Nordic Countries [Quenched]

[Eyestone]

What's wrong with bottlenecks? Making every place on the map having one way to the south, east, west and north is kind of boring as I see it... And it's not a becoming a complete bottleneck if you connect Bergen with Trondheim.

[snufkin]

I really think you should reconsider using locations/villages/cities just because they would look good on any generic map..
Only people who don´t care about the region will appreciate it, and the map is not unique enough to

My suggestion would be that you at least use the 3-5 largest cities of every country or area.. If you believe it´s impossible to do that and have healthy gameplay..
..then I fear that map wont be interesting at all to many Nordic cc players.

Tampere definitely needs to be in there.. it is not only Finland´s third largest city but also claimed to be the largest inland city in the whole Nordic region.

[natty dread]

My suggestion would be that you at least use the 3-5 largest cities of every country or area.. If you believe it´s impossible to do that and have healthy gameplay..
..then I fear that map wont be interesting at all to many Nordic cc players.

Which I am doing, within the boundaries of what can be done. First of all, there are size restrictions... The small map must also be legible, so there can't be territories too close to each other. And I can't fit too many territories to a certain area...

The second concern is gameplay. What I'm trying to do is to retain as much realism / geographical & cultural accuracy as possible while at the same time creating a working gameplay structure. This is a delicate balance, and not too easy on a map like this. But I'm doing the best I can.

Tampere definitely needs to be in there.. it is not only Finland´s third largest city but also claimed to be the largest inland city in the whole Nordic region.

Yes, I agree. Tampere definitely would earn it's place in the map. However, the problem with Tampere is that it is so close to Helsinki and Turku. And those two cities are definitely very important.. One is the capital (and connection to Estonia) and other is the former capital (and connection to Åland/Sweden).

So, believe me, not including Tampere had nothing to do with my general dislike of the city and the people inhabiting it

But in all seriousness... scrapping the interconnected circles and going with a more conventional territory approach has been suggested many times and I am at this point seriously considering it. I would probably still use some major cities as territory names, but at some places, particularly where there are no major cities at the region, I would just use the name of the region as the territory name. The capital territories would of course be preserved, but everything else about the map may change...

Stay tuned.

[AndyDufresne]

Ahoy!

I won't comment too much on the graphics...right now it seems like you have a War Games-esque/computer style graphic. Which I think could work for the map, if you push it further.



I also think the current color scheme could use some rethinking. I'm not sure if anyone else if having a disconnect when trying to match the bonus legend to areas on the map, but I feel like it is taking longer than it should. Maybe experiment with similar regions (all Norway, all Sweden), etc, being gradations of similar colors? Maybe that wouldn't help. But I feel like something can be done here to speed of the recognition process.

I'd also make the islands of Aland and Gotland a little more color distinctive, so there is no question on which bonus zone they belong to.


But on to game play:

Iceland and Northern Norway look strong.

North Sweden may be too strong (at +5). However, this may help people going after it, to combat the strong north (Iceland and Northern Norway, 3 borders for +6). I'd re-look at this area and see how you really want it to be.

Denmark looks like a nice starting point---except that it's expansion possibilities don't look as good as bonus zones in the north. Whoever starts here can't really expand and keep their borders down...they'll keep ending up with 3/4 borders and with minimal bonus gain from Denmark.

Estonia is somewhat similar, though slightly better off because of the near immediate acquisition possibility of grabbing the capital in South Finland. However, expansion from that capital out, and from out of Estonia, looks even worse off compared to Denmark.

Southern Norway, doesn't look like too bad of a start--mostly because the bonus zones near it probably won't have anyone going for them, so they have possibilities of expansion there. But still not great expansion.

Capitals feel like more of a superfluous addition to the map. Someone else mentioned using a couple of other Major Cities I think? Maybe that could help as well.

(P.S. On any map, I usually detest bonus zones with names like "North this" "South that" ---while sometimes helpful for locating an area on the map, they often feel unimaginative. However, such precise/technical names may fit with the "war games" style of graphics if that is developed further.)


--Andy

[natty dread]

Ahoy!

I won't comment too much on the graphics...right now it seems like you have a War Games-esque/computer style graphic. Which I think could work for the map, if you push it further.

Hmm. Good point, I should think on it.

