[Abandoned] - Scandinavia

by **Gustaf Wasa** on Sun Mar 09, 2008 9:58 am

No Iceland, and call it Scandinavia!

I think the major cities should be there: Stockholm, Gothenburg, Oslo, Copenhagen, Helsinki. It's just weird to look at a map of Scandinavia and not see the cities.

by **iancanton** on Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:33 pm

snufkin wrote:norway also used to be danish territory, hell england used to be danish territory as well.. Iceland is traditionally of norwegian origin (they wanted to escape the norwegian king).. I think it would be really odd to not have iceland connected to norway..

in that case, it's logical to connect iceland to both denmark and norway. however, i think it would be wrong to have iceland as more than one territory, since it really is of very minor significance compared with the other countries. perhaps it is better to exclude iceland.

ian.

by **mibi** on Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:51 pm

It must be winter in this map for with only a few hours of sunlight that far north, I would expect a high number of suicidal players.

by **CoolC** on Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:56 pm

Ok, the week has passed and still no new version.

This is because I happen to be stuck with an (this far) unsolveable problem with my main OS linux. After i made a hardware upgrade there are massive filesystem corruptions and it only affect Linux and not windows for some weird reason. I refuse to set up shop in windows as I really hate that system and don't want to get stuck... I'll be back with a new map as soon as I manage to solve this annoying problem.

by **snufkin** on Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:29 pm

Gustaf Wasa wrote:No Iceland, and call it Scandinavia!

I think the major cities should be there: Stockholm, Gothenburg, Oslo, Copenhagen, Helsinki. It's just weird to look at a map of Scandinavia and not see the cities.

although I would like to see Iceland (so that all the nordic/scandinavian/norse/former viking homelands are included..) Gustaf do have a point with the city comment; every one of those cities has a population larger than the country of Iceland.

by **CoolC** on Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:35 pm

To settle the issue once and for all I can reveal I have already decided NOT to include Iceland.

It's just too much hassle and there isn't enough incentive gameplay-wise to do so, only some idea that Iceland "should" be in there because of it's connection to the other nordic countries. That's not enough! Map will continue to be named Scandinavia.

Sorry Iceland lovers, I hope you get satisfied by the Iceland-map under works instead!

by **CatfishJohnson** on Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:36 pm

Hwye mibi, umm at the poles u either get 23 hours of sunlight (summer) or 23 hours of night (winter) its not all the time, so only suicidal half the time, probably on u

by **TaCktiX** on Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:39 pm

What the map is missing and desperately needs: Impassables. Right now if you want to blockade anything for a bonus, you need strength on every single territory. Add to that the high number of territories you need for a bonus, and you have a map that isn't that fun to play if the dice ever go bad.

by **CoolC** on Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:56 pm

It does have a few impassables: besides water there is also between norway/sweden and within norway.

Do you have any specific suggestions, like where else there should be impassables?

by **TaCktiX** on Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:07 pm

Mountains on the borders of Norway and Sweden would be a good start. The entire area is famous for its mountains and fjords, so play with it a bit.

by **CoolC** on Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:11 pm

They are -already there-

But maybe they need to be more visable... it's just a dotted border on the mountains now instead of a solid border

by **casper** on Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:38 pm

it's really dark.

no iceland.

by **t-o-m** on Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:34 am

yer it is really dark;

would iceland only be one terit or...?

by **TaCktiX** on Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:59 am

He's already decided no Iceland, just hasn't updated the topic title (note latest revision on February 20th).

by **t-o-m** on Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:50 am

ahh, ok

by **Ruben Cassar** on Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:06 am

TaCktiX wrote:He's already decided no Iceland, just hasn't updated the topic title (note latest revision on February 20th).

Damn...I wanted Iceland. Hehe.

by **gimil** on Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:27 am

This map has went inactive and so im moving it back out of sticky mode.

by **CoolC** on Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:45 pm

Just because you did that, I'm going to update the map tomorrow!

by **TaCktiX** on Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:52 pm

Spite is one of the best creative drivers.

by **CoolC** on Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:01 pm

having the traditional läänit for finland means that the territory count for finland is 12, not 15. this makes a clear difference in development between finland and norway and maybe more of a choice in gameplay. u can perhaps say it's justified because norway has oil and viking history, while finland has only mobile phones and some good racing drivers!

by tradition, there is a clear "pecking order" of importance: sweden first, denmark second, norway third and finland fourth. we can't do much about denmark because it's so small, but having a 12-territory finland seems to fit better with this.

do u think it would work if finland has only 11 territories, excluding aaland (because finland does not have complete sovereignty over swedish-speaking aaland)? we can then make aaland a special territory that is not part of a continent, but gives a +1 bonus to the holder of the nearest finnish and swedish subcontinents. this can be our version of the aaland dispute after the end of the first world war.

