Northwest Passage [Quenched]

[Evil DIMwit]

Isn't McClure 4 regions, counting Banks Island?

[shakeycat]

Isn't McClure 4 regions, counting Banks Island?

You're right! Forget I ever mentioned it :}

And here I was going to respond with "this is why I outlined the army circles, so we wouldn't have people assuming that just because the line came close that it included that territory... " I understand now that the map absolutely would not function without them!

[Evil DIMwit]

Hah! Okay, well, I think that Hudson is all right for the drop, since it's only a 1 troop bonus, it's surrounded by a lot of territories, and this is a big map. As for Greenland and Ellesmere, even a +2 bonus from either could make more of a dent in the game balance; my suggestion is that you pick a territory from each one to start with a 2-count neutral. You can afford to bring the deployable territory count to 66 and still be at a Safe Number. I also think it's appropriate for Ellesmere to be worth more than Greenland since the former's territories are topologically so far apart and so out of the way, while the latter's are close together.

[shakeycat]

So in that case: Ellesmere bonus is +3, Greenland +2, nothing changes there.

Ilulissat and Alert will drop with 2 neutrals each. Easy to kill, but nobody starts with a bonus from them. I like that. Would any of the other territories be better for the 2 neutrals?

[iancanton]

not only does the minor islands bonus cause some difficulties during the drop (some players will have a bonus and others won't), but it also draws the focus away from the explorer routes to the point where only hudson and mcclure are realistic targets. try removing the minor islands bonus and replacing it with a +1 build-ur-own bonus for every explorer troop circle held (separate from the existing explorer route bonuses) - the 19 explorer regions obviously have to start neutral, perhaps with 2 troops. conceptually, this represents the fact of there initially being no northwest passage and one having to be discovered by breaking the ice. this will surely bring back the focus to where it ought to be.

ian.

[shakeycat]

Ian,

Good idea. I like it. There really was no reason to make islands important.

I suppose bisecting the map with a line of neutrals isn't a problem, since Route 66 does it. Build-a-bonus would be +1 for how many?, and need they be touching or no?

2 or 3 neutral start, I'm not sure which is better. If it's breaking-the-ice, 2 would imply that it is easy. yet it doesn't make the passage a barrier either. And if there's a build-a-bonus to be had, a 3 neutral start sounds more reasonable. If it's "ice breaking", should some be easier and some harder? Though the picture no longer shows it, Coronation Gulf is much harder than something like Davis Strait. I think Queen Maud is very shallow in some places too. Of course, if it ISN'T either all 2 or all 3, then it would have to be somewhat logical and improve the gameplay in some way.

Should land that is part of the route (Banks, Disko, Devon, King William, Melville) have a +1 autodeploy? Reason being, they are places where the ship harbours and recharges. Just an idea, maybe too much complication if we add that.

I wonder, would players go straight for the routes or would they try to take advantage of either the top or the bottom? I'm sure there's too many total territories to make it easy to kick someone out of the top or bottom.

[iancanton]

I suppose bisecting the map with a line of neutrals isn't a problem, since Route 66 does it.

the idea came from route 66!

Build-a-bonus would be +1 for how many?, and need they be touching or no?

my initial thought was +1 for each 1, though we could specify that only chains of 2 or more adjacent circles will count.

ian.

[MrBenn]

[Moved]

It would appear that development of this map has stalled. If the mapmaker wants to continue with the map, then one of the Foundry Moderators will be able to help put the thread back into the Foundry system, after an update has been made.

[ender516]

[Moved]

It would appear that development of this map has stalled. If the mapmaker wants to continue with the map, then one of the Foundry Moderators will be able to help put the thread back into the Foundry system, after an update has been made.

Oh, this is a shame. I have been looking forward to this map. I hope it is resurrected.

[MarshalNey]

I feel that somehow I've let this map down. The first draft of this map was so very good, and it looked so elegant that I thought it was a clinch for the Final Forge.

[ender516]

Odd that shakeycat is playing games, but hasn't posted to the forums for nearly four weeks.

[shakeycat]

Yeah, funny that.

I rejigged it at my other computer just to show what would be neutral, and never bothered to post that image. I guess I should. But hey, it's always good to step away for a month then come back at it sorta fresh.

[ender516]

Oh, good to see you back! Please don't let this map die.

[lzrman]

Welcome Back, I don't wanna see this map die either! You put so much effort into the initial post

[ender516]

Anyone interested in this map would likely be interested to know How the Arctic search team found HMS Investigator, one of the ships sent in 1848 to find Franklin's lost expedition.

[shakeycat]

Thanks Ender, I'll forward to the husband!

Here's where I'm at today. Nothing much has changed. I need to make the top right legends flow, maybe they need a solid box for all of them? It's a bit haphazard. Coloured the 88's to reflect what would be neutral in the initial drop, to make it easier to think about. Anybody see any problems with this brick of ice across the middle of the map?

For the white/route army circles, neutral 2 is more appealing to me, but if there's going to be a build-a-bonus of +1 for 1, perhaps neutral 3 is better. I still haven't really thought about it or counted it out. Maybe neutral 2 with a lesser build a bonus. Maybe no build a bonus.

Click image to enlarge.

[MarshalNey]

I just realized that you posted a map update! Is this topic active again? Should it be moved?

Anybody see any problems with this brick of ice across the middle of the map?

No, I like the idea of making the explorer routes neutral and 'discovering' them. You should definitely keep it. And the build-a-bonus would give the neutrals added reason for being taken.

