Alaska - v6.3 [2013-05-21] pg8

[Seamus76]

Names, these will need to be changed to Russian or Native Alaskan.

This comment stood out for me. Can I ask why this is a requirement?

Hey Peter, thank you so much for taking the time to stop by, I really appreciate it and hope you continue to help me work this one out. So if you have any ideas on how to spice up the gameplay just let me know.

Koontz is right, based on the time period I said I'm basing the map on, which is around the turn of the 20th century (1895), a lot of the maps I'm using reference the older names, which although a little foreign to some players makes for a more accurate map. A lot of the names I'm using now though were used then as well, so there won't be too many changes, but for example Barrow was originally called Point Barrow, so I've changed it to that for the next version.

The flip side of that is, as the map maker I do have some creative flexibility to work with where needed, and will certainly use that. One of the main maps I'm using, in addition to a ton of other maps, research, and reference materials is this really nice map...http://alaskaweb.org/maps/map-1895alaska.jpg. As you can see there are a lot of internal areas that aren't on this map so I'm using a bunch of other things to get accurate tert names.

Thanks again, and please come back soon.

[Peter Gibbons]

Names, these will need to be changed to Russian or Native Alaskan.

This comment stood out for me. Can I ask why this is a requirement?

Hey Peter, thank you so much for taking the time to stop by, I really appreciate it and hope you continue to help me work this one out. So if you have any ideas on how to spice up the gameplay just let me know.

Koontz is right, based on the time period I said I'm basing the map on, which is around the turn of the 20th century (1895), a lot of the maps I'm using reference the older names, which although a little foreign to some players makes for a more accurate map. A lot of the names I'm using now though were used then as well, so there won't be too many changes, but for example Barrow was originally called Point Barrow, so I've changed it to that for the next version.

The flip side of that is, as the map maker I do have some creative flexibility to work with where needed, and will certainly use that. One of the main maps I'm using, in addition to a ton of other maps, research, and reference materials is this really nice map...http://alaskaweb.org/maps/map-1895alaska.jpg. As you can see there are a lot of internal areas that aren't on this map so I'm using a bunch of other things to get accurate tert names.

Thanks again, and please come back soon.

Ah, I didn't notice you said you were basing it off 1895--my fault. I understand the desire to be historically accurate, I was just caught a bit that it seemed a requirement by the foundry staff that naming had to be historically accurate.

I like the start of the map. My only initial thought is that a 49 territory map with two +8s and two +6s seems like it will dissuade bonus collection. I understand the interest for accuracy, but maybe the Far North could be divided into two regions--once centered around Nome, the other around Barrow/Prudhoe. You might move Arctic Village and Fort Yukon into the new Barrow/Prudhoe bonus, too.

I also think you might move Egigik and/or Kodiak in with the Aleutians because, again, a 10-territory +6 on a 49 territory map isn't going to be collected too often.

I think changes along those lines would give more balance to the map and make for more dynamic gameplay.

Also, aesthetically, while I like the clean feel of the map, I must say that the color scheme and tone immediately reminds me of the Germany map. I know they aren't exactly the same and others might not feel they are that close, but I just wanted to point that out. I think some changes in color/tone would make this more unique--but that might be down the road.

[MoB Deadly]

Holy cow, what a great beginning. I love this map already haha

[Seamus76]

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-03-04:
Thanks everyone for the positive feedback. Here is the second version, which contains a big change/addition to the game play.
- Added Exploration ships, which provide +3 auto-deploy per turn. Each player will start with 1 or 2 depending on the game type. In addition to other territories randomly deployed throughout the map as normal.
- Added Small Boats, which help transport to and from the mainland. Since travel by small boat in these waters is perilous, and risky at best, these small boats revert to 1n at the top of each turn if held.
- The attack arrows indicate the one way attack to and from the Exploration ships.
- Added a little color to the mountains.

Things to do (among other things):
- Add name labels to the Exploration Ships and Small Boats.
- Work to make all of the "mini-map" images more clear, especially the smaller ones towards the bottom of the region bonus list.
- Put a lighter glow behind the tert names to make them stand out more, especially on the smaller islands, etc.
- In addition to the glow I will be adding army number circles to help indicate where the regions exactly are. (ex. ports, islands, etc.)
- Add the rest of the general aesthetic stuff, like ocean labels, etc.

CURRENT MAP VERSION

v2.0 - Large (840x800)

Click image to enlarge.

[koontz1973]

Seamus, like the update but some concerns. Docks all connect. This will mean you can get from one side to the other very quickly. Same goes for the ships. All small boats connect to all docks. So a player only needs to take 3 regions to attack other players big ships.

[Oneyed]

Seamus, like the update but some concerns. Docks all connect. This will mean you can get from one side to the other very quickly. Same goes for the ships. All small boats connect to all docks. So a player only needs to take 3 regions to attack other players big ships.

agreed.

you could try to divide sea?
there is Gulf of Alaska (with 3 big ships), Chukchi sea (with 2 big ships), Bering sea (with 3 big ships). and Docks connect to small ships in the same sea.

Oneyed

[koontz1973]

you could try to divide sea?
there is Gulf of Alaska (with 3 big ships), Chukchi sea (with 2 big ships), Bering sea (with 3 big ships). and Docks connect to small ships in the same sea.

Oneyed

Not a bad idea. It would allow for some in fighting and make the game far less open, but still allow some movement.

