Land and Sea [Quenched]

[InkL0sed]

Ed, do the graphics yourself. I actually rather like that as a first draft...

[edbeard]

at the moment I'll say no but if by a miracle this map gets a lot of interest yet no one willing to do the graphics, I'll tough it out.

Right now I'd rather discuss gameplay. The first thing to figure out is land/water connections. As someone said, if I make all the dots (in the same general area) as connections then that's probably too many attack routes.

Click image to enlarge.

so, It'll probably be something like SE Pacific connects to Argentina but not Antarctica. While the SW Atlantic touches Antarctica but not Argentina. Furthermore, this means that the East Pacific territory would border Central America and not Colombia and Midwest Atlantic would border Colombia but not Central America.

I could go through and use that logic throughout but I'll do that later. Esp if people think it's a good idea.


Someone asked about the Mediterranean. It's not going to be in the map because size and spacing is already an issue. I don't even know if these territories are good ones or not or if I should rework some of them or get rid of some or add some whatever. I think I have 51 territories but I need to count them (if you're going to do this note that while there are 4 arctic ocean territories, there are also 4 antarctica territories (only because I screwed up the borders there) and territories in the pacific cross over the sides of the map. This will be represented by having army circles on one side and names on the other and probably a note in the legend about this too).

[edbeard]

Click image to enlarge.

What you need to know:

1. 51 territories (31 land and 20 water)
2. 10 continents


1. decided to put in a workable legend (though I didn't put any thought into bonuses so please rip em to shreds) which had the side effect of making the image very very ugly

2. decided to put in arrows to make land-water connections so gameplay could be discussed (though I didn't put too much thought into them so please rip em to shreds) which had the side effect of making the image very very ugly

[InkL0sed]

I think the ocean-water connections should be based on what's convenient for game play.

And I think arrows are a move in the right direction for indicators, although these obviously don't look to great.

Also, I wouldn't mind doing the graphics for this, though I don't know that I'm any better than you...

[edbeard]

right now I'm not worrying about graphics at all (though I'd rather get someone experienced (no offense)). I mean the legend is awful looks-wise but it's just a starting point to get gameplay talk going (I think going for a 'black and white' (greys) look would be a lot better).


thoughts on the continents?

thoughts on where the land-water connections occur? I'd like to get one from Arctic to Eurasia in there but that'd throw off all the other connections. maybe it'd be better to start with connections that we all feel are 'necessary' and then add other ones that makes sense after that.


only ones I feel are 'necessary'

1. India - North Indian Ocean

2. NE Atlantic - NW Africa


all the others I have no real affection.

[InkL0sed]

right now I'm not worrying about graphics at all (though I'd rather get someone experienced (no offense)).

No offense taken.

On to game play. This is what I think:

The continents for land should be the continents. For water, just make it the major oceans. So, the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Indian, and the Arctic. So basically as you have it now, except I'd like to see Europe separated from Asia if possible.

Land-water connections:

North America:
Eastern US - Carribean
Central America - Carribean
Central America - Pacific
Greenland - Arctic
Alaska - Pacific

Probably would make NA worth a +5

South America: I like it as you have it now. Probably worth +2, since you can't expand too easily from it. Same reasoning as in Classic.

Africa:
North Africa - same territory that connects to Brazil in the Atlantic
South Africa - as you have it now
The Horn - Indian Ocean

Bonus: +4

Europe (assuming you add another territory and make it a separate continent):
Western Europe - Atlantic
Scandinavia - Arctic
Bonus: + 2/3, depending on how it works out

Asia:
Eastern Russia/Siberia/Kamchatka - Pacific
India - Indian Ocean (as you have now)

Bonus: +5

Oceania:
Philippines/New Guinea - Northern Pacific

Bonus: +1

Antarctic: exactly as it is now

Oceans:
Arctic: +2 (only 2 borders)
Pacific: +4 (4 borders, 5 territories)
Atlantic: +6 (5 borders, 7 territories, and a central position)
Indian: +3 (could be +2, but I prefer a 3)

[whitestazn88]

i think its a step forward because it doesn't seem like there are so many attack points.

but at the same time, i still think they could be more accurately placed if you're gonna drop down to that few.
for example: the one in alaska is do-able because one can think that the bering strait is pretty shallow, land bridge, etc. same with the one in the new york harbor, and the mexico one is roughly placed where one could picture the rio grande.

but then what of the two africa ones? don't really make sense... move one to western europe instead of north africa in my opinion, and maybe move the one in se africa to the other coast? i think the tanzania or congo rivers flow out to that side.

