[Abandoned] - World 3.0

[DiM]

Map Name: World 3.0
Mapmaker(s): DiM
Number of Territories: all the countries in the world
Special Features: none
What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: it's awesome

i'm trying to keep the graphic style of world 2.1 while at the same time squeezing each and every country in the world.
since there are a lot of tiny little countries i've decided to use several techniques for naming and placing army numbers.
1. the list with arrows. as seen in central america
2. the zoom bubbles. central america and europe
3. the square-ish terits. oceania

i still have A LOT to do:
*put in all sorts of connections
*finish naming the countries
*figuring where to place army numbers and whether army circles are needed (i hope not)

the gameplay is extremely easy. each country gets a +1 autodeployed and there's no other bonus. nothing, not even the bonus for number of terits held.



V1:

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

Ok, this may be a matter of opinion, and I'm not sure if you're at all interested in hearing mine...

Anyway, like I've said in another thread, I don't really subscribe to the MrBenn school of gameplay design. I don't think it's purposeful nor intuitive to design the gameplay around "1 country = 1 territory"...

Firstly, because the borders between countries are arbitrary and change all the time. Secondly, because it doesn't really make sense that you can hold all of russia with a single army, when you can fit that same single army in, like, vatican or bhutan... If you were waging an actual global war, you wouldn't be like "ok, I'm moving the troops I have in Iceland and use them to conquer all of Canada"...

From a gameplay perspective, I think it makes much more sense to divide larger countries, and merge some of the smaller ones. I mean, we're not on this site to learng geography, we're here to play games...

And also considering gameplay clarity... I think in places where there's lots of small countries, it'll be extremely hard to see what assaults what. I don't think this current system makes for a fun gaming experience, no matter how geographically accurate it is.


The "no bonus, +1 autodeploy per country" doesn't really convince me either... It seems like it would just reward whoever would be able to grab & defend the largest piece of land... but maybe I'm wrong about this so I won't push this. However, the "no deployable troops" thing won't work though... you need to have at least a +1 troop to deploy each round, the game engine freezes and doesn't let you play your turn if you don't have any troops to deploy.

[AndyDufresne]

Maps that have 'playable insets' I usually avoid, since they just don't seem as arbitrarily cool as playing on the real board.


--Andy

[IcePack]

World 2.1 is bad enough. When I get it on random I feel like jumping off a cliff.

World 3.0 might just make me do that.

[DiM]

Anyway, like I've said in another thread, I don't really subscribe to the MrBenn school of gameplay design. I don't think it's purposeful nor intuitive to design the gameplay around "1 country = 1 territory"...

i had no idea benn made a map with this sort of gameplay. i admit i haven't played all the maps that were quenched in my absence.

Firstly, because the borders between countries are arbitrary and change all the time.

the map is accurate as of today. if it makes you feel better i can add this to the map and this way when you play world 3.0 20 years from now you'll know why the borders no longer are the same.

Secondly, because it doesn't really make sense that you can hold all of russia with a single army, when you can fit that same single army in, like, vatican or bhutan... If you were waging an actual global war, you wouldn't be like "ok, I'm moving the troops I have in Iceland and use them to conquer all of Canada"...

a lot of things don't make sense in many maps. if you were to engage in a real war then russia and usa should have a +9999 bonus, right? after all they're the biggest nuclear powers. holding oceania should probably give you just +1 cause kangaroos with boomerangs don't do much damage.

From a gameplay perspective, I think it makes much more sense to divide larger countries, and merge some of the smaller ones. I mean, we're not on this site to learng geography, we're here to play games...

from a traditional gameplay perspective that makes sense, but i'm trying something new here. people told me i was crazy when i made age of merchants, they continued to do so when age of realms was started. but they proved to be decent maps.
let's see how this one goes before we brand it as a bad idea.

And also considering gameplay clarity... I think in places where there's lots of small countries, it'll be extremely hard to see what assaults what. I don't think this current system makes for a fun gaming experience, no matter how geographically accurate it is.

yes i'm aware of the border problems and i'm trying to be as accurate as possible while preserving gameplay clarity. of course if it comes to it i shall sacrifice geographic accuracy but i do want to include all the countries.