However, it does change a few things for the land bonuses. With a fair number of the seas neutral, some land bonuses will be easier to keep initially, and others (like Greenland) will be harder to take. It's not a problem really, I only bring it up because the restricted movement in the beginning will accentuate the effect of dropping a small bonus.

Has the possibility of dropping the Elsmere Isl. or NW Territories bonuses been considered? Should a neutral be placed on one of the regions in each?

For the white/route army circles, neutral 2 is more appealing to me, but if there's going to be a build-a-bonus of +1 for 1, perhaps neutral 3 is better. I still haven't really thought about it or counted it out. Maybe neutral 2 with a lesser build a bonus. Maybe no build a bonus.

I'd vote all neutral 2s for the explorer circles. Then, perhaps +1 for every 2?

Under that scheme, the expeditions if all held would be worth the following:
Henry Hudson +2 (1 + 1), 2 regions
Franklin +10 (5 + 5), 10 regions
Parry +6 (3 + 3), 6 regions
McClure +4 (2 + 2), 4 regions

What I like is that it effectively doubles the value of the expeditions, yielding +1 per region if a whole expedition is held, but only +1 per 2 if you don't. Doubling I think is a good, straightforward incentive to hold an expedition.

If the bonus were +1 per 1 region held, then holding an expedition would count for much less, only a 50% increase rather than 100%. The incentive wouldn't be as strong.

[Evil DIMwit]

Yes, it is certainly appropriate to move this map back.

The build-a-bonus didn't work out, but maybe you can put another land bonus or two around some of the western islands, so as to not disadvantage players who drop a large presence there and nowhere else.

[iancanton]

I'd vote all neutral 2s for the explorer circles. Then, perhaps +1 for every 2?

Under that scheme, the expeditions if all held would be worth the following:
Henry Hudson +2 (1 + 1), 2 regions
Franklin +10 (5 + 5), 10 regions
Parry +6 (3 + 3), 6 regions
McClure +4 (2 + 2), 4 regions

i like that.

maybe you can put another land bonus or two around some of the western islands, so as to not disadvantage players who drop a large presence there and nowhere else.

i'm not sure that any more land bonuses are needed. there's not that much disadvantage for someone who starts with a few of the western islands, since they can do a concerted attack on the arctic ocean, which has direct access to two regions on the mcclure route.

ian.

[shakeycat]

Click image to enlarge.

Once again, no big changes, just posting to confirm where we're at. The only thing I changed here was adding the "Other notable Expeditions:" and "Earn +1 for every 2 Expedition territories held", it should probably say +1 troops. Hopefully the double use of the word Expedition makes it clear which territories we mean, and I'm assuming it's obvious that yellow is included.

I've noted on the front page that Neutrals will start with 2. Should probably make the army circles reflect this instead.

MarsalNey, good work: I agree that the doubling of bonus for holding the whole route is good from a gameplay standpoint. The build-a-bonus makes complete sense, as icebreaking and moving from this strait into that gulf would certainly be a mark of success, one step closer to the Northwest Passage. What seems funny is that the bonus should double upon holding a complete expedition route, which, other than Amundsen, is really just a partial route. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but I like a good story, and other than historic value, it seems kind of pointless that one would want to own the route of a failed passing.

As for neutrals on Ellesmere and/or Northwest Territories: we've considered this. I've marked in Alert and Yellowknife as neutral. Earlier on, I suggested Illusiat, but it seems Disko is now the neutral for Greenland. Alert will be neutral 2: this okay?

I've noticed that half of Nunavut and all of Northwest Territories is landlocked by neutrals from expeditions. To make it a little harder to seal off the NWT bonus, I've made Yellowknife neutral, and I think this should be a neutral 3. This looks like the easy bonus of this map, the Australia that everyone goes for first.

I'm not sure which would be better (read: more difficult) though: to have those 7 territories available for the drop, or have 6 available and 1 neutral? It seems a large area to sweep, but whoever has the majority of the drop could probably pick that bonus up easily. Anyone coming from a distance would actually have to fight off quite a few neutral armies to reach the 7 territory pocket. Even though it's a one-way entrance, a second player can invade from islands around Hudson. Plus, the neutral 2's are not only easy to knock over, but give the attacker +troops.

Added a slight shadow to the coloured army-circle-rings, since some weren't popping enough on the blue.

Evil DIMwit, I can see your concern: it's a large area with few bonuses to grab, locked in by some ice. Seems the options here, as Ian said, are mostly around McClure. One could also use Bathurst to break into the greater area of the map, or jam the Ellesmere bonus quite successfully. Hopefully the sheer number of territories will make it hard to be cornered in this bonus-less area early in the game.

[ender516]

If you want to be sure that "it's obvious that yellow is included", then change the legend to read "Expedition Route of Roald Amundsen". I think your double use of "Expedition" is apt, and a triple use should be even more to the point.

[benga]

Don't let this map die!
Need it for tournament!

[Bruceswar]

Few quick questions.

1: How much is the yellow path worth if you hold it all?
2: Could the colors of the territory bonuses be a bit more different color wise? They all seem a bit too close.
3. What bonus does a place like Victoria Island belong to?

[natty dread]

This is a graphics crit, but you should have more contrast between the impassables and playable areas.

The contrast is fine in the lower map where the playable areas are dark, but in the upper (mainly the islands) they kinda blend together too much.

[Evil DIMwit]

+1 for every 2 expedition territories, is that within each expedition, or for every expedition territory combined? If you hold just Hudson Strait and Davis Strait, do you get +1? Or if you hold M'Clure Strait, Amundsen Gulf, and Coronation Gulf?