[Juan_Bottom]

Shouldn't S. America be worth +2? Each of it's territories is an attack point.

I think you should drop Antartica, shrink it down, and try and add some other territories. Who ever would attack Antartica in real world?

[edbeard]

Inklosed. your post is quite long and I'll respond to each piece by either implementing those changes or not in an update. thanks!

btw, europe is crowded as it is. I'm keeping Eurasia because it makes for a nice big bonus area and because I don't think any other map has Eurasia so I might as well be the first.

i think its a step forward because it doesn't seem like there are so many attack points.

but at the same time, i still think they could be more accurately placed if you're gonna drop down to that few.
for example: the one in alaska is do-able because one can think that the bering strait is pretty shallow, land bridge, etc. same with the one in the new york harbor, and the mexico one is roughly placed where one could picture the rio grande.

but then what of the two africa ones? don't really make sense... move one to western europe instead of north africa in my opinion, and maybe move the one in se africa to the other coast? i think the tanzania or congo rivers flow out to that side.

I don't think we can take the "try to be real" perspective. We have to go with what works for gameplay. I do, however, think that the connection to western Europe works well. probably the se atlantic to africa as well. it would make Indian more of a +3 and add to making Atlantic a 'big' bonus area like it is (and like Inklosed pointed out).

I do appreciate your post, but I can't really use the perspective you're coming from.

Shouldn't S. America be worth +2? Each of it's territories is an attack point.

I think you should drop Antartica, shrink it down, and try and add some other territories. Who ever would attack Antartica in real world?

I had meant to make the attack route be to Colombia since it already serves as a border but I guess I put it in the wrong spot. 3 territories. 2 borders. +1. not a killer if someone gets it from the drop but who doesn't like an extra army?

Who would ever attack the South Indian Ocean in the real world? Who would ever attack Greenland in the real world. If you want to convince me (which you're not going to be able to on this by the way) your argument will need solid logic and reasoning. thanks for the post though!

p.s. from a gameplay perspective, it's good to have the land as a 'dead end' on the south whereas we have the arctic ocean as a 'dead end' up north. I'd rather have one area where everything spreads out (in a way) instead of three bonus areas stopping at one point with nothing there. also having it be four territories is good because we already have two continents of three territories

[MrBenn]

right now I'm not worrying about graphics at all.

Has anybody mentioned that these graphics suck? Get a decent draft up if you want to be taken seriously...

On a slightly more serious note, have you put any thought into the 'golden' number of starting territories? I can't remember if 51 is considered golden or not?

[InkL0sed]

I'm a fan of these graphics actually. Obviously needs a little touching up, but if you don't pay attention to the details... it looks nice.

[edbeard]

right now I'm not worrying about graphics at all.

Has anybody mentioned that these graphics suck? Get a decent draft up if you want to be taken seriously...

Oh! I did! I did!

On a slightly more serious note, have you put any thought into the 'golden' number of starting territories? I can't remember if 51 is considered golden or not?

according to Benjikat...
52,53 - the best sizes for slightly larger than standard maps

I have 51 so adding one territory somewhere might be a good idea (pacific ocean?). 52 is better than 51 since 52/4 = 13. whereas everyone would have 12 with 51.


I'll take your post as a 'I'm interested in doing your graphics' post so chop chop.

ok ok. I'll send you the psd to make it easier then chop chop.

[MrBenn]

I'll take your post as a 'I'm interested in doing your graphics' post so chop chop.

ok ok. I'll send you the psd to make it easier then chop chop.

u nit wit

[edbeard]

I'll take your post as a 'I'm interested in doing your graphics' post so chop chop.

ok ok. I'll send you the psd to make it easier then chop chop.

u nit wit

you're heartless




I think the extra territory definitely has to be in the Pacific. I'd rather not add another border as keeping it as a +4 region seems smart to me. I could see it going in the area that borders alaska to baja-california and maybe spreading southwards to about that area where there looks to be a gap in the border. that way the north pacifc still borders the central-east pacific.

or

have it border china.

or

have it border alaska but not go west enough for it to border the bering strait

[MrBenn]

You could add a territory into the Med??

Instead of using arrows, surely ports/docks would make sense? Is there any real-world rationale for picking the places you have?