simply USA

[Evil DIMwit]

I was kind of thinking about this as a sort of successor to 13 Colonies... basically, 50 states with a build your own bonus by holding states.

We'd be looking at about 150-ish territories for that? Possibly more?

[army of nobunaga]

I was kind of thinking about this as a sort of successor to 13 Colonies... basically, 50 states with a build your own bonus by holding states.

It would work... and I wouldnt like hate it... Just not super original.

There would have to be a lot of thought into the bonus of each state... like Tennessee borders like 6 states? and Hawaii and alaska would have to be figured out. There are a lot of really small states that would be tough to but 3 digit armys in.

I cant lie though.. If someone made it, Id play it.

I would like to see like true barriers if this is going to be a true map. For instance, the rocky mountains in real life have many many many cross points... I hate the idea of just having the chain as an impassable.

I dunno. gl in it. Its an Idea worth pursuing in my mind. Id rather see a nepal map or a K2 (the mountain) or a source of the nile map... there are like 1000 ideas I have that are unique and cool that would be more fun, but this one would have its place.

[Industrial Helix]

I was kind of thinking about this as a sort of successor to 13 Colonies... basically, 50 states with a build your own bonus by holding states.

We'd be looking at about 150-ish territories for that? Possibly more?

Yeah... it would something like that. Unless you did 50 territories... the game engine should control equal deployment, right? Someone might have a first strike capability but the bonus system could be rigged to diminish its power.

[The Bison King]

I was kind of thinking about this as a sort of successor to 13 Colonies... basically, 50 states with a build your own bonus by holding states.

I'm listening... can you describe how the "build your own bonus" system works?

[Industrial Helix]

I was kind of thinking about this as a sort of successor to 13 Colonies... basically, 50 states with a build your own bonus by holding states.

I'm listening... can you describe how the "build your own bonus" system works?

Take a look at 13 Colonies... Basically each colony is its own bonus worth 0. Then the superbonus brackets in the XML are used to create a superbonus out of the 13 individual bonuses. In the end it looks something like this:

Hold any 2 Colonies (regular bonuses) for a bonus of 3 and in the XML you list out all thirteen regular bonuses. Any two of the 13 can give a bonus of 3. Sometimes its something like 2 single territory bonuses, like Connecticut and Rhode Island, or a territory heavy bonus like Virginia and New York. Play a few games on the map and you'll get it.

[Peter Gibbons]

If there's any USA maps left to do, it would be Hawaii and Alaska, since all others focus on the continental USA, even the USA map pack. Surely there have been attempts before, though?

Alaska... viewtopic.php?f=242&t=80565&start=0&hilit=Alaska

[Peter Gibbons]

Without being too long-winded, I've always felt that the site could use one really strong normal United States geography map. The "USA" map plays well, and I don't want to see it replaced/revamped because it fits with the map pack, but I still think there's room for something more. Europe has "Europe," "Europa," and "Europe 1914" for starters.

With the advent of the Hive map, I was thinking it might be possible to make a massive United States map. Here's what I had in mind.

1) All 50 states plus the District of Columbia are represented.

2) Each states is represented with 1-5 territories. Examples of what I'd have in mind are:
Rhode Island - 1 territory - +1 autodeploy
Massachusetts - 2 territories (Mass Bay and Berkshires) - +1
Tennessee - 3 territories (East, Middle & West) - +2
Florida - 4 territories (Panhandle, Tampa Bay, Everglades, Miami) - +3
Texas - 5 territories (Northern, Bay Area, Death Valley, Southern, Tahoe) - +4
These states would be designed partially on size and partially on population... so places like Montana and Nevada might only be +2s, despite their size. In this sort of system, you'd probably end up with a map of 140 territories or so.

3) There would be opportunities for plenty of natural impassables.

4) There would be 10 airports that all connect. Anchorage and Honolulu are obvious, so that they connect to the lower 48. The other 8 could be Los Angeles, Denver, Minneapolis, Houston, Miami, Detroit, New York, Boston (or whatever named territories they reside in).

5) There would be a sea route from Seattle to Juneau. There could be additional sea routes in the Gulf so that Florida wasn't a bottleneck.

[Evil DIMwit]

Are you planning to do the Northeast in an inset or something? Because otherwise I don't think there'll be room for more than one territory in Massachusetts.

