First Nations Americas.

[Tisha]

2 neutrals? one on Nimiipuu, and one on the ship? then give plus one for holding both ships?

That could work, yes... as long you're fine with Aonikenk being open for deployment. Considering the vast number of regions, I personally don't think it will be a problem, whereas the Ships will be a problem (either part of a bonus, part of no bonus and extra instruction on the legend, or a bonus in their own right) unless addressed in some way.

Making them their own bonus is my personal preference; my second choice would be to make them part of no bonus. The last option makes little thematic sense as the Ships were the nemesis of the native inhabitants in many ways.

Marshal Ney

plus one auto deploy for each ship?


well, I don't want that. because I only have room for two neutrals, and one needs to be Nimiipuu.

[MarshalNey]

plus one auto deploy for each ship?


well, I don't want that. because I only have room for two neutrals, and one needs to be Nimiipuu.

Ummm, no I wasn't suggesting autodeploy. I agree that's a terrible idea. When I said 'make them their own bonus' I simply meant make them a bonus. Sorry for the confusion.

Yes, +1 for holding both sounds fine.

[iancanton]

this map looks as good as a picture.

As for 6-player and 8-player games, they will be at the worst starting regions no matter what, so no point in worrying about them.

Anyway my suggestion is to make sure there are at least 2 starting neutrals on the map, and if feasible no more than that.

at 127 regions, u can't do much about 6-player. however, the natural format for a map of such a size is 8-player, especially quads, where each player starts with exactly 15 regions, which allows someone to knock down an opponent's deployment easily before he or she has a chance to move. if this is fixed, then i can see the map becoming a favourite for clan games.

if we add 1 more ship to each ocean (to give a 4-ship bonus) and remove the neutrals (the +1 plateau bonus is reasonably likely to drop to a player only with 4 or fewer players, when the bonus adds +1 to a deployment of 10 to 14 troops - not a game-changer), then we have 129 regions, giving 16 regions to each of 8 players. adding 2 ships but keeping the nimipuu neutral is also possible while retaining 16 regions for 8 players.

ian.

[natty dread]

I wonder, why is the initial deployment problem never addressed by changing the troop reinforcements, especially on large maps like this?

When the map is this big, it would make sense to "scale up" the reinforcement specs as well.

For example, here we could specify that you'd get 1 troop for every 4 territories, with a minimum of 4. This way, 8 player games would be good with 15 starting territories.

7 playes would get 18 = 4 troops, can't drop below 4.
6 players would get 21 = need to take 2 to drop to 19.
5 players would get 25 = need to take 2 to drop to 23.
4 players would get 31 = need to take 4 to drop to 27.
3 players would get 42 = need to take 3 to drop to 39.

How does this sound?

[Tisha]

I wonder, why is the initial deployment problem never addressed by changing the troop reinforcements, especially on large maps like this?

When the map is this big, it would make sense to "scale up" the reinforcement specs as well.

For example, here we could specify that you'd get 1 troop for every 4 territories, with a minimum of 4. This way, 8 player games would be good with 15 starting territories.

7 playes would get 18 = 4 troops, can't drop below 4.
6 players would get 21 = need to take 2 to drop to 19.
5 players would get 25 = need to take 2 to drop to 23.
4 players would get 31 = need to take 4 to drop to 27.
3 players would get 42 = need to take 3 to drop to 39.

How does this sound?

sounds good, I just don't know xml sorta things..

[natty dread]

XML supports it, with the <reinforcements> tags.

viewtopic.php?f=466&t=23382#p1070531

[MarshalNey]

I wonder, why is the initial deployment problem never addressed by changing the troop reinforcements, especially on large maps like this?

When the map is this big, it would make sense to "scale up" the reinforcement specs as well.

For example, here we could specify that you'd get 1 troop for every 4 territories, with a minimum of 4. This way, 8 player games would be good with 15 starting territories.

7 playes would get 18 = 4 troops, can't drop below 4.
6 players would get 21 = need to take 2 to drop to 19.
5 players would get 25 = need to take 2 to drop to 23.
4 players would get 31 = need to take 4 to drop to 27.
3 players would get 42 = need to take 3 to drop to 39.

How does this sound?

Brilliant natty! Why didn't I think of that?

You will have to add the changes to the map legend somewhere, but you have the space I think.

I will also point out that you'd only be able to have 1 neutral, as the numbers natty presented require 126 deployable regions.

