 6 2/3
(Oh, and notice there are no ****** or *. No country should be so good tactically that it's worth trying for every time you play the map, or so damnably bad that you would try to get away from it even if it was really your only option, and classic does a good job with that. And remember the ratings are just controls, expansion options, and size, from a tactical perspective.)

On a perfectly balanced map like Chinese Checkers or 8 Thoughts, the distribution range is 0. On another map I consider fairly balanced, King of the Mountains, the distribution range is 4, and that one also has clear leaders in desirability.

Hopefully that should make things somewhat clear as to my position on continent values, even though it's long. Let me know if anything needs clarification.

MrBenn: Yes, it's aesthetic subjectivity... like I said, just my opinion, but it looks flat and boring. I recognize that the key isn't necessary for gameplay... but it's hard for me to think in terms of abbreviations. Again, just my opinion, but to do this right you need a good deal more space. As to values... see above. I know some of the countries are distorted from geographic reality, and I understand and accept that it was necessary... not really a big deal for me. My problem is more to do with game balance... and the tiny dot "countries" are hard to distinguish from the cities.

[MrBenn]

Nikolai, thanks for your analysis. It is interesting to see the strategic value that you attribute to various locations, as well as the numeric bonus.... It looks like you've put some proper thought into how you would play a game - why not play one to see if your strategies are sound

I have to say that I disagree with your suggested bonus values... For comparison, here is a version of a bonus calculator spreadsheet that provided a starting point for bonus discussion:

Click image to enlarge.

The values I ended up using are slightly lower than those suggested by this spreadsheet, which was primarily as a result to round down the decimal results in column N. The main reason for this was to reduce the bonus for the small regions to +2, rather than +3.

The Med Islands bonus is excluded from the spreadsheet, as it could be constructed in a number of different ways, but +3 for 5 seemed about right - high enough to make a viable option, and not too high to make Italics+Med Islands unbreakable.

[el-presidente]

The only thing I don't like as far as bonuses go ( not that I am an expert on the matter) is the British Isles. It is +3 where it really should not be. It only has 2 borders and so it should be +2. I'm not saying that a region's bonus should just be the number of borders it has but unless it has more than six territories or 6-7 attacking territories it should just be the number of borders. The British Isles has 5 territories and 4 attacking territories. It is easier to hold than a region like the baltic states but is worth the same.

[Balsiefen]

Absolutely love the map MrBenn, exellent for trips.

I dont see much wrong with the bonuses to be honest and the way groups of continents complement each other so well is making it one of my favourite maps to play on.

[yeti_c]

I'm in a game (with you) where I have the Balkans - and there are so many borders - but so few troops...

C.

[ZeekLTK]

I disagree that Med Islands are "worthless". In the 8-player game I'm in (6 players left) I started by going for Med Islands and it's working out pretty well for me so far.

The only thing I don't like about the map is that you can't attack Poland from Germany.

[karlutxo]

and what's about canary islands, madeira and azores?

[MrBenn]

What about them?

[seamusk]

There is more I can say about this map, but after making a move for a buddy in a game on this map, the transcontinental bonus is way too unclear. Just because it says it somewhere doesn't mean it is clear. I think more can and should be done to clear that up. In general I like this map but it is difficult to read.

[saaimen]

There is more I can say about this map, but after making a move for a buddy in a game on this map, the transcontinental bonus is way too unclear. Just because it says it somewhere doesn't mean it is clear. I think more can and should be done to clear that up. In general I like this map but it is difficult to read.

Could you clarify 'unclear', and what you'd suggest that could possibly improve it?
My guess is, without trying to offend you, that you're simply angry cause you've made a mistake in not paying enough attention.

[seamusk]

There is more I can say about this map, but after making a move for a buddy in a game on this map, the transcontinental bonus is way too unclear. Just because it says it somewhere doesn't mean it is clear. I think more can and should be done to clear that up. In general I like this map but it is difficult to read.

Could you clarify 'unclear', and what you'd suggest that could possibly improve it?
My guess is, without trying to offend you, that you're simply angry cause you've made a mistake in not paying enough attention.

That is an idiotic response. It wasn't even my game. Other than that, the only reason I commented here is because I think this can be improved (though I'd leave exactly if or how up to the artist). There is no personal "anger" over an unclear map.

Unclear = not readily transparent. It is pretty clear that it is an issue when you go back and read the log and the guy I subbed for had the same confusion as did I. There are many ways to make it more transparent. But I think that if it is made transparent the map will be better off for it. One issue that could contribute is the color itself (brown is not a bold color but blends in a bit). The isolated territory is rather small and it is hard to even see the brown unless you know it is there. The font in the legend is tiny and easily missed. This isn't an issue that breaks the map, but it certainly could be more clear and I think it should be.