[Abandoned] - Romania

[foregone]

What about something more like this?

Click image to enlarge.

[yeti_c]

What about something more like this?

"Something" like that yes - obviously you have some work to do on the bottom right continents - but I reckon you could get something like that to work!!

C.

[foregone]

What about something more like this?

"Something" like that yes - obviously you have some work to do on the bottom right continents - but I reckon you could get something like that to work!!

C.

I'll carry on mucking about in that direction then. Dobrogea is a bit of a pain, being small and awkwardly placed but I'm sure its plausable.

Ta

[foregone]

Version 9.5-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Updated: Redrawn internal borders.
Mucked about with the continent names on the main map. Still bugged though. Comments?

Maps without army numbers:

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Maps with army numbers:

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[ZeakCytho]

Could you make the borders between continents on the minimap a bit more visible?

[foregone]

Could you make the borders between continents on the minimap a bit more visible?

Sure, I'll drop in some border lines there.

[foregone]

Borders on the minimap.

Click image to enlarge.

Could you make the borders between continents on the minimap a bit more visible?

Better?

[gimil]

Better?

To think a blurred. Could you try it with the crisper lines you currently have outlining the main map?

Oh and I love your mountains!

[foregone]

Better?

To think a blurred. Could you try it with the crisper lines you currently have outlining the main map?

Will do.

Oh and I love your mountains!

Thanks, though I can't take all the credit. The significant other drew them, I just then took that and converted it into digital and retouched, etc, it.

[foregone]

Click image to enlarge.

Could you make the borders between continents on the minimap a bit more visible?

Better?

To think a blurred. Could you try it with the crisper lines you currently have outlining the main map?

How bout now?

[gimil]

Much better. Maybe reduce the opacity a little more.

[bryguy]

could you maybe remove the names of the places? (maramure, transylvania, etc) their making it to hard for me to read the territory names under them...

[foregone]

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Much better. Maybe reduce the opacity a little more.

Opacity reduced. Also, removed some background there that I had forgotten, heh.

could you maybe remove the names of the places? (maramure, transylvania, etc) their making it to hard for me to read the territory names under them...

Moved the continent names out of the way. Is this a better way of doing it or should I find something else? If I put the names in the continent itself it tends to get in the way of the territory names or the borders...Thoughts?

[ZeakCytho]

I like the borders on the minimap

[gimil]

Its coming on a real treat now

Keep up the good work!

[foregone]

I like the borders on the minimap

Its coming on a real treat now

Keep up the good work!

Thanks mucho. Not sure what to focus on next so I'll wait for some more commentary to come in, heh.

[oaktown]

Looking really nice foregone. I like the soft colors, though I do find myself leaning in to distinguish borders and the like.

Is it funny to anybody else that the mountain in the legend is shadowed on the side opposite that of the mountains on the map? Not a big deal - it works either way.

Gameplay stuff: since this is classic gameplay there isn't much to talk about beyond the normal stuff, like...

• Bonuses: the +2 region is fine, as are the big regions which basically come out the same with the capiral bonus. Moldava is a nice +4, and will present an attractive yet challenging start. The other two +4 regions are questionable if we use Classic as our guide. Maramures gives +4 for a 6 territory, three border region that is even easier to old than Africa, which is the same size but gets hammered by three other regions. And Oltenia seems even higher: +4 for only five territories with three borders... and since it allows for fairly easy, one territory at a time expansion both east and west, I'd say that might be a better +3.

• Bottlenecks: Maramures and Transylvania can be held together with only two borders; that's +11 for holding the line in just two places, while the rest of the players beat themselves up in the rest of the map where the more attractive starts are. I think this is OK because nobody should let the Maramures player get that far, but I just wanted to point it out. I guess the two southern regions can also be held with just three territories, so bottlenecks are sort of the name of the game on this map.

• Territory names: would it be against convention to put the "N" and "S" at the beginning of the Tulcea titles? It might result in fewer misdeployments. ("What? I swear I just put two armies in Tulcea! Oh, Tulcea S... boo.")

And would you be so kind as to limit the number of versions you have in the first post? Some of don't have fast connections, so the more images you put on there the longer I watch images slowly render.

[foregone]

Looking really nice foregone. I like the soft colors, though I do find myself leaning in to distinguish borders and the like.

I can make the borders darker if that would help?

Gameplay stuff: since this is classic gameplay there isn't much to talk about beyond the normal stuff, like...

• Bonuses: the +2 region is fine, as are the big regions which basically come out the same with the capiral bonus. Moldava is a nice +4, and will present an attractive yet challenging start. The other two +4 regions are questionable if we use Classic as our guide. Maramures gives +4 for a 6 territory, three border region that is even easier to old than Africa, which is the same size but gets hammered by three other regions. And Oltenia seems even higher: +4 for only five territories with three borders... and since it allows for fairly easy, one territory at a time expansion both east and west, I'd say that might be a better +3.

