Conquer Club

Posted: **Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:34 pm**

To explain my thinking a little bit...

I resisted when I first hatched this idea, but I do think Russia needs to be broken up for gameplay purposes. Any other system just isn't going to work.

I don't think Japan needs to be broken up. It shouldn't be its own bonus region and if we break it up and include it with any other region, it will be too unwieldy. Having one Japan territory and connecting it to the Kamchatka Peninsula and South Korea should work well.

I want to have at least one small bonus region. Hence the Holy Land and including both Palestinian regions. Maybe it needs to be done as an inset.

Northern Cyprus isn't in Asia technically, but it can work as a connecting point to Turkey and Israel. It would unlock some of the clutter.

I like the idea of keeping Malaysia as one territory in two different places and keeping it part of the bonus structure on the mainland. It will provide for unique gameplay, as it will be an automatic connecting point to Borneo and Brunei. Plus, Brunei will be an exclave to the Islands region. Could be very interesting in a fog of war game.

The "Indonesia" territory would over all islands not separately included. Part of me thinks we should ditch Bali and include that in the catch-all territory, but we can debate that.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:14 am**

I've taken on another new job (I won't even try to explain my career

A jack of all trades?

That would give us 61 territories if I've done the math right. I don't know what the optimum starting figures are off-hand, but we can adjust with starting neutrals if need be.

The nearest optimal numbers are 59 and 66. I think it'd be best to go with 59, and have 2 or 3 territories start neutral.

As for your territories, I'd have to see it in a map, I think visually therefore it's hard for me to really comprehend how the map would look from your text alone.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:20 am**

I like this idea and map so far, but I would suggest adding in the surroundings to make it feel more realistic.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:31 am**

I think Russia should be a single territory -- all the countries should be one territory.

And if you make Russia a single territory, you get sort of a two-fer -- it means you can omit depicting most of Russia's north and instead show only part of Russia at the top of the map, leaving more room for the other territories.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:41 am**

As for hong kong, vatican city was separated from italy in europa

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:53 am**

Peter Gibbons wrote:ISLANDS: Brunei, Borneo, Sumatra, Bali, Java, East Timor, New Guinea, Indonesia, Philippines (9 territories)

By 'Borneo' I presume you mean Indonesian Borneo (or Kalimantan). Bali is part of the Lesser Sunda Islands. With Sumatra, Java, Western New Guinea, Sulawesi, and the Maluku Islands you get the main regions of Indonesia as listed in Wikipedia. That's 7. Brunei, East Timor, and the Philippines make 10 for this region, and 62 (or 63) for the whole map.

SultanOfSurreal wrote:I think Russia should be a single territory -- all the countries should be one territory.

And if you make Russia a single territory, you get sort of a two-fer -- it means you can omit depicting most of Russia's north and instead show only part of Russia at the top of the map, leaving more room for the other territories.

Merging Russia into one territory brings your territory count down to 57-59 (depending on whether you change Indonesia and/or add Kashmir). That's a safe territory number, without starting anything neutral.

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:45 pm**

skeletonboy wrote:As for hong kong, vatican city was separated from italy in europa

But Hong Kong is no longer sovereign. Vatican City is an independent state.

As for the Russia debate, I think that needs to be a focus right now. I leaned toward making it one territory initially, but now I think I see the benefit of Russia being its own bonus region with several territories included. If we make Russia one territory, there are some major connection issues and what do we do about it insofar as a bonus region?

What do people think?

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:50 pm**

What are the connection issues you're seeing with keeping Russia in one piece?

Posted: **Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:47 pm**

Well, you're going to have one territory that borders 7 different territories (if you connect to Japan, which I think you must). And those 7 different territories are likely going to be in at least 3 different bonus regions. So if you keep Russia as a single territory, which bonus region will it fall in? I don't think there's a satisfactory answer to that.

So would we keep it a +1 autodeploy? If we do that, on such a large map (~60 territories), one person could claim Russia early and build on it--particularly in 4-player games or fewer. You'd get the +1 and an additional 5 or so armies. So before anyone would card (I'm thinking flat rate here), you could have around 20 armies on Russia and it would be able to deny three of the bonus regions on the board permanently.