[Industrial Helix]

A new England inset would be the way to go I think. Possibly one for DC/Maryland and Delaware as well.

There ought to be little gameplay quirks as well. For example, states that border the great lakes can use the lakes to attack each other. Ohio attacks Wisconsin for example.

I also think that rivers are an unused geographical thing. Why can't you attack downstream? I'd like to see the Mississippi have some sort of attribute like that.

If you're doing airplanes... why not have regional airports connect to the major airports which connect to each other? For example, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Boston airports all connect to New York which connects to D.C., LA, Atlanta, ect.

[Evil DIMwit]

This all sounds like it can get very complicated, very quickly (which is, incidentally, the opposite of the thread title). Are you sure it can all fit?

[Peter Gibbons]

This all sounds like it can get very complicated, very quickly (which is, incidentally, the opposite of the thread title). Are you sure it can all fit?

Nope. Not at all sure it could fit. And I hate to be "that guy," but I really am just throwing the idea out there. I think it could be a spectacular map if someone figured out a way to make it work. But if it's impossible, you'll get no complaints from me.

Incidentally, I like the Great Lakes angle. I also think river crossings at the Mississippi and mountain passes in the Rockies and Appalachians would work. Perhaps killer neutrals in Death Valley and Mt. McKinley, too. Regional airports are a decent idea, but I personally think it might be a little too much. 10 Major airports that make it easier to get around a ~140 territory map is one thing... 30+ airports seems like it would be overkill, but who knows?

Bottom line is that a LOT could be done to really bring out American geography--both physical and political. It could be an amazing team map. That being said, I realize it might be impossible.

[Peter Gibbons]

Are you planning to do the Northeast in an inset or something? Because otherwise I don't think there'll be room for more than one territory in Massachusetts.

An inset for the DC-Maine I-95 corridor might be the best route. That way, New York could be one of the 5-territory states and Pennsylvania could be a 3-territory state without a ton of clutter (all other states could be 2-territories, except DC, RI, CT & DE, which would be 1-territory). Perhaps the "magnifying-glass" phenomenon that has been bantered about in a few threads but, to my knowledge, not actually utilized in any map.

If the inset was done well, there would be 5 entry points into the region: Western PA, Central PA, DC, Baltimore, and the Eastern Shore. You'd be entering from Ohio, West Virginia and multiple areas in Virginia. So there shouldn't be bottleneck concerns.

[The Bison King]

Hmm... I'm Having a hard time deciding here. I like both Peter and Industrial's take on the idea. Right now I think I'm leaning towards Industrial's way a little more. It seems a little more stream lined and I think that the build your own bonus structure could work better. I like the idea of making each state its own bonus that you have to group together with other states, rather than breaking up the country into geographical regions. It's a little fresher and it puts more emphasis on the 50 states, rather than the various regions of the country. Having each state be it's own traditional bonus like Peter suggested could work... but you would need to find a way of legibly labeling 50 unique bonuses on your map, and that'll get pretty messy.

Either way I think the one of the most important things about this map is that it looks fantastic. Clean, streamlined, and classy. Maybe it's not my place but if someone wants to start pioneering the gameplay, I would be willing to lend a hand with the graphics.

[tonbomorphew]

intresting map industrial _________

[Evil DIMwit]

All right, this incorporates some of Peter's idea, and some of Dusty's, and some of my own. There's not so much in the way of rivers and mountains; I ended up going with more of a transportation/travel/tourism angle, and sticking in some notable scraps of Americana.

This is, of course, just a gameplay sketch, so never you mind that it looks horrendous.

Click image to enlarge.

124 territories. DC starts neutral.

[Industrial Helix]

Interesting. To be honest, I think the need for another USA map is looking for some sort of simplicity though.

I'd say ditch the interstates and the entertainment bonus. I like the Historical landmarks and the parks are nice too. But there's got to be a better way of translating that into an image without using simple icons.

The inset is a bit wonky as well, I'd say cut ohio out and somehow emphasize DC/Maryland/Delaware more.

Is that Puerto Rico? As awesome as it would be that they were a state... I think they ought to go on this map until they are a state.

[The Bison King]

I'd say ditch the interstates and the entertainment bonus.

I agree.