The "no bonus, +1 autodeploy per country" doesn't really convince me either... It seems like it would just reward whoever would be able to grab & defend the largest piece of land... but maybe I'm wrong about this so I won't push this. However, the "no deployable troops" thing won't work though... you need to have at least a +1 troop to deploy each round, the game engine freezes and doesn't let you play your turn if you don't have any troops to deploy.

sully said it's ok to have 0 troops to deploy. if it's true the game freezez then i'll simply add a bonus of +1 regardless of how many terits you have.

[DiM]

Maps that have 'playable insets' I usually avoid, since they just don't seem as arbitrarily cool as playing on the real board.


--Andy

it's a compromise i have to make if i want to include all the countries.

[DiM]

World 2.1 is bad enough. When I get it on random I feel like jumping off a cliff.

and yet world 2.1 was voted the most popular map. furthermore it's one of the most played maps on this site.

World 3.0 might just make me do that.

buy a parachute.

[IcePack]

World 2.1 is bad enough. When I get it on random I feel like jumping off a cliff.

and yet world 2.1 was voted the most popular map. furthermore it's one of the most played maps on this site.

World 3.0 might just make me do that.

buy a parachute.

How does adding a few territories make it any "better"? Besides changing graphics and a few territories it's basically 2.1 which we already have. I don't usually post much in here but I will hate to see yet another 2.1 map that I get to be forced to play on occasion.

If 2.1 is that popular - leave a good thing be.

IcePack

[natty dread]

i had no idea benn made a map with this sort of gameplay. i admit i haven't played all the maps that were quenched in my absence.

Check out Europa.

a lot of things don't make sense in many maps. if you were to engage in a real war then russia and usa should have a +9999 bonus, right? after all they're the biggest nuclear powers. holding oceania should probably give you just +1 cause kangaroos with boomerangs don't do much damage.

Well that's the kind of argument that could be used to justify doing anything really... anyway, I think it comes down to perspective, and where you want to draw the line on sense-making.

I just think having the territories mostly evenly sized makes for a more immersive gaming experience. With a map that dogmatically adheres to the "1 country, 1 territory" idea, like Europa, you don't get the feeling of being in a massive war, with troops moving accross the board... it feels more like just crunching numbers in some kind of statistics job.

But again, this is just my personal opinion, and I'm sure you'll find people who are thrilled to have a geographically accurate world map to play.

sully said it's ok to have 0 troops to deploy. if it's true the game freezez then i'll simply add a bonus of +1 regardless of how many terits you have.

Well, to my knowledge, it's been like if you have 0 to deploy, you don't get to assault or reinforce, you'll just be forced to skip a turn. Maybe it's been fixed, I don't know... you could try it out with some map that has lots of negative bonuses.

[IcePack]

PS - while I don't like this map or world 2.1, the point I'm trying to make is we have a similar map already and it's a bit like remaking a movie with no changes to the script.

I feel like your time and creative energy can be used better elsewhere.

Ice

[DiM]

How does adding a few territories make it any "better"? Besides changing graphics and a few territories it's basically 2.1 which we already have.

i'm not adding territories, i'm making a completely different map from a gameplay point of view.

I don't usually post much in here but I will hate to see yet another 2.1 map that I get to be forced to play on occasion.

that's actually silly of you to say. who's forcing you? i don't like crosswords so i don't play it. if you don't like this one then don't play it. it's simple.nobody puts a gun to your head and forces you to play it.
and if you think the 0.5% chance of getting this map when you play random is too high then simply don't play random map.

If 2.1 is that popular - leave a good thing be.

IcePack

i'm leaving it be. i'm not changing world 2.1 and this one will not replace it either.

[DiM]

PS - while I don't like this map or world 2.1, the point I'm trying to make is we have a similar map already and it's a bit like remaking a movie with no changes to the script.

I feel like your time and creative energy can be used better elsewhere.

