Conquer Club

Peter Gibbons wrote:

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.

Seamus76 wrote:

Peter Gibbons wrote:

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.

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

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)

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.

koontz1973 wrote: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

Oneyed wrote: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.

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)

I like it.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

Seamus76 wrote:

Oneyed wrote: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.

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.

Isn't the auto-deploy on the ships in conjunction with the neutrals on the small boats going to make taking out a player rather difficult? I feel like it encourages stalemates. Don't get me wrong, I think your idea here is cool, and, honestly, something I could see myself playing a good lot, as I like the idea of a small twist on a classic-style map.

-Shape

I'm going to bunch a few of these together and hope everything comes across clear.

Peter Gibbons wrote: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.

Peter Gibbons wrote: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 wrote: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?

Thanks again Peter, sorry for the delay. Looking more at the bonus structure and make up of terts within them, I think you are right that it will be hard for people to go for them, since they are made up of so many terts and they can be attacked by quite a few as well. Koontz, I came up with the bonuses by looking at the number of terts that would need to be held to get the bonus. So Far North for ex, you need to hold 7 border terts, two of which are docks, and connect to all the other docks, so I came up with +8.

As for the bonus regions I really don't want to move terts to different bonus regions, or redraw the regions, but I do like how Three Kingdoms of China works to break the larger zones down into 2-3 smaller zones, with a larger overriding bonus. My only concern with that would be the lack of space to include explanation of the bonuses, but I could try a couple of things. One would be to work small mini-maps into the legend area, kind of in the style they are now, but larger maps and smaller text. The other would be to use smaller text and include more smaller maps, but I'll try the first option before that.

koontz1973 wrote: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.

- What do you mean by the compass point idea?
- I like trails, do you mean on land or water? I really like how Oneyed has the battle ground circles within the terts, and I had thrown that out in a couple PM's, but it will mean a redraw of the terts to allow more space for the "Out Posts" within them, but I like this, and have been thinking about the redraw to accommodate the change. My idea is that these terts, which there will only be a few connected per bonus region, would be killer neutrals and start 1n or 2n, and revert to 1n or 2n, but the "Out Post" within that tert is an auto-deploy of 2 (starts 1n or 2n). So the thought is that as you head into and explore the inner regions you need to get to a base camp within a tert or have your exploration party killed off by cold. Once at the "Out Post or Base Camp", you get supplies, food, etc.(the auto-deploy) to keep moving.

koontz1973 wrote: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.

I don't think this is an option based on the location of the legend and the need to explain quite a few things. I know I will need to explain some other stuff down the road, so if need be the bottom left corner where the scale is will become a legend box instead. But even that space is limited.

Also, and more importantly, the docks can be attacked by the other docks, so Inside Passage for example only has 3 borders to protect 2 of them are docks, which can each be attacked by 5 other docks, so I'm not sure I see how it would be easy for someone to basically win the game on the drop. Depending on the initial rolls, and obviously the settings, anything is possible, but that can be said to a certain degree for all maps in my opinion.

koontz1973 wrote:Interior colour, it really is bloody awful, can you find a different one please.

Sorry I don't agree. Maybe it's the most recent 2 versions which had an ice texture added to the Interior, which I can easily remove. Take a look a the first version in the Old Maps spoiler and let me know if you feel the same way. Personally I like it, and think the cool blue goes very well with the map and the theme of Alaska itself. If it comes up down the line and there is a big push I will certainly change it, but for the next version I'll just take the ice texture off and go from there.

koontz1973 wrote: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.

I think this might unnecessarily over complicate the gameplay a bit. Right now the ships and small boats were put together mainly with fog games in mind. In that, I wanted a "stop-gap" between the docks and the ships so that if you have a dock you don't know what might be on the other side of that small boat. Maybe it's a stack, maybe the player moved all his troops out through the other small boat, if so how many. This is the scenario I was looking to create. I don't really like the ships being deployable rather than auto-deploy. For me the ships are about bringing resources to and from the ships, which was difficult. I think most players would hate having to continually put troops on a decay to keep it safe, while each turn they just disappear, not even being able to use them in the "field".

Shape wrote:Isn't the auto-deploy on the ships in conjunction with the neutrals on the small boats going to make taking out a player rather difficult? I feel like it encourages stalemates. Don't get me wrong, I think your idea here is cool, and, honestly, something I could see myself playing a good lot, as I like the idea of a small twist on a classic-style map.

