Eurasia Map [Old thread]

[AndyDufresne]

or dark green but I think red would be better.

Redder might work.

Now that I've let the versions of colors sit with me, I kind of like the blue in Russia. It plays with that old notion of it being the frozen north.


--Andy

[natty dread]

India could be pushed more towards the reds I think

That was kind of what I was thinking as well, the only caveat is to watch that it doesn't get too close to the hues of China...

[natty dread]

Ok this is what I ended up with.

Click image to enlarge.

[AndyDufresne]

I think that looks good. Once you swap and update the legend colors, I think everything looks pretty dandy from that color standpoint.


--Andy

[natty dread]

Once you swap and update the legend colors,

*ahem*

wink wink, nudge nudge ^^^

[IcePack]

I like the concept, visually appealing. The only thing I don't really like are the look of the impassable area (at least what I assume is the impassables, i dont see it on a legend or anything etc) tho the impassable (again assumed) in north russia area i like better then the others.

IcePack

[natty dread]

Thanks. The impassables will be redone later on, they're really just placeholders for now, since the placement of impassables is likely to change still.

[IcePack]

Great looking forward to seeing the further drafts / advances. (don't know terms yet lol)

[iancanton]

firstly, natty, i have to say that i'm hugely disappointed with ur initial efforts. this map has no theme other than being a standard geographical map of a large landmass that has been divided up into regions of roughly equal size (which results in yet another map that pointlessly over-emphasises siberia). this is irrespective of areas that are civilised, industrialised, productive, rich or empty, with unnecessary 3-region bonuses scattered randomly, 4-region bonuses in the corner and improbable sea routes between distant islands. from a first-time mapmaker, i might expect all of this but, as an experienced mapmaker, u're perfectly capable of doing much better without trying too hard.

so what do i suggest?

let's start by making industrial heartlands look busy and wilderness look like wilderness. remove all four russian arctic island groups, remove all russian regions that are not federal subjects (taymyria, evenkia, east sakha) and merge all of mongolia into one region. split east china into more province-sized regions such as guangdong, fujian and zhejiang to give more of a balance between russia and china. merge the east and west siberian bonuses into one. lose all 3-region bonuses by adding wales, czech republic, jilin province of china and west bengal of india. split honshu into tokyo and osaka, plus possibly follow helix's suggestion of okinawa for another japanese region. draw inner mongolia with its proper borders.

ian.

[natty dread]

Well, ian, let me say we seem to have a fundamental disagreement over the priorities of mapmaking.

this map has no theme

Sure it has a theme. It's a map of Eurasia. Every map doesn't need to be a special alternate history foray or historical battle or some such. It's a geographical map, sure, but one that fills a void that I think CC still has, namely, a map of the Eurasian continent - one that brings together both Europe and Asia.

landmass that has been divided up into regions of roughly equal size

I've already elsewhere expressed my view on this matter, so I'm not going to rehash this much further, except to say that this is on purpose. I don't think making the territories different sizes is in any way purposeful, it hurts the fundamental idea of a war game. Ie. it makes no sense at all that you can use one army to hold a land mass the size of russia, when the same army can also be fit into vatican.

pointlessly over-emphasises siberia

Siberia isn't "over-emphasised", far from it. It's hard to defend, it doesn't have much potential for growth, it's in no way a good area for someone to start from.

this is irrespective of areas that are civilised, industrialised, productive, rich or empty,

Should the classic map give a higher bonus to North America than Asia, because North America is much richer and more industrialised?

I design a map based on what makes for a fun gameplay experience. I don't think any player is going to be sighing to themselves "oh, this would be a fun map if only it adhered to the economical realities of real world better"...

with unnecessary 3-region bonuses scattered randomly

They are not "scattered randomly". A lot of thought has been put into the spread of the bonuses, and in making sure that the small, medium and large bonuses are all equally represented around the different parts of the map, which I think is something that should be done on a map of this size.

remove all four russian arctic island groups

Why would I do that? They provide connectivity at the north side of the map, which I think is a good feature.

emove all russian regions that are not federal subjects (taymyria, evenkia, east sakha) and merge all of mongolia into one region.

Yeah... No. That goes against the design principles of the map, and is in no way purposeful. The same goes for the rest of your suggestions, they're just aimed at making this map adhere to your view of what a map like this is supposed to achieve, and I disagree on it.

Like I said, we have a fundamental disagreement on what are the priorities of gameplay design here. I don't think it is the first priority of a map to represent the "busy" areas with more territories... when you think of it, an area with less/larger territories is one that you can cross faster, and a busy, industrialised area should be one where mobility is easier. So if I were to dogmatically make the busy areas have a higher territory density, it wouldn't make any sense at all.

But more than that, I don't think there's only one way to design a geographical map. I don't see why you have to necessarily look at it from a certain perspective. Dim is currently making a world map that aspires to feature all the countries in the world, with each country being one territory. And the gameplay is totally different. I wouldn't design a map like that, but it's different, and it's something new, and if he pulls it off it might be fun to play. It doesn't make sense when you consider the economic realities of the world, it doesn't adhere to the rule of "having more territories in more populated areas", but so what?

TL;DR: There's more than one way to look at the idea of designing a map, and as long as it's fun to play and reasonably balanced I think the rest is secondary.

[The Bison King]

Well said Natty.

I am agree.

[natty dread]

That said, however...

I'm pretty satisfied with the general territory divisions right now, but I'm not opposed to changing them if there are reasons for changes beyond fundamental differences in view of game design...

Also, I am willing to take some measures to make some of the more industrialised areas more attractive to the players, but I think there are better ways of achieving this than using territory count. I could consider, for example, an additional collection bonus that would be weighted towards the more developed/industrial areas more. I think this would also be a good addition to the map, to give it a bit more gameplay flavor.

[Industrial Helix]

Just pitching this out there for consideration...

What if you did a European Union superbonus and a Eruasian Economic Community (Former Soviet Union) superbonus, perhaps a Greater China superbonus.

I mean, you don't seem to be too hung up on the lack of theme, but if you wanted one, you could go that route of modern economic unions... though the greater China one doesn't really exist... yet.

[natty dread]

Just pitching this out there for consideration...

What if you did a European Union superbonus and a Eruasian Economic Community (Former Soviet Union) superbonus, perhaps a Greater China superbonus.

I mean, you don't seem to be too hung up on the lack of theme, but if you wanted one, you could go that route of modern economic unions... though the greater China one doesn't really exist... yet.

Well I already have Eastern Asia, which holds China (+Taiwan), Mongolia, Korea & Japan - how's that different from the Greater China bonus you speak of?

Former Soviet Union would make for such a large bonus that it'd be useless in practice. Heck, russia is already so large that I doubt it'd be held in total except maybe in endgames.

As for EU... meh, if EU collapses in the next few years, then this map would look stupid... Seriously though, I think it'd make for another too large superbonus, and then there's the problem of non-EU european countries... what to do with Norway, etc.

[AndyDufresne]

This map probably could go to a new level if it had a greater theme (Golfe Du, California for some recent more dramatic examples)...or even with just a touch (Quad Cities recently).

I'll give the map a better look over soon, and re-read some of the recent comments.


--Andy