In effect, it's not so much a connection issue per se. It's the fact that there's no real way to make Russia the territory that doesn't dominate the map. But, then again, maybe we want that...

Posted: **Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:57 pm**

Like Mr Gibbons, I've been strapped for time over the past month - I've managed to get half of the basic image done; and present that now only to try and provoke further discussion...

Posted: **Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:18 pm**

Maybe china and india should be separated from hose islands in the south

Posted: **Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:09 pm**

I think the white region ought to be separated into Indian subcontinent, Southeast asia and Far East (China and Japan). But judging by the look of things, that area might not be even near done just yet.

I think the map is going ot have to get a bit bigger... Zoom in and sacrifice the northern coast of Russia and perhaps give it a slight tilt to accommodate the shape better.

Posted: **Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:54 am**

It seems to me that europe and scandinavia have no reason to be on an Asia map... you could maybe tilt and zoom in a bit, to leave them out.

Posted: **Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:43 am**

natty_dread wrote:It seems to me that europe and scandinavia have no reason to be on an Asia map... you could maybe tilt and zoom in a bit, to leave them out.

I'm guess those areas are the non-playable areas.

Posted: **Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:57 am**

isaiah40 wrote:
natty_dread wrote:It seems to me that europe and scandinavia have no reason to be on an Asia map... you could maybe tilt and zoom in a bit, to leave them out.

I'm guess those areas are the non-playable areas.

All the more reason to show a smaller portion of them. Leaves more room for the actual playing area

Posted: **Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:37 pm**

Industrial Helix wrote:I think the white region ought to be separated into Indian subcontinent, Southeast asia and Far East (China and Japan). But judging by the look of things, that area might not be even near done just yet.

Yes - the white region will be split up (as per some of the lists in previous posts); I've yet to draw the borders for The Orient, Middle Asia, Indian Subcontinent, Indochina, Indonesia, etc.)

I think the map is going ot have to get a bit bigger... Zoom in and sacrifice the northern coast of Russia and perhaps give it a slight tilt to accommodate the shape better.

natty_dread wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:
natty_dread wrote:It seems to me that europe and scandinavia have no reason to be on an Asia map... you could maybe tilt and zoom in a bit, to leave them out.

I'm guess those areas are the non-playable areas.

All the more reason to show a smaller portion of them. Leaves more room for the actual playing area

There's not much I can trim off to make things fit better - the real issue is one of width, rather than one of height ;-)

I quite like Northern Europe being on the map as a non-playable area - it makes the geography feel more complete (the continent is truly Eurasia). If I were to go for a different map projection, I wouldn't get any more room where I really need it - all that would happen is that Russia would take up even more space!

I'll try and get some more time to produce a finalised draft in due course - the regions will be divided as per previous suggestions, and will still be open to debate ;-)

Posted: **Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:42 pm**

(the continent is truly Eurasia)

You know, an Eurasia map could be interesting...

Posted: **Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:47 pm**

A completely accurate map of Eurasia would be incredibly challenging to represent while fitting within the constraints of the CC map dimensions...

Back on topic:

Peter Gibbons wrote:Well, you're going to have one territory that borders 7 different territories (if you connect to Japan, which I think you must). And those 7 different territories are likely going to be in at least 3 different bonus regions. So if you keep Russia as a single territory, which bonus region will it fall in? I don't think there's a satisfactory answer to that.

So would we keep it a +1 autodeploy? If we do that, on such a large map (~60 territories), one person could claim Russia early and build on it--particularly in 4-player games or fewer. You'd get the +1 and an additional 5 or so armies. So before anyone would card (I'm thinking flat rate here), you could have around 20 armies on Russia and it would be able to deny three of the bonus regions on the board permanently.

In effect, it's not so much a connection issue per se. It's the fact that there's no real way to make Russia the territory that doesn't dominate the map. But, then again, maybe we want that...

Personally, I think I'm erring on the side of keeping Russia as one big country, but include two island terrs - Ostrov Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands (not shown on the draft image above) in the same region. An alternative option is to add the Caucasus / Transcontinental countries to the same bonus region too. Sure, Russia is a strategic territory from a gameplay perspective, but I'm not convinced it's a major issue - even if it ends up as a +1 for holding a single territory (although I'd prefer not to go down that route). I'd also prefer not to go down the killer neutral/autodeploy route unless absolutely necessary.

