High Seas [Quenched]

[Unit_2]

High Seas Redux, reduxed.

Play: The map now stands at 32 starting territories, plus 10 neutral-starting Seaports. The 32 starting terits will each be a part of bonus region, and the ports will not but will earn you a +1 auto-deploy per turn.

The bonus regions look like this, with my initial thought for bonuses:
Atlantic: 9 terits, 4 borders, access to 3 ports. +5
Arctic: 4 terits, 2 borders, access to 1 port. +2
"The Seas" (this will need a better name): 3 terits, 2 borders, access to 1 port. +1
Indian: 6 terits, 4 borders, access to 2 ports. +3
Pacific: 10 terits, 4 borders, acess to 3 ports. +5

Yes, the bonuses look low. But consider the bonus structure if you also hold the ports:
Atlantic w. ports: 12 terits, 4 borders. +8
Arctic w. ports: 3 terits, 2 borders. +3
"The Seas" w. ports (this will need a better name): 4 terits, 2 borders. +3
Indian w. ports: 7 terits, 4 borders. +4
Pacific w. ports: 13 terits, 4 borders. +8

Graphics: still in the works. I'm leaning toward a Victorian, 19th century, Moby Dick feel.

Oaktown, The bering sea is not part of the pacific.

[edbeard]

I think he has included that border. It's just missing graphically. If we look at this description

The bonus regions look like this, with my initial thought for bonuses:
Atlantic: 9 terits, 4 borders, access to 3 ports. +5
Arctic: 4 terits, 2 borders, access to 1 port. +2
"The Seas" (this will need a better name): 3 terits, 2 borders, access to 1 port. +1
Indian: 6 terits, 4 borders, access to 2 ports. +3
Pacific: 10 terits, 4 borders, acess to 3 ports. +5

Notice for arctic he says 4 territories and 2 borders. The Norwegian Sea is one obvious border. So, where is the second border? Well it HAS to be East Siberian Sea to Bering Sea. Nowhere else is it possible to attack those four territories.


FYI, one thing that I did notice was that Oaktown said with ports Arctic has 3 territories. I think he means it has 5.

Oaktown, The bering sea is not part of the pacific.

Actually, it's considered to be in the North of the Pacific Ocean

[oaktown]

I think he has included that border. It's just missing graphically. If we lFYI, one thing that I did notice was that Oaktown said with ports Arctic has 3 territories. I think he means it has 5.

Oops! Fixed in the first post.

Oaktown, The bering sea is not part of the pacific.

Actually, it's considered to be in the North of the Pacific Ocean

Agreed, thank you edbeard. Why is it always Unit_2!?!

Bering Sea should touch the Arctic oceans at East Siberian - just haven't gotten around to working on the graphics yet. I'll eventually be manipulating everything to better serve the needs of the map - clear channels where attack routes should be, greater water to land ratio, etc.

And the territory titles aren't perfect - Sea of Japan isn't quite right, etc. But it's been terribly difficult tracking down titles for generally nameless expanses. If I find better 19th century names for things I'll use them instead.

[AndyDufresne]

It might be unnecessary to include 'Sea' in the Territory Names...but if you do keep them make sure it is universal all around (Add it to the Med.)


--Andy

[oaktown]

For a bunch of map junkies I can't believe nobody caught that I put St. Petersburg on the wrong ocean.

Anyway, dropped it in favor of Durban, Africa's busiest port for the past two centuries. I think it works better having a third bonus on the Indian Ocean anyway.

[Coleman]

I'm really not a fan of the ports right now. I was really looking forward to just playing on the water. I understand why you included them though. The land ends up being a lot of wasted space otherwise.

Are you at all concerned about being able to produce a 600 wide version?

Anyway, you can ignore that, it isn't an ideas level question, my current protocol is that you can show me something that fits one of the sizes.

What is an ideas level question... Is the layout as you see it right now mostly finalized? Meaning are you expecting to make any serious gameplay changes that would include adding new territories and rules?

[oaktown]

I'm really not a fan of the ports right now. I was really looking forward to just playing on the water. I understand why you included them though. The land ends up being a lot of wasted space otherwise.

Actually, I'm not concerned about the dead space - I'm going to take many liberties with the map once I start working out the graphics. My decision to try the seaports was more a result of my concern about the vast expanses of ocean water with no natural borders and no logical region breaks.

My preference would actually be to make this more of a classic-style map. If this was a 42+ territory map of just the water, we'd have a huge mass of playable (and boring) territory in the Pacific and the Atlantic. Thus the seaport idea to make the big ocean starts more playable. I've played with splitting the Atlantic and Pacific into south and north regions, but it means a long border - and I'm not so wild about the 'duldrums' idea that Gort had going on his map.

Are you at all concerned about being able to produce a 600 wide version?

I'm still trying to work out how to best represent the ports in such a way that the map will be easily scalable.

What is an ideas level question... Is the layout as you see it right now mostly finalized? Meaning are you expecting to make any serious gameplay changes that would include adding new territories and rules?

Since I'm not 100% committed to the seaports idea, it may depending on the feedback I get. I'm comfortable with this remaining in ideas for a bit - let 'er cook.