I also think the current color scheme could use some rethinking. I'm not sure if anyone else if having a disconnect when trying to match the bonus legend to areas on the map, but I feel like it is taking longer than it should. Maybe experiment with similar regions (all Norway, all Sweden), etc, being gradations of similar colors? Maybe that wouldn't help. But I feel like something can be done here to speed of the recognition process.

I'll play around with the colours & see what I can do.

I'd also make the islands of Aland and Gotland a little more color distinctive, so there is no question on which bonus zone they belong to.

Yeah, this has been a major issue. Still is apparently...

Iceland and Northern Norway look strong.

North Sweden may be too strong (at +5). However, this may help people going after it, to combat the strong north (Iceland and Northern Norway, 3 borders for +6). I'd re-look at this area and see how you really want it to be.

The bonuses can be adjusted. How would you distribute the bonuses?

Denmark looks like a nice starting point---except that it's expansion possibilities don't look as good as bonus zones in the north. Whoever starts here can't really expand and keep their borders down...they'll keep ending up with 3/4 borders and with minimal bonus gain from Denmark.

Do you think a connection between denmark and iceland would help it?

Estonia is somewhat similar, though slightly better off because of the near immediate acquisition possibility of grabbing the capital in South Finland. However, expansion from that capital out, and from out of Estonia, looks even worse off compared to Denmark.

Remember, estonia also has direct access to sweden... But yeah I see your point. No idea how to fix it though. Anyway, let's see how the poll goes for Estonia.

Southern Norway, doesn't look like too bad of a start--mostly because the bonus zones near it probably won't have anyone going for them, so they have possibilities of expansion there. But still not great expansion.

Do you have any ideas how to fix this, or if it needs to be fixed?

Capitals feel like more of a superfluous addition to the map. Someone else mentioned using a couple of other Major Cities I think? Maybe that could help as well.

Maybe. As I said in my previous post I'm considering scrapping the interconnected cities ("new classic" style) and replacing them with more standard territories with borders, as several people have wished for this. However I'm not completely sure about it yet, as I quite like the city approach and feel that it fits in the map. What do you think?

Also another idea would be to scrap the +1 autodeploy for the capitals, instead I could add more big cities and make them a collectable bonus (+1 for 3, +2 for 4 and so on...)

(P.S. On any map, I usually detest bonus zones with names like "North this" "South that" ---while sometimes helpful for locating an area on the map, they often feel unimaginative. However, such precise/technical names may fit with the "war games" style of graphics if that is developed further.)

The graphical style may yet change, depending on the public opinion. However this is what we're going with until the map hits the graphics development phase...

Also, all of my map projects have currently been a bit "on hold" as I have been quite occupied with reading the latest Wheel of Time -book. I'm just a fantasy geek in disguise...

Thanks for your comments.

[AndrewB]

You seem to miss quite a few contries from the Northern Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe

The United Nations defines Northern Europe as including the following countries and dependent regions:[1][2]

* Denmark
o Faroe Islands
o Greenland
* Estonia
* Finland
o Åland Islands
* Iceland
* Republic of Ireland Ireland
* Latvia
* Lithuania
* Norway
o Norway Svalbard and Jan Mayen
* Sweden
* United Kingdom
o Isle of Man
o United Kingdom Channel Islands: Guernsey and Jersey

[natty dread]

You seem to miss quite a few contries from the Northern Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe

The United Nations defines Northern Europe as including the following countries and dependent regions:

Ah, so now the UN is dictating how I should name my maps?

Seriously though, if you feel this way, simply cast your vote on the poll, as option 2 would remove these issues that you bring up.

[Draq]

As a Swede I have some suggestions for the Swedish cities and some other stuff. Since you have choosen cities and not regions I think you should stick with that. First of all Gotland is just the name of the island so to make it more consistent you should rename that to Visby, which is the main city on Gotland. Åland should then be named Mariehamn and Saaremaa should be named Kuressaare.

Mora should be replaced by Falun or Borlänge, I would go for Falun cause it's more well known, much larger then Mora and have strong ties to swedish culture and industry (Falukorv, Falu rödfärg). Linköping is a good choice in that region. Arjeplog could be replaced by Arvidsjaur, altough it's almost as tiny as Arjeplog it atleast it's a important railroad junction. I also think Östersund is to far north to be geographicaly correct.