This is a good suggestion but the situation is not the same in Finland as in Sweden if I've understood correctly, the new Läänit is more used and associated with there. But, that should not stop a change if it's better gameplay-wise! Does anyone else have a suggestion/opinion regarding this before I decide to change (or not) ?

also the bottom looks scruffy, can u include all of denmark not just parts

On especially the small map things are a bit too tightly packed in the bottom, but I'm not sure what to do about it. I cannot expand the map because of the size requirements. However, the entire Denmark is included! The border to Germany goes pretty much exactly where the map is cut. I have tried to make small improvements generally now to the graphics anyway.

------------------
Next planned improvement: adjust the colour of area names to make easier to read

I am not sure what else need to be done, I think it's pretty much playable now... If there is anything regarding gameplay / strategic problems and such I need specific feedback since I can't find any problems and are probably not experienced enough to spot subtle imbalances. One thing I'm thinking of is a water path between Norrbotten and Keski-Pohjanmaa to give Finland another territory to defend.

I have several ideas to make it (even more) visually pleasing but I don't think the Ideas forum is the right stage to make small visual corrections/improvements, that more work for the final forge...

by **iancanton** on Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:59 am

CoolC wrote:
also the bottom looks scruffy, can u include all of denmark not just parts

On especially the small map things are a bit too tightly packed in the bottom, but I'm not sure what to do about it. I cannot expand the map because of the size requirements. However, the entire Denmark is included! The border to Germany goes pretty much exactly where the map is cut.

i'm unsure how easy this will be to do, but have u considered using perspective, that is tilt the map away from us at an angle, so that denmark looks closer (and therefore bigger) and the large arctic territories look further away (and therefore smaller)? for the small map, this will let u have an image of 495 x 495, which u can resize to 600 x 600 to give more space for territory names. by using perspective, there might also be room to include a very small part of germany.

CoolC wrote:I am not sure what else need to be done, I think it's pretty much playable now...

the mountain impassables need more work. the dotted lines look like they're more passable than the normal solid borders.

CoolC wrote:One thing I'm thinking of is a water path between Norrbotten and Keski-Pohjanmaa to give Finland another territory to defend.

i think that a sea route unnecessarily disrupts the natural impassable that is the gulf of bothnia. 11 to 15 territories, depending on whether u adopt my suggestions above, are rather difficult to win and hold. this is similar to the combined north and south america on the classic map. it looks as if the gameplay will be shaped largely by the sub-continent bonuses, so the exact position of the mountain impassables in norway is important to let u achieve ur desired balance.

incidentally, another reason i like the historic läänit for finland is fewer directional names, like "north this" or "central that". if åland is a shared bonus territory, then we can also have an extra flag for decoration.

http://www.aland.ax/alandinbrief/sjalvs ... lkomst.htm

ian.

by **CoolC** on Fri May 09, 2008 9:32 pm

iancanton wrote:i'm unsure how easy this will be to do, but have u considered using perspective, that is tilt the map away from us at an angle, so that denmark looks closer (and therefore bigger) and the large arctic territories look further away (and therefore smaller)? for the small map, this will let u have an image of 495 x 495, which u can resize to 600 x 600 to give more space for territory names. by using perspective, there might also be room to include a very small part of germany.

Interesting idea but I don't think it's possible except by re-doing the map from scratch, I might give it a shot though just to try

iancanton wrote:the mountain impassables need more work. the dotted lines look like they're more passable than the normal solid borders.

Check! I shall give it more work later to improve it visually, but I think it's a good start!

Regarding the regions for Finland I don't know what I have been talking about the whole time... I realized now that I have used the landskap (landscape) for Finland and not the läänit at all! So, instead of changing to Län I reduced the number in Finland by combining four existing regions and removing Åland from sub-continents, it's now a neutral part of greater Finland. Tried to balance it generally also with regards to number of regions to defend, number that can attack, total number in continent, etc.