Are there any suggestions for decent impassables between the bonus regions, such as mountains between Nepal/Bhutan and China?

Posted: **Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:59 pm**

Caspian Sea seems like it would be a fine impassable, and so too maybe the Gobi Desert, a la Mongol Empire. Traditionally well known rivers like the Indus, Ganges, and Ob.

--Andy

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:20 pm**

cairnswk wrote:My comments on the continent structure only...

MrBenn wrote:Here are some of my thoughts on how territories could be grouped (the number in brackets are territory counts, not bonus values):

Siberia 1-3 - Russia, (Ostrov Sakhalin), (Kuril Islands) Yes
Caucasus 4 - Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey Yes
Arabia 7-8 - Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Yemen, (Socotra), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait Yes
Levant 5-8 - Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, (Palestine?{West Bank/Gaza Strip}), Yes (Cyprus <- according to wiki part of the european continent and European Union)

Middle Asia 6-7 - Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Iran Yes
The Orient 6-11 - China, (Hainan), (Hong Kong), (Macau), Taiwan, (Tibet?), Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, (Japanese Islands??) Yes
Indian Subcontinent 6-9 - Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, {Pakistan*}, Sri Lanka, (Maldives), (Lakshadweep Islands), (Andaman and Nicobar islands) Yes, with ref to Pakistan, it was part of India ages ago, so belongs in this subgroup
Indochina 5-6- Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Peninsular Malaysia* Yes
Malay Archipelego - East Malaysia*, Brunei, (Indonesia**), Philippines, Singapore, East Timor/Timor-Leste, (Papua New Guinea) <- No. Why not make Phillipines, East Timor, Papua & New Guinea (not Irian Jaya) their own small independant group, and keep Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore as the Malaccas/Malay continent.
( Indonesia** - Java, Sumatra, Sulawesi, Borneo***, Lesser Sunda Islands (Bali etc), New Guinea ) <- New Guinea is Irian Jaya
( Borneo**?? - East Malaysia, Brunei, Kalimantan ) Yes

To preserve continuity, I think I'd opt against splitting Russia/Malaysia into separate parts, but this is more problematic in the Malay Archipelago... Malalysia could be two distinct terrs in two regions, or a single terr that is in both... Indonesia could be a terr on its own, or a region made up its principal islands. Regional Indonesia could be included in the Malay Archipelago region, or the two could combine with Indochina to make a supercontinent (as per World 2.1)...

I think Malaya

These are the questions that will need some serious thought... In the meantime, I've got a new basemap to draw

Peter Gibbons wrote:As I explained to MrBenn, I've taken on another new job (I won't even try to explain my career), so I've been swamped with real-life. But I don't want to abandon this project before it even gets off the ground.

So I think where we stand, after reading what's been written and some PMs with MrBenn, is at the point where we just have to formally decide which territories are in and which are out. MrBenn can't really proceed until then with the gameplay and graphics. I don't intend to impose my will on everyone else, but I suppose I do have to be the final arbiter. So I'll present what I think the territories should be. I do have them grouped in bonus regions, but those regions can and will likely change later. Right now, let's just focus the discussion on whether or not a territory should be included.

In no way do I intend to make any sort of political statement with these selections. Some semi- or formerly autonamous regions I leave off (Hong Kong and Macau) because they seem useless for gameplay. Others I include because I think they will help gameplay, most notably Tibet and Northern Cyprus (which I realize isn't really part of Asia, but it can open up Turkey if it connects to the mainland twice).