Hey Shape, thanks for the question and feedback, I really hope you help us work this one out. We could always use more people in the foundry.

I want to make sure I understand your concern regarding the boats. It may be that the attack arrows aren't clear, which is an easy fix. Basically the two small boats are one way attacks only, just opposite ways, so one small boat only attacks the big ship, and the other small boat only attacks the docks. But to your point the only way to kill your opponents off is to kill their ship, if that is their last tert, which can be done through the dock then small boat. If you don't mind let me know your thoughts on why this would lead to stalemates, I guess more than any other map.

Thanks again for the feedback everyone. I hope I covered everything, including what Oneyed included. I look forward to your responses.

Seamus76 wrote:... changed the Deck legend text to say "All docks connect, and border Small Boats within their bodies of water".

Hi Seamus76, I like the map so far, well done. The above is confusing though - do docks connect only in their body of water, or to ALL other docks? Sounded like the feedback was that all docks should only connect locally? If so, the legend syntax is confusing - maybe the fix is delete "all" and add another comma after "Boats".

Also, I gotta say I don't love the territory font - looks like Times? - probably just my preference but it seems out of place. The size and weight is good - the face just doesn't seem to fit the overall aesthetic.

Nice looking map, keep it up.

Peter Gibbons wrote: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.

koontz1973 wrote:Interior colour, it really is bloody awful, can you find a different one please.

I like the colors and the overall feel, a lot!

(Peter - I think Germany is one of the top 5 maps around... I don't think the two look similar enough that it's an issue.)

Seamus76 wrote:What do you mean by the compass point idea?
- I like trails, do you mean on land or water? I really like how Oneyed has the battle ground circles within the terts, and I had thrown that out in a couple PM's, but it will mean a redraw of the terts to allow more space for the "Out Posts" within them, but I like this, and have been thinking about the redraw to accommodate the change. My idea is that these terts, which there will only be a few connected per bonus region, would be killer neutrals and start 1n or 2n, and revert to 1n or 2n, but the "Out Post" within that tert is an auto-deploy of 2 (starts 1n or 2n). So the thought is that as you head into and explore the inner regions you need to get to a base camp within a tert or have your exploration party killed off by cold. Once at the "Out Post or Base Camp", you get supplies, food, etc.(the auto-deploy) to keep moving.

Compass idea, split the map up into compass points. You can go large and small by missing out some.
Trails on land. Natty used them on this map. Something similar would work well here.
With the mini bonuses, what I meant was to have a small bonus region of say 4 terts, within the larger bonus regions. So for you current large Far North region, you can have another one called North and use Baird, Colville, Koyukak only. These 3 would yeald a 1 bonus, while still having to hold them for the larger far north bonus as well.

Seamus76 wrote:Sorry I don't agree.

OK, my objection to it is this though, all other colours are earthy, muted colours, this one and it is the only one, is a shiny blue colour. Keep it, but I believe you can find a blue that is not so bright. Give it a go for me please.

brhiba wrote:

Seamus76 wrote:... changed the Deck legend text to say "All docks connect, and border Small Boats within their bodies of water".

Hi Seamus76, I like the map so far, well done. The above is confusing though - do docks connect only in their body of water, or to ALL other docks? Sounded like the feedback was that all docks should only connect locally? If so, the legend syntax is confusing - maybe the fix is delete "all" and add another comma after "Boats".

Also, I gotta say I don't love the territory font - looks like Times? - probably just my preference but it seems out of place. The size and weight is good - the face just doesn't seem to fit the overall aesthetic.

Nice looking map, keep it up.

Thank you so much, I appreciate your thoughts and look forward to your help. I see your point, and maybe missed it as part of the discussion, but I was thinking it only pertained to the small boats and the docks, with the docks still being able to attack each other. Personally I think having the docks all connect and attack each other makes for a more interesting gameplay avenue. But I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. As well as what designates how a dock is in a body of water. For ex. St Lawrence is pointing left so my thought would be it would border both waters, or it could be turned up to only border the Chukchi Sea. Thoughts?

As for the font, it is Times, which was king of close to the antique maps I've seen, but I am not great with fonts, so if you have any specific suggestions I'd love to see them.

koontz1973 wrote:Compass idea, split the map up into compass points. You can go large and small by missing out some.
Trails on land. Natty used them on this map. Something similar would work well here.
With the mini bonuses, what I meant was to have a small bonus region of say 4 terts, within the larger bonus regions. So for you current large Far North region, you can have another one called North and use Baird, Colville, Koyukak only. These 3 would yeald a 1 bonus, while still having to hold them for the larger far north bonus as well.