[oaktown]

Alright, here's what it might look like with just territories. This one has 44 terits, and I could easily add or drop a few as gameplay dictates. Now there would be separate bonus for North and South Pacific, as well as North and South Atlantic.

We'lll call this one Classic Gameplay version:


While this is the Seaports version:

[edbeard]

I can't really say. I mean both ideas would work well.


Maybe if you show me exactly where all the borders for the 'continents' are that would help. I have educated guesses that are probably good, I'm talking about the classic gameplay version btw, but it couldn't hurt my decision making.


Having more bonus areas is nice. And, the way you've set it up now makes for two completely different maps.

If the classic version is setup the way I think it is then you have quite a few 'continents' with four borders that need holding (indian, south p, north p, south atl, and north atl). I don't know if this is good, bad, or slightly unimportant, but something that I noticed.


actually I guess this happens on the seaports version as well. atlantic, pacific and indian are all four borders too.

[DiM]

would you consider a 3rd gameplay version where terits are famous ports and bonuses are given for exploration routes/ trade routes?
it would be similar to rail usa only on water.

[oaktown]

If the classic version is setup the way I think it is then you have quite a few 'continents' with four borders that need holding (indian, south p, north p, south atl, and north atl). I don't know if this is good, bad, or slightly unimportant, but something that I noticed.

Actually, N Atlantic has five borders, but I could work on that.

This is, of course, the problem with making this map in the classic play style - big expanses with no natural boundaries. Short of making a 'duldrums' style unpassable territory in the middle of the pacific (which I'm not too high on because it makes no sense really) there's no way to naturally divide the north and south pacific. If I decide to go with the classic play I will work on reducing the borders - having one less S. Atlantic border would be easy enough.

[rebelman]

would you consider a 3rd gameplay version where terits are famous ports and bonuses are given for exploration routes/ trade routes?
it would be similar to rail usa only on water.

i like this idea

[edbeard]

Actually, N Atlantic has five borders, but I could work on that.

North Sea, Canary Basin, Sargasso Sea, Caribbean (you misspelled this on the map btw) and......not sure

[oaktown]

Actually, N Atlantic has five borders, but I could work on that.

North Sea, Canary Basin, Sargasso Sea, Caribbean (you misspelled this on the map btw) and......not sure

You're right... I counted Canary twice on my second pass, since it borders two other regions. oops.

new version in the works.

Poll results:
Of the two gameplay styles on page three, I prefer...
The Classic Gameplay verison: territories and traditional bonuses - 60% [ 9 ]
The Seaports version: fewer starting territories, auto deploy bonuses for holding ports - 33% [ 5 ]
This whole idea should be chucked into an ocean! - 6% [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 15

[oaktown]

Alright, we're going with the classic version. This is what we're at with 43 territories.

Obvious things I still have to do:
Clear divisions between regions, or different colors for regions.
Work out what the bonuses should be.
Work on the dead space around the map - borders, fun stuff that enhances the theme of the map, etc.
Many, many other things I am sure.

[Coleman]

I really like the look of that a lot.

I'm in no rush to push this off to Main Foundry though. I want to hear some feedback on the latest version first, but I like it.

[Bad Speler]

I like the new look also.

Two questions...does chukchi sea border baffin bay, and does south sea border scotia sea?

Playability also looks good, except I think north pacific should have its bonus bumped up one because it has more territories and more borders than the South pacific.

One thing about the graphics...to me, those lines of latitude and longitude looks a bit off...im not exactly sure what it is, maybe it just seems to cut the image, not sure though.
edit: one more thing i just noticed about the graphics...the compass in the middle seems to stand out to much.

[edbeard]

south sea does border scotia sea

I think a double arrow would be good

I don't believe there is a border from Chukchi to Baffin. Especially since Baffin is a Bay.

It might be considered a bit crude, but thicker lines as borders could be one way to separate the continents.

[BeakerWMA]

I really like the look of that a lot.

I'm in no rush to push this off to Main Foundry though. I want to hear some feedback on the latest version first, but I like it.

ditto, very nice.

[a-person1192]

looks good

[Coleman]

Changed my mind, get out of here.

[oaktown]

Once upon a time, I actually made maps... this is the first time in weeks I've been able to give this map some time. It's really just the border and images that are new. The guys are from an engraving by Albrecht Durer, ca 1515. He was a great early mapmaker, so using his work here seems appropriate. It changes the direction of the look of the map a bit, so I'll need to bring the other elements up to speed a bit - especially the small map.

I think that the idea of highlighting the borders between the regions should do the trick, though I need to work on the color of the glow - this doesn't work.

[whitestazn88]

nice update, i like the highlight idea to separate the continents

but if ppl dont like that idea, i thought of something. how bout you change the color of the water slightly for each region?

[oaktown]

how bout you change the color of the water slightly for each region?

Yeah, that would be the most obvious route... but I'd like to maintain the feel of an old map, which wouldn't involve using different colors for the water.

I'd also like to settle on one color that is muted enough that I can do this without army circles... I hate centering army counts!

[gimil]

how bout you change the color of the water slightly for each region?

Yeah, that would be the most obvious route... but I'd like to maintain the feel of an old map, which wouldn't involve using different colors for the water.

I'd also like to settle on one color that is muted enough that I can do this without army circles... I hate centering army counts!

Dont we all