Nordic Countries [Quenched]

[whitestazn88]

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]

the capitals don't stick out enough for me.

I'll see what I can do about that. Do you have any suggestions, how would you improve the capitals? I wouldn't want to make the troop circle too "egtravagant". Simplistic it should be. Maybe something with the city name font?

and while i agree w/ incan's sentiment that there are a shit-load of geographical medium-territory sized maps, this one i like.

Why thank you... at least somebody does

[Incandenza]

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?

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.

[natty dread]

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).

Large maps... hmm. Making them large just for the sake of being large doesn't really sit with me.

As for more complex maps... I've never really enjoyed the really complex maps. It takes too much time to learn all the nuances, let alone learn the gameplay in such a way that you can actually beat someone... I like the maps that are relatively simple, with a balanced gameplay. Good old-fashioned straight-forward kill or be killed. I don't enjoy the maps that seem to try to cram every possible XML/gameplay feature in them, just for the sake of using them...

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).

Cities, eh? How about a large map with several cities, where each city would have airports or something that would connect to the other cities? Just an idea.

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.

I know. I wonder why. A map of human anatomy would also be a fun thing to play. I don't believe we can ever have too many maps in CC. I mean, what's wrong with having lots of maps? There are so many people in CC, I don't see the issue of catering to just small parts of them. What does it matter if a map is "unpopular" if there is at least somewhat a fan base for them? Popularity changes over time, new people join the site all the time and they might have different map preferences...

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).

Yeah, it's hard for new mapmakers.

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.

The problem with the foundry process, as I see it, is that not everyone even uses the forums, let alone visits the foundry. And too few people participate in the foundry process. So we can never get an accurate estimation of a map's popularity. Even if lots of people would like a map that's in development, we'll never know since they never visit the foundry... Then there's the old map makers, who can practically make any map and get it through, just because they have lots of friends who support any map that they make, and thus it's a lot easier for them to gather the "community support" for their projects. I'm not saying that the same standards don't apply to them, just that it's a lot easier for old mapmakers to get their projects approved.

However, at this point I have no idea how to fix the situation, so I'm just going to keep trying and hope that people like my maps. What else is there to do...

[natty dread]

Update v7. I didn't touch the capitals yet, as I couldn't make up my mind what to do with them. I'll save that for next update...

Actually I was just trying out things with the visual style. Also added a connection between lillehammar and östersund.

Click image to enlarge.

wow, uploading images is so much more convenient now. I found a plugin which lets me upload images straight from the drawing board -> imageshack... what will they think of next

[natty dread]

Alternate color scheme. version 7c

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

Here's an update with capitals highlighted. I inverted the colours of the other cities, and coloured the capital names with cyan.

Click image to enlarge.

[MeanestBossEver]

Alternative name idea: "Nordic & Finnish People" -- is that accurate?

[natty dread]

No, I don't think so... There's Estonia, and there's no way you can call Estonian's "Finnish people"... even though they are culturally very close to finland, they are still a separate people - they just have the same roots.

I'm sure the Finnish and the Estonians belong to some kind of group by which you could name them, but I don't know what it is... I'll try to look it up.

[captainwalrus]

I don't like how dark the space in between the continents (the bevel) has gotten. Also, the texture is not that great, it just sort of looks splotchy but not interesting, like you just had some noise then a blur.

[natty dread]

Ok, alternate texture... is this any better?

Click image to enlarge.

edit. hmm, now that I look at it, I probably made it a bit too dark. Oh well, I'll keep on trying combinations of textures, until I find something that looks good.

[isaiah40]

Actually, it looks good! I don't see anything pressing except for maybe changing the Legend font. Keep up the good work!

[natty dread]

Actually, it looks good!

Really? Maybe I'll keep it then, or do something similar. I'll try to adjust it to get the land are a bit lighter though. Now it's hard to tell which bonus area Åland belongs to, again... Perhaps I'll need to redo one of the bevels.

I don't see anything pressing except for maybe changing the Legend font.

Yeah, the legend font will change, after the bonuses are decided. I'm still unsure on the bonuses... nobodies (I think) gave me the values according to bonus calculator...

* 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)

But I wouldn't want to make Denmark a mere +1, since it has 2 borders to defend, nobody would want to take denmark... Of course there's the +1 autodeploy, but autodeployed troops aren't as useful...

I also thought of getting rid of the autodeploy for capitals, and instead, making a new bonus structure for the capitals, where you'd get +1 for 3 capitals, +2 for 4 and so on... This would allow me to give higher bonuses to Denmark and Iceland, making holding them worthwhile...

Keep up the good work!

Thanks, I'll try to..



Also: I would really like to implement a connection between iceland and denmark, but I'm not sure how to do it so it looks good. Any suggestions?

[RjBeals]

I think this map would look a lot better with territory borders instead of all those connecting lines. Have you considered that?

[natty dread]

Yes, it has been suggested before...

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.

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...

Ultimately, I would prefer to keep the cities with lines connecting them, but if that ends up being the one thing that keeps this map from moving forward, then I'll change them to territories.

[RjBeals]

I'm speaking graphically only. The map is not half bad looking. But the web of interconnecting lines looks bad. If there were only 1 or 2 routes off a city, then it might look better, but each city has like 4 or 5 routes leading off it. It starts to get too complciated.

The pattern you've changed the land to is better, but it still could be improved.

[natty dread]

What if I were to decrease the opacity on the connecting lines, so that they would blend to the background more? Perhaps they wouldn't look so disturbing then. And decreasing connections... that would interfere with the gameplay, of course.

The pattern you've changed the land to is better, but it still could be improved.