Right, like Three Kingdoms of China. I like that idea as well.

Seamus76 wrote:Sorry I don't agree.

OK, my objection to it is this though, all other colours are earthy, muted colours, this one and it is the only one, is a shiny blue colour. Keep it, but I believe you can find a blue that is not so bright. Give it a go for me please.[/quote] Anything for you my friend.

koontz wrote:Give it a go for me please.

seamus wrote:Anything for you my friend.

And people where just waiting for a smack down.

Seamus76 wrote:Thanks again Peter, sorry for the delay. Looking more at the bonus structure and make up of terts within them, I think you are right that it will be hard for people to go for them, since they are made up of so many terts and they can be attacked by quite a few as well. Koontz, I came up with the bonuses by looking at the number of terts that would need to be held to get the bonus. So Far North for ex, you need to hold 7 border terts, two of which are docks, and connect to all the other docks, so I came up with +8.

As for the bonus regions I really don't want to move terts to different bonus regions, or redraw the regions, but I do like how Three Kingdoms of China works to break the larger zones down into 2-3 smaller zones, with a larger overriding bonus. My only concern with that would be the lack of space to include explanation of the bonuses, but I could try a couple of things. One would be to work small mini-maps into the legend area, kind of in the style they are now, but larger maps and smaller text. The other would be to use smaller text and include more smaller maps, but I'll try the first option before that.

Can I ask what your aversion is to splitting up some of the larger regions--particularly the far north? It's your map and I don't mean to push, but just wondering if it's a question of geographic fidelity or if you think the large bonus with +8 makes for better gameplay.

(I think this applies to the interior and the +6 southwest as well, but just focused on the far north for now, as that seems like the most obvious candidate for a split and re-arrangement to me).

Seamus76 wrote:Personally I think having the docks all connect and attack each other makes for a more interesting gameplay avenue. But I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. As well as what designates how a dock is in a body of water. For ex. St Lawrence is pointing left so my thought would be it would border both waters, or it could be turned up to only border the Chukchi Sea.

Was gonna mention this as well - the docks are a little small, or maybe the color doesn't stand out enough - they might be ok aesthetically, but it distracts from clear gameplay. If the way they're facing determines their play, they might need to be more prominent.

Seamus76 wrote:As for the font, it is Times, which was king of close to the antique maps I've seen, but I am not great with fonts, so if you have any specific suggestions I'd love to see them.

Sure, I love fonts. I personally avoid Times in any design because it immediately feels like every generic Windows doc since '92.

Check out Modern No. 20. It has stronger serifs and a great retro feel. If you don't like that, try Bodoni MT, Baskerville Old Face, or Century Schoolbook. Poor Richard could even work. If you need any of these fonts, I can get them to you.

Seamus76 wrote:

Shape wrote:Isn't the auto-deploy on the ships in conjunction with the neutrals on the small boats going to make taking out a player rather difficult? I feel like it encourages stalemates. Don't get me wrong, I think your idea here is cool, and, honestly, something I could see myself playing a good lot, as I like the idea of a small twist on a classic-style map.

Hey Shape, thanks for the question and feedback, I really hope you help us work this one out. We could always use more people in the foundry.

I want to make sure I understand your concern regarding the boats. It may be that the attack arrows aren't clear, which is an easy fix. Basically the two small boats are one way attacks only, just opposite ways, so one small boat only attacks the big ship, and the other small boat only attacks the docks. But to your point the only way to kill your opponents off is to kill their ship, if that is their last tert, which can be done through the dock then small boat. If you don't mind let me know your thoughts on why this would lead to stalemates, I guess more than any other map.

Thanks again for the feedback everyone. I hope I covered everything, including what Oneyed included. I look forward to your responses.

Ahh, I guess I didn't look closely enough at the arrows. Perhaps the direction of those could be made more clear? I guess as far as the stalemate concern, if you think of a flat rate or no spoils game, I feel like one could easily stack up troops on their ship indefinitely. They have to keep them there to protect their hefty 3 troop bonus and keeping them there ensures that they stay in the game. Not only that, but opponents have to go through a neutral territory to get to your ship, so that gives less incentive to bust someone's ship (plus it deters one from using their ship troops, since they would have to go through a neutral as well). It would be much more profitable for everyone to focus on Alaska than the surrounding ships. Does that make sense?

-Shape