[The Bison King]

I think Wyoming should at least be 2 territories, I am aware that nobody lives there, so it does make sense, but for the sake of gameplay I think it would work better as 2.

[Peter Gibbons]

All right, this incorporates some of Peter's idea, and some of Dusty's, and some of my own. There's not so much in the way of rivers and mountains; I ended up going with more of a transportation/travel/tourism angle, and sticking in some notable scraps of Americana.

This is, of course, just a gameplay sketch, so never you mind that it looks horrendous.

Click image to enlarge.

124 territories. DC starts neutral.

Wow. I really like this start.

First, I disagree that a new USA map has to be "simple." That might be the title of this thread, and perhaps this draft should split off into another thread, but I think we already have a very "simple" USA map. A complex map that encapsulates "simply" USA (as in, not "fractured" or "nuclear fallout") is what I feel the site is missing. With that, my first thoughts...

I would kill the mint facilities, entertainment and national parks. I would consider keeping the historic sites, but would reserve judgment on that until we see how the final map looks graphically. I just think there is a lot on the map already, just from territory and connection standpoints. Adding in the additional bonuses and graphics seems unnecessary--it makes for too much to digest visually. In short, I like the transportation/travel angle, but I'd leave off the tourism angle.

I'd omit Puerto Rico.

I love the ports, but I think a discussion would have to be had about the Great Lakes connections.

I agree that Wyoming should be two territories.

I like the ingenuity of the interstate crossing idea, but I don't like it in practice. First, it's very hard to decipher visually. Second, it creates several dozen impassables that aren't really impassable at all. Third, I'm reminded of The Hunt for Red October, where they talk about driving state-to-state "without papers." Part of America's political geography is the fact that you can walk across these borders without having to drive through specific points. The interstate connection-only concept runs counter to that. So, for those reasons, I think we should stick to normal connections. But I certainly wouldn't be the sole protester if other people like this concept.

Finally, I'm sure we'd have long discussions about bonus structure and graphics, but we have good starts there.

I really like concept. Kudos to you for putting this draft together.

[AndyDufresne]

The title needs a change. Maybe "Complicatedly USA"


--Andy

[MarshalNey]

First, I disagree that a new USA map has to be "simple." That might be the title of this thread, and perhaps this draft should split off into another thread, but I think we already have a very "simple" USA map. A complex map that encapsulates "simply" USA (as in, not "fractured" or "nuclear fallout") is what I feel the site is missing. With that, my first thoughts...

I agree on this. With all deference to IH, my annoyance with the current USA map is that it is both oversimplified and just plain wrong.

I would kill the mint facilities, entertainment and national parks. I would consider keeping the historic sites, but would reserve judgment on that until we see how the final map looks graphically. I just think there is a lot on the map already, just from territory and connection standpoints. Adding in the additional bonuses and graphics seems unnecessary--it makes for too much to digest visually. In short, I like the transportation/travel angle, but I'd leave off the tourism angle.

I don't agree on this one. I like that every area of the country has little goodies to offer players. In addition, it provides information and gives flavor to each region. I think the goal of a USA map should be to provide these things.

I will say that all of the tourism stuff leaves no room for geography, but DiM stated that was the angle he was taking and I'm fine with that.

I'd omit Puerto Rico....
I agree that Wyoming should be two territories

My only deal with Puerto Rico is that none of the other territories/protectorates are listed (Virgin Islands, Guam). I think that it's a little narrow of perspective to limit our idea of "the USA" to the 50 states when anyone who lives in PR et al. are natural-born US citizens and are free to travel throughout the 50 states.

Or to put it another way, if you want to limit the map to the 50 states, you'd have to omit all of the Indian Reservations to be consistent, of which there are very very many.

I know that pinpoint accuracy isn't necessarily great for a game board, but that's just my 2 cents.

Also, I don't know why Wyoming got singled out. How does it negatively affect gameplay as one territory? Can someone explain please? Tennessee, S. Carolina, Indiana as well as half of the New England States are all one territory too.

I like the ingenuity of the interstate crossing idea, but I don't like it in practice. First, it's very hard to decipher visually. Second, it creates several dozen impassables that aren't really impassable at all. Third, I'm reminded of The Hunt for Red October, where they talk about driving state-to-state "without papers." Part of America's political geography is the fact that you can walk across these borders without having to drive through specific points. The interstate connection-only concept runs counter to that. So, for those reasons, I think we should stick to normal connections. But I certainly wouldn't be the sole protester if other people like this concept.

