I think you have to develope the map with a regional perspective, rather than basing the gameplay on cities, but it's just a personal thought.
The iceland inset could be placed a bit more on the left because i don't think you can use that unused space in the left corner.
Aland, it's not clear if it is a part of south finland or south sweden.
Not sure about the link between Tallin and Helsinki (both with a +1 autodeploy)
Bonuses (values with autodeploy):
* Denmark +1 (+2)
* Estonia +2 (+3)
* Iceland +1 (+2)
* N.Norway +3
* S.Norway +3 (+4)
* N.Sweden +4
* S.Sweden +4 (+5)
* N.Finland +4
* S.Finland +4 (+5)
natty_dread wrote:Any reason for this? This is a region of europe that not many people are familiar with. I thought that the cities would at least be somewhat more recognizable than some obscure regions that nobody knows, except the few people that live in that area...
natty_dread wrote:I don't want to touch the sea too much, because IMO it quite accurately represents the look of the baltic sea. The baltic sea is a very dark and sinister looking sea.
natty_dread wrote:Are these from the bonus calculator or your own estimate?
Why +1 on denmark when it has to defend 2 borders? Is it because it is the smallest "continent" with only 3 territories?
Also, how do you feel about the supercontinent bonuses? Where you get additional +1 for holding both norways or both finlands, and an additional +2 for holding both swedens?
danmark is a fair +2 but the +1 autodeploy on one border should make it too strong, specially in the early rounds...(i think )
soundman wrote:Flags don't seem to fit. You should pull Iceland down some so the space is even with the left side. I think I like 5a better...
whitestazn88 wrote:i feel like you can't have estonia w/o latvia & lithuania (maybe it's just a personal reason...)
and what about russia? doesn't it go just as far north as scandinavia?
just something to think about. i don't think it would really be a big issue if the title was kept or not.
Me wrote:I named the map Northern Europe because it sounds better than "The Nordic Countries and Estonia", ok?
natty_dread wrote:whitestazn88 wrote:i feel like you can't have estonia w/o latvia & lithuania (maybe it's just a personal reason...)
I included Estonia, because it's culturally very close to Finland. They're almost the same people, the language is almost the same... Latvia and Lithuania, not so much. Besides, that's where the legend isand what about russia? doesn't it go just as far north as scandinavia?
Yes, but Russia is not considered to be a part of Europe.just something to think about. i don't think it would really be a big issue if the title was kept or not.
Well yeah. Thanks for your interest though, and I have a feeling I'll get to explain the title quite a few times before this map is doneMe wrote:I named the map Northern Europe because it sounds better than "The Nordic Countries and Estonia", ok?
Thematically... well, it's kind of an odd grouping of countries, it's sorta like "popular American conception of Scandanavia and oh yeah Estonia too". Your stated reason for including Estonia is that it shares a lot culturally with Finland... well, then, why is Iceland there? It's only nominally a Scandinavian country
snufkin wrote:I had never heard of Gäddede before - apparently it´s a small village with 456 inhabitants.
If you move it to the extreme south of your green area then you can call it Östersund which is a hundred times larger.
natty_dread wrote:So, you think this map would be any good without Estonia, or should I just forget about the map? In your opinion?
Well, dropping estonia would certainly help your overall theme... If nothing else, it would stop all the questions about its inclusion.
As to the larger question... well, it's your map, but you're treading extraordinarily well-worn ground here. Speaking as another foundry-goer and not as a FA, I'd be perfectly happy if the foundry never produced another basic-gameplay medium-size geographical map ever again, especially ones depicting Europe and North America.
whitestazn88 wrote:the capitals don't stick out enough for me.
and while i agree w/ incan's sentiment that there are a shit-load of geographical medium-territory sized maps, this one i like.
natty_dread wrote:Yeah, well, what kind of maps would you like to see? Just wondering...
I for one think there would be room for a map of this region. Granted, there are maps of europe, but almost all of the countries in my map are severely underrepresented in CC. Denmark and Iceland are the only ones which have their own map. There's no map of Scandinavia or Nordic countries either. So IMO there definitely is a niche for a map of this region.
It's funny though. I started making the Proteins 101 map, and people say it won't make it, because the subject is too obscure and unorthodox, nobody wants to conquer a protein. So I start to make a geographical map, and now you say there's no room for any more geographical maps, that new maps should be something else. Just saying, it's kinda funny. What kind of maps should I make then?
Incandenza wrote:What kind of maps would I like to see? I think the large and huge map niches are quite underfilled, and I'm always amenable to more complex maps (tho it can go a bit far, I spent a decent while last night trying to work through cairns' cricket map, and the only result was a severe brain hemorrhage).
If we're talking about maps in this general niche, the mid-sized basic-gameplay geographical map, I'd like to see more cities (especially cities outside of North America and Europe) and more under-represented regions of the world (as Andy has often said, some more Africa maps would be a nice addition).
It's not that I don't like your map, and it's not that I don't think it can be a perfectly acceptable CC map with the requisite amount of work... it just doesn't really do anything for me.
You make an interesting point about the protein map: it is indeed an obscure and rather unorthodox subject, and abstract maps (or any map that doesn't lend itself well to the whole world domination concept) are a tough sell to the membership, especially when your map is fighting for eyeballs with 141 other maps. Similarly, pure geographical maps, especially medium-sized ones, can be a tough sell, simply due to the overwhelming number of extremely similar maps.
Look at Third Crusade, for instance. While it can be argued that it's just another Europe map, the theme is interesting and the gameplay is refreshingly complex without being overwhelming or confusing.
The unfortunate truth is that this is a difficult time to be a new mapmaker: many map niches have been (over)filled, there hasn't been an xml update in forever, and more and more longtime foundrarians are becoming frustrated and/or bored with the foundry. There's a sense of "been there done that" that can be tough to overcome. One of the reasons for the underwhelming response to Proteins from foundry vets is that there are a good half-dozen science/anatomy maps in the recycle bin, some of them in a pretty advanced state, that simply failed to find any sort of audience.
And the greater Scandinavian area has been tried a few times as well. So neither of your map concepts are really fresh enough to make people sit up and take notice, thus increasing the onus on you to really blow people away with graphics and/or gameplay. And while I realize it's a bit early in the process for you to be bringing out the big guns for graphics, as a newish mapmaker you're unfortunately going to be judged guilty until proven innocent when it comes to matching up with the top geographical maps on CC (i.e. anything that RJBeals has done).
Don't let me be the final arbiter here, like I said before it's your map. CC has a pretty sizable contingent of players from the depicted areas that might very well flock to the map. Hell, you're one of them. And I've been kicking around the foundry a long-ass time, so it's the rare map that really gets me to sit up and take notice.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users