In that case, some decision would have to be made about where the neutral would go, and what the Ships would do. You could make them part of no bonus, and note that on the legend. They still provide the benefit of quick travel from the Northern continent to the Southern.

Marshal Ney

[natty dread]

No, my calculations were based on 127 but now that I check it they also work the same for 126.

125 would work with everything except 6 player games (starting with 20).

In other words, you'd either need to have no neutrals, only 1 neutral, or sacrifice 6 player games if you want 2 neutrals.

I would suggest only starting Nimiipuu as neutral, or none at all.

[Tisha]

I'd prefer zero neutrals.. the neutrals where brought up in the previous map productions.
or I guess I could do one neutral on Nimiipuu, and the ships worth zero bonus.



How would I word the "1 troop for every 4 territories, with a minimum of 4"? just like that?

[Ace Rimmer]

I like the 1 per 4, and I think the wording is fine. No neutrals, slim chance of dropping the +1 for plateau or dropping both ships, but not that big of a deal if it happens imho.

[AndyDufresne]

I like the 1 per 4, and I think the wording is fine. No neutrals, slim chance of dropping the +1 for plateau or dropping both ships, but not that big of a deal if it happens imho.

I'd be in favor of this as well.


--Andy

[Tisha]

Click image to enlarge.

[MrBenn]

I like the territory reinforcement change, I was going to suggest capping the territory bonus, but changing the ratios works better.

I think we should be able to come up with a nicer - more fitting - description of this change, something similar perhaps to the letter idea that IH used on the 13 Colonies map?

[MarshalNey]

I have no further gameplay concerns. I'll sticky this tomorrow if none come to the fore, and it'll be in the next Surveyors Bulletin.

Marshal Ney

[MrBenn]

Regarding a possible bonus grouping for the Circum-Caribbean and the additional islands off the coast of South America (West Indies) you could group them by adding a note under the Nina as if it were part of the letter from Columbus to King Ferdinand of Spain...

"There I found very many islands... As soon as I arrived in the Indies..."



You could then amend the name of the circum-caribbean bonus on the legend of the North American portion of the map to "Indies", and give it a bonus of 3 or 4?

[isaiah40]

You could then amend the name of the circum-caribbean bonus on the legend of the North American portion of the map to "Indies", and give it a bonus of 3 or 4?

Now this is a good idea!!

[natty dread]

Are you suggesting adding a territory? Because 128 won't work with 4 player games...

[isaiah40]

Are you suggesting adding a territory? Because 128 won't work with 4 player games...

No, MrBenn was suggesting on adding a bonus with the territories already there.

[Tisha]

I'm not sure how I would group them together.. I feel like they need to be on N. Americas paper.. but they won't fit
I'm getting am Idea, jusst a minute.


also, I'm not a writer, and can't put words together to make the legend about 1 for every 4 letter like ..

[laughingcavalier]

Looking good.
I think if the islands on the southern map sheet were the same colour as the northern islands, it wouldn't matter that they are on a different sheet, in fact it might help to make the two sheets look more together.
I'm also not sure you want to change the bonus name to "indies" - one of the strengths of this map is it draws on pre-colonial days & the more colonial language you put in the less it is "first nations."
And "Circum-Caribbean" works well with the region name "Carib" as part of that bonus.

[keiths31]

I don't know much about map making or gameplay...but this map looks like it would be epic.

[Tisha]

what about something like:


It's not finished, but it's an idea

Click image to enlarge.

[MarshalNey]

Elegant, thematic touch- I like it. Are you going to make the Indies a single bonus?

[Tisha]

Elegant, thematic touch- I like it. Are you going to make the Indies a single bonus?

yeah, worth three

what do you think about the other bonuses?

n. amazon should probably change
what about N. and S. Meso-America?

3 for all of those?

[MarshalNey]

I think these two are fairly straightforward as there are good +2 example bonus areas to compare with and a +3 bonus area (5 regions, 4 borders)-

Carribean: +3
N.Amazon: +3 (down from +4)

As for N.Meso-America, nothing has changed really, and with only 4 regions and 3 borders it looks like the map standard is clearly at +2. Unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible, I'm thinking:

N.Meso-America: +2 (unchanged)

For S.Meso-Amercia, it is sort of in a 'gray-area' as far as the overall bonus bias (baseline) is concerned. At 5 regions and 3 borders, it is unique. No other +2 bonus has 5 regions. I'm thinking in light of this:

S.Meso-America: +3 (up from +2)


Marshal Ney