Ice

aside from the graphical style which is somewhat similar there's nothing else that makes world 3.0 and world 2.1 be the same.
in world 3.0 we have a completely different territory layout and a whole new bonus scheme that doesn't resemble the one from world 2.1 in any aspect.

so, where exactly are the similarities that you speak of?

[AndyDufresne]

PS - while I don't like this map or world 2.1, the point I'm trying to make is we have a similar map already and it's a bit like remaking a movie with no changes to the script.

I feel like your time and creative energy can be used better elsewhere.

Ice

aside from the graphical style which is somewhat similar there's nothing else that makes world 3.0 and world 2.1 be the same.
in world 3.0 we have a completely different territory layout and a whole new bonus scheme that doesn't resemble the one from world 2.1 in any aspect.

so, where exactly are the similarities that you speak of?

Large world map is what I think he is getting at.


--Andy

[IcePack]

Just bcuz it's different doesn't make the idea good. And I do have to play it on random. The more crap maps that get added the more crap maps I have to play, so it does affect me. And me not playing random is a silly suggestion, I'm going to stop playing for medals or inbrandom tournaments bcuz of one map? Really?

This is a place for feedback, I'm giving mine. I don't like the idea of another full world map no matter how many small tweaks to graphics territory or bonus structure to make it marginally diff you put in.

0.5% isn't to high but if I can stop crap maps before they get into the map pool - then I'm going to start speaking up. Cuz once u have multiple crap maps those %'s start adding up.

Your entitled to ur opinion and so am I. I like some of ur other maps and all I was tryig to say is:

1) I don't like the idea
2) time and energy can be used Bette elsewhere on something more original

Cheers, & have a good day

IcePack

[DiM]

i had no idea benn made a map with this sort of gameplay. i admit i haven't played all the maps that were quenched in my absence.

Check out Europa.

i have never played that map but after a quick look i think it's somewhere between classic style and what i'm doing here.

mr benn made almost every country as a terit but still split some. he also kept traditional continent bonuses.
i went to the extreme and made every single country as a terit with no split ones and also discarded continent bonuses. we'll see if it works out ok.

a lot of things don't make sense in many maps. if you were to engage in a real war then russia and usa should have a +9999 bonus, right? after all they're the biggest nuclear powers. holding oceania should probably give you just +1 cause kangaroos with boomerangs don't do much damage.

Well that's the kind of argument that could be used to justify doing anything really... anyway, I think it comes down to perspective, and where you want to draw the line on sense-making.

just as you said in an earlier post this is a game. and in this game we almost always make compromises in various aspects.
on world 2.1 you don't give usa and russia a big bonus because you'd screw up the gameplay, so you compromise and give up on realism.
on this map i'm not splitting bigger countries into smaller regions because that's not the gameplay i want. it's still a compromise on realism but in a different direction.

I just think having the territories mostly evenly sized makes for a more immersive gaming experience. With a map that dogmatically adheres to the "1 country, 1 territory" idea, like Europa, you don't get the feeling of being in a massive war, with troops moving accross the board... it feels more like just crunching numbers in some kind of statistics job.

But again, this is just my personal opinion, and I'm sure you'll find people who are thrilled to have a geographically accurate world map to play.

i don't see how moving troops from western usa to eastern usa is immersive but moving them from usa to mexico is crunching numbers in a statistics job. it's the same thing. you just move troops from one terit to another regardless of how it's called.
i don't care if it says usa, paris, europe or even terit 1.
it's like saying feudal is not a good map because the terits have number names.

sully said it's ok to have 0 troops to deploy. if it's true the game freezez then i'll simply add a bonus of +1 regardless of how many terits you have.

Well, to my knowledge, it's been like if you have 0 to deploy, you don't get to assault or reinforce, you'll just be forced to skip a turn. Maybe it's been fixed, I don't know... you could try it out with some map that has lots of negative bonuses.

i'll ask around and see what's the exact situation. anyway it's an easy to fix problem and it will be dealt with at the proper time.