I still think Cote Divoire has a big name and would be better remove it.
Central America? Please, please change that name...
Do you really want those insignificant things like Tierra del Fuego in the map? Use the big ones is my suggestion.
In Asia, I think would be better having Russia splitted than those minor countries like Sri Lanka, and mainly Taiwan and Malaysia (lets use simplest routes in those points?)
Ok, you want split Indonesia, but 4 is too much, isnt it?
How about to use Antartic? It will not be an accurate one without it! The territories can be named France possession or something alike.
Thanks for your comments/suggestions...
I'm ambivalent about Cote D'Ivoire, it's in the current rev as I don't want to delete countries if I don't "have to" for space, etc., but it's not strategically or geo-politically important so I'll go with the consensus.
I've changed Central America for Guatemala (it's the largest population of the countries that I merged to create what was "Central America" in the last rev.) but let me know because if someone strongly wants Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, etc. I'd be happy to change it.
Tierra Del Fuego mainly to allow a southern route between the continents without giving South America two borders down there (Chile & Argentina).
On the Russia split versus Sri Lanka, etc., my bias is to use real countries wherever possible and only create, merge or seperate territories where necessary for fit or game play/game balance. So I'd keep Asia largely the way it is. Might delete one or two more of the tiny countries (nepal, bangladesh, etc.) if required for continental balance but at the moment I'm content with Asia.
On Indonesia I could put pieces of Indonesia back togther but to maintain balance I think I'd then have to split Australia into more pieces to keep the number of territoires the same. Is this what you'd like to see?
I've left Antarctica off as I didn't feel it add anything to the strategic situation that wasn't achieved by the sea lanes between continents in the south. My thinking was/is that Antarctica would have four or five subdivision (American, British, French, Russian or perhaps named for geographic features) and that these would be bordered by New Zealand/Australia, South Africa and Tierra Del Feugo and that I'd eliminate the direct southern tip to southern tip connections. If that was the case then I expect the optimal strategy would be for the holders of those continents to 'push' their borders out one territory into Antarctica the way a South America player tries to hold North Africa in Classic and that given theere are three of these potential border extenders holding Antrartcia would be untenable unless it had an artificially high bonus. Thoughts?
Marvaddin also wrote:
Bonus of 12 would be too much. Maybe not in escalating games, but in flat rate and specially no cards, game over. No one would get another continent. But, the games would last 2 centuries before someone hold a continent, too. No... continents that big arent good, I think, lets make more than 6 continents, friend.
that bonus really isnt that much, considering with 114 countries and 6 people, each person would get 6 armies on their first turn.
that difference between bonus and initial armies isnt that big considering in classic map you get 3 armies to start and the largest bonus is 7.
3/7 is more of a change than 6/12
1. This map needs more continents. More continents would help the game progress faster but would solve the problem of Africa being too valuble. Possible splits:
Africa = North Africa + Sub-Saharan Africa
Asia = Middle East + Orient + Former Soviet Union (would have to split up Russia some more)
Europe could remain as is, it would be the Mother Load, the equivalent of Asia on the Classic map, i.e. take Europe = Total Domination
I'd really prefer not to create sub continents given the goal of approximating reality as best I can. I think the extra continents comments and the bonus armies comments are both about trying to strike the "right" balance for playability. I've thought about this some more and my feeling is that this map given it's size is likely to appeal to people looking for something of an 'epic' battle and that the "right" balance (for this map) is to let them have it. Given that premise I've lowered the bonuses on this version while (I hope) preserving the balance of power between the continents. I'm not solid on this however so let me know what you think though I am feeling that the question may be unanswerable until we play test things.
Current table looks like:
North America -13/4/3/0.23/0.75
South America -12/4/3/0.25 /0.75
losrivas also wrote:
Crazy idea I had: What if there were some non-adjacent connections, like in the Philipines map? That would add to the "Modernity" of the map, since countries that are adjacent to each other aren't necessarily the ones fighting these days. What if USA had "aerial" connections to other spots on the globe, like the Middle East or Korea? That would give USA more borders without adding more territories, and make North America a more valuable continent. Another idea that was proposed earlier was to give some more powerful countries an additional bonus, like the US or China, etc. These little bonuses could help the game move along quicker even before any continents have been secured.
p gizzle wrote:
what if you didnt base bonuses off strategic power, but power in the real world. Like, what you could do, or even me, is rank the countries by order of power right now. like, US could be 1 and etc. then you add up all the numbers. the continent with the lowest number would have the highest bonus and so on
On the aerial connections and the strategic power questions I don't think I could achieve a realistic or accurate implementation given my map making skills, the constraints of the Conquer Club engine and our collective wisdom of where power can be projected by US, Russia, EU, etc.
On the sub-continents having mini bonuses I think this essentially get's us back to the more continents issue which if I can get balance by other means I'd prefer to avoid.
Thanks again everyone for your comments/suggestions I think we're getting somewhere...