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.