How? Any suggestions?

[RjBeals]

Click image to enlarge.

Well to me this looks like denim. It's not bad, I guess it's different - but maybe include that long verticle glacier patch that divides norway / sweden. Or maybe play around with the Norwegian fjords or the mountain ranges - which are very familiar to people when thinking of scandanavia. Just a thought. Also - I think you've too much dark inner glow, and I think the non-play area lands (gray aresa) should be textured as well.

[natty dread]

I already fixed the inner shadow... it should be better on these.

For this one, I played around with the blend modes & opacity of the territory connections.

Click image to enlarge.

This one is the same, but with alternate texture:

Click image to enlarge.

So, extending the texture to the non-play-areas... I'm not so sure about that. But I guess I could try it in the next version. However that will mean I will have to redo all the textures again... I didn't think to save a version of the texture where the sea & non-play-areas weren't cut off.

[Eyestone]

Okay, something with this map is really wrong. I bet it is because the mapmaker doesn't know the area he's designing. I'm from Norway and I've never heard of this Gudvagen. I googled it and found out it was a supposed to be Gudvangen, a camping site with a nice view! You can't mix up Large citys like Oslo, Stavanger (that's Stavanger without ø - one of the other wrong spelled citys, there are more as well) and freaking Lakselv(!) - it's just all wrong! It's like you make a map of USA and put Coffeyville along with citys like Chicago and New York. If you're going through with this please make sure you get some help from someone who actually knows the area. This map would annoy the hell out of me if it would come through.

[natty dread]

I'm from Finland myself, so I know most of the area quite well... But I'm not very familiar with all the cities of Norway. It seems that my source for the city names had some misspellings. If you'd like, you'd be welcome to make a list of all Norwegian city names that are wrong, and send it to me, and I will correct them for the next version.

You have to understand this is the drafting room. It's not unheard of to have a few mistakes here and there at the drafting stage.

I appreciate you posting and pointing out flaws in the map, but if you don't like Lakselv to be included in the map, can you suggest another city in the same area that you think would fit better?

[Eyestone]

Yeah, sorry for being so harsh. I didn't know which section I was in as I found the map on a link from another forum. In stead of Lakselv I would put Hammerfest - that's supposed to be the city which lies farthest north in the world. Also it is known as the first city in Norway who got electric traffic lights

Also Bergen (the second largest city in Norway should be put in before Stavanger. They are in the same area. Mosjøen should be replaced by Bodø. And Gudvangen... well, it MUST be taken out. It's not a center at all. Trondheim could be a centrum in stead.

Other known miss spells: Lillehammar should be Lillehammer. Ålbora should be Ålborg. And I think you should find other places than at least Kolding, Mora (only known for it being the place where Vasaloppet start or ends, don't remember which) and propably Linköping. Also don't know about Arjeplog... I just have never heard of it at all. You should ask someone from Sweden and Denmark as well.

It also feels wrong to have a place like Narvik and Tromsø connect with Iceland. There are no boat that connects with Iceland. I think you should rather use airports to get to Iceland. Maybe from the capitals.

[natty dread]

Airports... that could work... But how would you represent it graphically?

I'm all for preserving as much realism as possible, but in some situations it is necessary to sacrifice realism for gameplay. Thus I have had to use some smaller cities, particularly in the northern parts of Finland, Norway and Sweden, there are not many big cities, so if only big and meaningful cities were used, they would be too empty. And Iceland needs some connections. There may be no passenger boats going to Iceland, but both Iceland and Norway have ports.

In stead of Lakselv I would put Hammerfest - that's supposed to be the city which lies farthest north in the world.

Will do.

Also Bergen (the second largest city in Norway should be put in before Stavanger.

Doable.

Mosjøen should be replaced by Bodø.

Can do.

And Gudvangen... well, it MUST be taken out. It's not a center at all. Trondheim could be a centrum in stead.

How about replacing it with Hermansverk? It's at least a bigger city. I need a city in that area, since south Norway would be too empty without.

Lillehammar should be Lillehammer. Ålbora should be Ålborg.

Will be fixed.

you should find other places than at least Kolding, Mora (only known for it being the place where Vasaloppet start or ends, don't remember which) and propably Linköping.

Linköping will stay, as a route from Stockholm to Göteborg. I don't think there's a better alternative. Same with Arjeplog, I don't think there are any better alternatives at that area. That I know of at least.

Mora... Again, is there a better alternative? I suppose I could change it to Rättvik, but I'm not sure if it's any better. I'll look into it.

As for Kolding... How about Vejle? I did some research.. it's the same size as Kolding, but it's the "capital" of the Syddanmark region.

[Eyestone]

Airports can't be that hard. Just explain it with text that all cities with planes next to them connect. Think about Sidney Metro...

Iceland and Norway have ports, but there are no common boat routes from Narvik or Tromsø that's for sure. The only ports with real routes are in the south, like Oslo, Larvik and Sandefjord. And there's Hurtigruta that goes all along the coast from Bergen in south and all the way to Kirkenes in the north. You could put that in if you want, just check that it goes to every place that you have on the map...

Hermansverk?? Common, that's another place I've never heard of. There's NO center in the middle of southern Norway. There are just mountains and highland that makes it unnatural to have any big city connecting place with the rest of the country. If you need a center, you'll have to go with the capital Oslo in the south or Trondheim in the middle. And if you need a city in the west, you can go with Molde - but don't you dare making it a center!

You actually have the same problem in Northern Sweden. It's practically nothing there, just forest and mountains... You can't make much out of it.

[Eyestone]

Another thing: Skien should propably be replaced by Kristiansand in the south.