Anyway, here are my tentative selections:

RUSSIA: European Russia, Siberia, Ostrov Sakhalin, Kuril Islands, Kamchatka Peninsula (5 territories)
HOLY LAND: Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip (3 territories)
ARAB STATES: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq (5 territories)
ARABIAN PENINSULA: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, Oman, UAE (6 territories)
CAUCUSUS: Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, North Cyprus (5 territories)
CENTRAL ASIA: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan (7 territories)
INDIAN SUBCONTINENT: Maldives, Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan (6 territories)
SOUTHEAST ASIA: Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia (7 territories)
ISLANDS: Brunei, Borneo, Sumatra, Bali, Java, East Timor, New Guinea, Indonesia, Philippines (9 territories)
ORIENT: China, Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea, Tibet, Taiwan, Japan (7 territories)

That would give us 61 territories if I've done the math right. I don't know what the optimum starting figures are off-hand, but we can adjust with starting neutrals if need be. Also, I kind of like the idea of including Kashmir in some regard. Maybe as a killer neutral, maybe as a +1 autodeploy or maybe as part of the Indian Subcontinent. The proper nature of Kashmir could be discussed later, but if it's included it gives us 62 territories.

For now, ignoring the bonus groupings and the names of the bonus groupings... does anyone have strong opinions on the list above?

I was only half-checking the above while sorting out the basemap borders etc... I still need to finish off the Indonesian bit of the map, but most of the other borders are sorted now; hence the updated draft (which is still missing territory names at this stage):

I'll probably add a couple of extra island territories in due course; but for now the discussion should continue around sensible bonus regions, and any natural impassables that could be added in sensible places.

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:16 pm**

AndyDufresne wrote:Caspian Sea seems like it would be a fine impassable, and so too maybe the Gobi Desert, a la Mongol Empire. Traditionally well known rivers like the Indus, Ganges, and Ob.

--Andy

What he said!

Although (without really looking) the Gobi Desert probably wouldn't work as an impassable, since it does cover a lot of Mongolia, northern China and part of Russia.

You can use the Himalayas as an impassable. Also the Tien-Shan and Pamir mountains which can border China/Kazakhstan and China/Tajikistan/Afghanistan respectfully.

Looking at some rivers in the region. There is Amu Darya which flows from a high plateau in the Pamir Mtns. of central Asia, across southern Tajikistan, forming its border with Afghanistan, then northwest, forming parts of the borders between Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan and on into the Aral Sea.

The Indus River won't work because it doesn't have any natural border with countries to speak of. Unless you want to fudge it a little.

Just my couple of cents for now.

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:29 pm**

Impassables: Himalayas obviously... The Yalu river separates the Koreas from China... that's the only river boundary I can think of.

One possibility would be to throw the Koreas into Japan's sphere of influence... I think I was reading how linguistically they were similar and not to mention, Korea was once a Colony of Japan.

Do you intend to make Hong Kong its own territory? It could go either way.

Are you doing Japan by each of its islands?

The southern most island of the Philippines, Mindanao, is a semi-autonomous Sultanate within the Philippines. This situation similar to Sardinia or Sicily in Italy, which you gave their own space on Europa.

You should add the Maldives.

And I like the color scheme and the generally graphical direction its going. Europa is a very clear map and I think that the style is going to work great for this.

You could name it Asiatica... Europa is latin for Europe, and while Asia is latin for Asia, I noticed that in the naming of plants Asiatica is used to describe "Of Asia" and I think it might be the best option.

Has anyone given any thought to an Africa map like this?

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2010 8:08 pm**

I forgot to mention that I hope you will be doing an inset of the Holy Land to show those territories, as right now I don't think everything is going to fit there.

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:31 pm**

isaiah40 wrote:I forgot to mention that I hope you will be doing an inset of the Holy Land to show those territories, as right now I don't think everything is going to fit there.

Speaking of which... Palestine or Israel? Controversy please!

I suppose a West Bank/Israel/Gaza thing would do though really. I mean, you're recognizing Taiwan on this map which about 8 countries in this world formally do.

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:32 pm**

Industrial Helix wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:I forgot to mention that I hope you will be doing an inset of the Holy Land to show those territories, as right now I don't think everything is going to fit there.

Speaking of which... Palestine or Israel? Controversy please!

I suppose a West Bank/Israel/Gaza thing would do though really. I mean, you're recognizing Taiwan on this map which about 8 countries in this world formally do.

I agree. If you're doing a modern day map, then West Bank/Israel/Gaza would be appropriate, just put them in an inset please.

Conquer Club

[Abandoned] - A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map

Re: A New Asia Map