Im also for the skipping estonia part and calling it The Nordic Countries.

Keep up the good work!

[Evil DIMwit]

Denmark looks like a nice starting point---except that it's expansion possibilities don't look as good as bonus zones in the north. Whoever starts here can't really expand and keep their borders down...they'll keep ending up with 3/4 borders and with minimal bonus gain from Denmark.

Do you think a connection between denmark and iceland would help it?

Perhaps a connection from Denmark to Stavangør/Gudvagen, and one from Stavangør/Gudvagen to Iceland. It wrecks S. Norway's holdability but I think that's worth making Denmark and Iceland more open.

Capitals feel like more of a superfluous addition to the map. Someone else mentioned using a couple of other Major Cities I think? Maybe that could help as well.

Maybe. As I said in my previous post I'm considering scrapping the interconnected cities ("new classic" style) and replacing them with more standard territories with borders, as several people have wished for this. However I'm not completely sure about it yet, as I quite like the city approach and feel that it fits in the map. What do you think?

Also another idea would be to scrap the +1 autodeploy for the capitals, instead I could add more big cities and make them a collectable bonus (+1 for 3, +2 for 4 and so on...)

I think anything special you do with the cities is just unnecessary. The map has enough going on without it.

[natty dread]

As a Swede I have some suggestions for the Swedish cities and some other stuff. Since you have choosen cities and not regions I think you should stick with that. First of all Gotland is just the name of the island so to make it more consistent you should rename that to Visby, which is the main city on Gotland. Åland should then be named Mariehamn and Saaremaa should be named Kuressaare.

Mora should be replaced by Falun or Borlänge, I would go for Falun cause it's more well known, much larger then Mora and have strong ties to swedish culture and industry (Falukorv, Falu rödfärg). Linköping is a good choice in that region. Arjeplog could be replaced by Arvidsjaur, altough it's almost as tiny as Arjeplog it atleast it's a important railroad junction. I also think Östersund is to far north to be geographicaly correct.

Im also for the skipping estonia part and calling it The Nordic Countries.

Keep up the good work!

Thanks! It seems the tide of the poll has turned and I probably will have to do without Estonia. What a shame, I had grown attached to it.

So, adding to the to-do-list:

Lakselv -> Hammerfest
Lillehammar -> Lillehammer
Stavanger -> Bergen
Mosjøen -> Bodø
Kolding -> Vejle
Skien -> Kristiansand
Mora -> Falun
Arjeplog -> Arvidsjaur
Gotland -> Visby
Åland -> Mariehamn

Will try to adjust Östersund.

Now all we needs is a Dane and an Icelander to complain about their cities!

Perhaps a connection from Denmark to Stavangør/Gudvagen, and one from Stavangør/Gudvagen to Iceland. It wrecks S. Norway's holdability but I think that's worth making Denmark and Iceland more open.

That's the thing... I'm not sure if it is worth it. It's already hard to hold northern norway where every territory is a border... Now if you can't hold either there would be not much point in going for Norway.

I think anything special you do with the cities is just unnecessary. The map has enough going on without it.

True. Now I just need to figure out which cities would deserve to be made "capitals but not capitals"... Preferably I'd like to use major cities in northern Norway, Sweden and Finland which don't yet have "capitals". Then of course I would call them something else than capitals...

[captainwalrus]

Which is the most recent version?
I like

Click image to enlarge.

this one best, texture wise, but that doesn't seem to be on the first post.

[natty dread]

I haven't updated it on the first post, since it wasn't yet decided which version to use.

However I'll be making an update soon with major changes. Stay tuned...

[natty dread]

Version 10 of the map formerly known as "northern europe":

Click image to enlarge.

Scrapped Estonia. Renamed map Nordic Countries.

Many cities changed. Many city connections changed.

New legend. New colours. New texture.

Now with 25% more strategy!

[AndyDufresne]

Why not give this map the look...as if it is displayed on an old computer screen? I.E. give it a frame around the map that could signify/showcase that? Play up that theme, if you are going to keep it.


--Andy

[natty dread]

Umm... otherwise a passable idea, but the shape of the map wouldn't lend itself well to that. Unless the monitor was turned on it's side.

Anyway, how do you like the changes?