[Seamus76]

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-03-04:
So I added the three bodies of water labels, and changed the Deck legend text to say "All docks connect, and border Small Boats within their bodies of water". Obviously the labels need work, but would labeling the waters and including the text in the legend be enough?
- Also removed the dock at Nigalek. One it's in another body of water, and two to help slow down the movement around the map and increase strategic gamepaly.

Things to do (among other things):
- Add name labels to the Exploration Ships and Small Boats.
- Work to make all of the "mini-map" images more clear, especially the smaller ones towards the bottom of the region bonus list.
- Put a lighter glow behind the tert names to make them stand out more, especially on the smaller islands, etc.
- In addition to the glow I will be adding army number circles to help indicate where the regions exactly are. (ex. docks, islands, etc.)
- Add the rest of the general aesthetic stuff.

CURRENT MAP VERSION

v2.1 - Large (840x800)

Click image to enlarge.

[koontz1973]

I like it.

[Seamus76]

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-03-07:
- Added names to the large ships. Does anyone have any thoughts on a nice, simple naming convention for the Small Boats? Something that doesn't take up very much room, and wouldn't need additional explanation elsewhere, as space is limited. SB-Nep-1, SB-Nep-2 for the S.S. Neptune Small Boats, maybe?
- Moved some of the ships sets around, as well as the names of the waters.
- I also added some army circles to the Far North just to see what they would look like.

As for the docks, and which ship sets they attack, is it clear? Right now it looks like St Lawrence is attacked by both the Bearing Sea ships, and the Chukchi Sea, depending on if the orientation of the dock determines which waters attacks it. (I don't mind it being attacked by both, just wondering.) Or should St Lawrence dock be turned up so that it goes into Chukchi rather than looking like both. This would give those two ship sets two docks, and the 3 in Bearing Sea only 2. Thoughts?

Things to do (among other things):
- Determine naming convention and add name labels to the Small Boats.
- Work to make all of the "mini-map" images more clear, especially the smaller ones towards the bottom of the region bonus list.
- Put a lighter glow behind the tert names to make them stand out more, especially on the smaller islands, etc.
- In addition to the glow I will be adding army number circles to help indicate where the regions exactly are. (ex. docks, islands, etc.)
- Add the rest of the general aesthetic stuff.

CURRENT MAP VERSION

v2.2 - Large (840x800)

Click image to enlarge.

[koontz1973]

Idea for the small boat names and this will tie in with the theme. For each sailing ship, their was a captain and a first mate. Or find famous Alaska explorers.

[Peter Gibbons]

Any thoughts on my post above regarding the size and makeup of bonuses? I just think these are way too large, as is, for the map. The +8s are never going to get held, the +6s probably aren't worth the pain, and the map could use more balance--either by re-arranging which territories fall into which bonus zone and/or by carving out a new bonus zone or two. I gave some specific suggestions above. You obviously don't need to follow the advice, but just wondering what you thought.

[koontz1973]

Seamus, regarding what Peter Gibbons is on about, and he does make a good point, can I ask you what your make up of bonuses comes from?

Some ideas to combat this are:
Break bonuses up and rename them away from compass points
Trails like Northwest passage map
Collection bonuses, every 3 regions inside a bonus area = +1
Bonuses inside bonuses. You have small bonuses that are part of the bigger one as well.

A few other things, I would suggest a route down the right side of the map (through Canada) to open up the small bonuses at the bottom. Anyone who drops down their will win the game for sure.
Interior colour, it really is bloody awful, can you find a different one please.
With the ships, I have been thinking that it might be a way to have these, open the map but make it far easier to use them. Have it as Dock - small boat - large boat - small boat - dock. Small boat 1 killer neutral and large boat 3 neutral but decays by 2. Large boat gives a deployable bonus of 3 though. Either put it on the boat to keep it safe or deploy it on land. Much more fun this way for foggy games. Also, easier to explain in the legend.

[Oneyed]

I see much ideas here, so here are my five cents (this is from our conversation with Seamus via PM):

please do not take these notices bad. it is just my view and opinion (maybe too historic acurate).

- I do not think that in 1895 there was any exploring wave. the exploring of Alaska started sooner.
- the most important things in these times were connection Alaska to USA and Glod Rush. during Gold Rush the population of Alaska was doubled. and it was just 3 years.
- there was mainly coastline settled (by europeans ofcourse and because the exploration ships map loks as from their view). ofcourse also the other areas were settled but by native people.
- I do not thonk that regions as you have them were exist in these times.

there were some tips for gold rush, but I think your idea about exploring Alaska is far better. gold rush was only short period and only territorial event.
you have exploration ships here, so why not to do exploring map? I think that large area was so inhospitable with wild animals, natives (and I read that they were also hostile) was never "discover" in these times.
- so what about to add expadition here (maybe with any targets?), build bonuses on holding enitre expeditionary route (or adjacent part), any combination of "main discovered features"...
- add some importanco to coast (main port towns which were doors to Alaska, or bonus for docks)
- what about Alaska Commercial Company?

just some ideas because the map has big potential...

but it also could stay simple and clear as now. it is your map so if you like it as it is I am fine with this

Oneyed

These are great ideas, and you should certainly copy and past them in the thread. They will definitely get some good discussion going.

[Seamus76]

Thanks everyone. I am processing all of the recent feedback, among other things, so I apologize for the delay in response.

Peter, Oneyed & Koontz, you all have some great thoughts, and I really appreciate your help on this map. I think together we can come up with something to energize the site a little bit.

I will get back with specifics regarding everyone's thoughts tomorrow, but please keep them coming.