No probs. Shall I make them both +3s or just Oltenia?

• Territory names: would it be against convention to put the "N" and "S" at the beginning of the Tulcea titles? It might result in fewer misdeployments. ("What? I swear I just put two armies in Tulcea! Oh, Tulcea S... boo.")

No convention. Consider it done.

And would you be so kind as to limit the number of versions you have in the first post? Some of don't have fast connections, so the more images you put on there the longer I watch images slowly render.

Done.

Thanks oaktown.

[foregone]

Updated: Made the inner borders darker.
Switched Tulcea N. and S. to N Tulcea and S Tulcea
Changed the bonus on Maramures and Oltenia to 3.

Click image to enlarge.

[foregone]

*uhum* cheap bump for comments *uhum*

[gdeangel]

Hey foregone - you asked for gameplay comments, and I'd say you've got a spot on one two posts up about getting +11 by holding two territories. You will definitely need to make some attack paths through the mountains. But without knowing how many neutrals you plan to have in 1v1, it's tough to know if it will have good 1v1 gamepley. Note that if Moldara is blocked in by neutrals, it will be possible to build a +2 territory advantage by knocking out an opponent back there. So you would never want both Vreancea and Galali to start both neutral. A cut into Succava from Mures might be the way to go.

Your map is a little like Antarctica or a big Iceland, with some of the Iberia concepts, but the impassible border between Succava and Bistrita will change the game dynamic of troop movement a bit. I think a good place to start, since we don't have beta testing, is that you should play maybe a few sets of 20 games on those maps, using in each set the same settings, and see where you think those designs work and don't work. Then incorporate into your design when you figure out home many starting armies to give, placement restrictions, and neutral positions. Since this is a traditional style map, that's all you have to worry about besides boarders and continents. But think of it this way - if someone in a 1v1 gets the +2 starting bonus, plus Bucharest, and you start with 18 each + 8 neutrals, that's an 8 deploy + 1, enough to take both Braila and Galoti on the first move, effectively locking down the bonus. That's not a fatal issue, and I think your design is a lot better than, e.g., Wales in Brittish Iles. If you make a 1v1 start with, say, 14, that's going to have neutral blockage problems, so it become a judgment call based on what the experience is that you think is going to happen by extension of the experience on similar maps.

Also, because of the length of borders on most regions (barring a joint hold mentioned above), this could very well end up being a game where building on Bucharest in a 5 or six player game would be the way to go. If you are thinking that the sheer number of territories in Transylvania and Maramures is going to make for interesting play, you could very well have some one-sided deploys in team games, particularly unlimited fort team games, where a side is able to actually use the 2-territory hold +11.

All of this, however, is just a rough prediction of how games might play out. Really there should be a testing phase and that is what I was getting at in my post in GD. Sorry if I butchered spelling on the territory names... it's also a little hard to read them, but looks good aesthetically.

[foregone]

Firstly, thanks for the comments. Much appreciated. And not an awful butchering of the territory names at all...though Succava = Suceava, heh.

So, let me try and answer some of the questions here. As it is now there are 42 territories, none of which are set to deploy as neutral. As oaktown stated somewhere right at the beginning of this thread, its a number which works for nice territory divisions in 3, 4 and 6 players. In 1v1, by my calculation, this will end up deploying 14 territories to each player and 14 neutrals, which you think may end up in blockages.

I have no problems with opening some of the impassables up though to prevent that if you think it will help. I think it may be better to open up by Maramures to Moldavia (probably Maramures to Suceava or Bistrita to Suceava) rather than opening up a middle way between Transylvania to Oltenia or Muntenia, mainly because I think the bigger continents will be pretty hard to hold as it is. Do you think this would prevent the blockages issues?

Bucharest will at this stage give a small advantage to anyone who drops it, and holds it, but I figured its placed in a hard to hold continent and will bring in some dispute to the area, so that players don't always just make flight for the corner continents. Its also balanced by Transylvania getting a slightly bigger continent bonus than Muntenia. I could drop Bucharest neutral 3 or somesuch, but it would throw the territory numbers off a bit, so I would probably have to carve a half territory elsewhere...possibly in Maramures and then bring its continent bonus up to 4.

How do you feel about the above? Would you like me to try to implement any of them?

[gdeangel]

So, let me try and answer some of the questions here. As it is now there are 42 territories, none of which are set to deploy as neutral. As oaktown stated somewhere right at the beginning of this thread, its a number which works for nice territory divisions in 3, 4 and 6 players. In 1v1, by my calculation, this will end up deploying 14 territories to each player and 14 neutrals, which you think may end up in blockages.