Disagree in part on this. Or rather, I also like the Interstate because it's handy, especially if you're not bothering with representing geography (which DiM said he wasn't). Furthermore, the driving state-to-state "without papers" idea is not a problem with the Interstates I think- I mean we're talking about conquest, so troop movement would naturally want to follow major highways... and the Interstate system was built specifically for military purposes. I don't think that people are going to look at the Interstate connections and say, "Gee, America must be a nation of checkpoints"

I do think that right now the Interstate connections are hard visually to take in, but this is a first freakin' draft... I really think that the idea should be pursued further to see if the connections can be made more clear (and I know that they can).

[RjBeals]

you shouldn't whack the new england states off. It looks really bad. If you have to for size reasons, then you should try to make it look better - maybe split pennsylvania and nj across or something.

[The Bison King]

I don't know why Wyoming got singled out. How does it negatively affect gameplay as one territory? Can someone explain please? Tennessee, S. Carolina, Indiana as well as half of the New England States are all one territory too.

It just doesn't make any sense considering that the states around it are 3 or 4 territories each. Not to mention the fact that it can attack 5 different territories and break 5 different bonuses. It's too powerful a territory and there is no real reason for it to be. Nobody lives in Wyoming. All it has is Yellowstone and that place is volcanic. The whole state could erupt at any moment!

Other thoughts:

I still feel like the entertainment bonus is too much. Besides nothing makes sense about you getting more armies for holding more disney lands? I'm not saying that the additional bonuses should be removed just that there shouldn't be as many of them. I like the idea of the scenic wonders but I also feel like "why is holding the St. Louis Arch going to win the war for me?" What if they were actually useful things like the Pentagon, NASA HQ, Pearl Harbor, Whatever Air Force base they have going on at Denver, Or random Missile Silo's in Neveda?

As for roads: I'd like to see this with no roads and complete territory interconnect ability.

Part of America's political geography is the fact that you can walk across these borders without having to drive through specific points. The interstate connection-only concept runs counter to that. So, for those reasons, I think we should stick to normal connections. But I certainly wouldn't be the sole protester if other people like this concept.

I agree with the Philosophy of this. Also Interstates are a theme that dominate the pre-existing USA map pack. There are all ready 4 to 5 maps of the USA on this site which use that device.

[MarshalNey]

It just doesn't make any sense considering that the states around it are 3 or 4 territories each. Not to mention the fact that it can attack 5 different territories and break 5 different bonuses. It's too powerful a territory and there is no real reason for it to be. Nobody lives in Wyoming. All it has is Yellowstone and that place is volcanic. The whole state could erupt at any moment!

Nobody lives there... so it should be subdived into more territories? That makes no sense to me. Furthermore, please note that the subdivisions on this entire map have abosolutely no correlation to population.

Secondly, I repeat, Tennessee, S.C., Indiana et. al. are also not subdivided. Tennessee, Massachusetts-West and Connecticut at a glance can attack 4 separate states. Do you propose subdividing them as well?

If you're worried about the territory being too powerful because you get a state bonus for 1 territory, that makes more sense, but that's a problem with at least half a dozen states. I think these single-territory states could be made neutral if necessary (exhibit A: 13 colonies)

As for roads: I'd like to see this with no roads and complete territory interconnect ability.

Part of America's political geography is the fact that you can walk across these borders without having to drive through specific points. The interstate connection-only concept runs counter to that. So, for those reasons, I think we should stick to normal connections. But I certainly wouldn't be the sole protester if other people like this concept.

I agree with the Philosophy of this. Also Interstates are a theme that dominate the pre-existing USA map pack. There are all ready 4 to 5 maps of the USA on this site which use that device.

The second part of your argument holds merit. Interstates have been overused perhaps in other maps.

The first part is very dubious. An "open" map is both unrealistic (America has tons of natural barriers and, despite what some may think, political ones as well) and it is probably undesirable from a gameplay standpoint. I wouldn't want to play a USA Hive map. The map needs some form of impassibles.

[natty dread]

The map needs some form of impassibles.

True.