I have no problems with opening some of the impassables up though to prevent that if you think it will help. I think it may be better to open up by Maramures to Moldavia (probably Maramures to Suceava or Bistrita to Suceava) rather than opening up a middle way between Transylvania to Oltenia or Muntenia, mainly because I think the bigger continents will be pretty hard to hold as it is. Do you think this would prevent the blockages issues?

I think that is a decent solution. The addition of another Moldavia also means that in a multi-player esc game, it will not be so easy to corner off your opponent to prevent a hostile take-out by a third party for cards. You don't want to make it too easy to hide up in Bolsomi.

Query though, in order to preserve the geographic reality, it is better to cut a mountain pass on adjacent territories or to have a tunnel, something like on the Iwa Jima map, to create more possibilities. Is there any basis for that in the actual set up of the highway / rail systems in Romania that would make it possible to keep the "accuracy" of the map intact. If so, that might be a good way to go.

Bucharest will at this stage give a small advantage to anyone who drops it, and holds it, but I figured its placed in a hard to hold continent and will bring in some dispute to the area, so that players don't always just make flight for the corner continents. Its also balanced by Transylvania getting a slightly bigger continent bonus than Muntenia. I could drop Bucharest neutral 3 or somesuch, but it would throw the territory numbers off a bit, so I would probably have to carve a half territory elsewhere...possibly in Maramures and then bring its continent bonus up to 4.

The problem here is that apparently its not possible to make it a neutral for 1v1 and otherwise make it available for occupation in a 3, 4 or 6 player game (query... in a three player game, with unlimited fortification, 14 x 3 = 42 starting troops, can do some real damage if enough of them land in those wide open, highly interconnected areas of Transylvania and Maramures. You are probably going to be better off having some neutrals in a three player game anyway.) In a 1v1 game, starting with a +1 is not insurmountable, but the concern would be that starting with a +1, as well as the +2 Dobrogea would be a problem. For sure, those three territories should be coded in a way that no single player starts with all three. In a 3 or 5 player game, where the risk of attack is leaving oneself open to a rear action from the non-compromised players, you have a very slight problem in that there is not much out there to balance Bucharest. You could end up with a lopsided game with lost of building in the south. If you were to put an impass between Vilcea and Arges, and reduce the Oltenia bonus to +2, it then become a nicely balanced +2 - +1 +2 setup in the South. If there is any basis for a tunnel type connection between Vilcea and, say, Cluj, it would reduce the ability to hide behind said border, and also create a balance line for a +3 / +2 build. Again, I don't know if it's appropriate to starting putting in tunnels - it's Romania not Switzerland, right??? But just an idea.

How do you feel about the above? Would you like me to try to implement any of them?

You are on the right track with opening up the north-eastern mountain pass. It would be great to try to play with the cut in different places and pick the best one, but I guess that's just not possible, so your intuition about where to put the cut is probably better than mine. I would probably not code Bucharest to always start neutral, but I would code it so that the same person who gets that does not also get a +2 on the drop.

If the tunnel suggestion is too over the top, feel free to ignore... at least I didn't suggest any radioactive animals with super attack ability

[oaktown]

rather than punching a hole through one of your mountain ranges to make the north-western half of the map harder to hold, it would also work to simply expand the openings so that more Maramures territories are border territories. Right now each mountain passage is held by just one Maramures territory - if you erased a couple of mountains in the east you could make Brasov touch Bazau, which would make the north and the south even: both would be a combined +10 for holding the line at three borders,

Maramures and Oltenia at +3 I think are good changes. Oltenia is a better +3 than +4, and while Maramures could go either way since it doesn't have anybody that will molest it I think +3 is good... plus it makes the north and south even, as noted above. If you were to bump it up to +4, I would suggest dropping Transylvania to a +6.

I look at this map and I don't think that there is one obviously advantageous start. I'm a bit concerned about somebody getting a bonus to start the game with, but there's not much you can do about that; at least like you said there really isn't anyplace to go from that start as it is three territories removed from any of the smallish regions. A four-territory regions would be nice to balance the fact that there is a three territory region, since somebody should have Dobrogea wrapped up at least one or two rounds before anybody else has a bonus coming, but I guess that's the luck of the draw; plus, the first thing that the Dobrogea player will run into is the guy who has been stacking armies up on Bucharest, so let them duke it out.

Here's another thought about Bucharest: you could only give a +1 for Bucharest if the player meets some other condition, such as holding a region. The San Francisco map does this with Alcatraz: holding Alcatraz gives an additional +1 for every region held. Might not be a great idea, but I thought I'd throw it out there for consideration.

[yeti_c]

(Note - Bucharest bonus would then NOT be autodeploy as not possible with current XML)

C>