Eurasia Map [Old thread]

[Kabanellas]

The army circles are only on places where the army number visibility would be poor without them. Like on small islands where the numbers would have to be partially on top of water. But maybe I'll change that later on, right now I'm more focused on the gameplay...

Yes, I understood that. But for the coherence aspect ot it I'd prefer to have all regions with (or without) circles.

Speaking of which, anyone like the idea of an additional collection bonus? Something like "resource centers" scattered on territories in areas with higher infrastructure... those could give something like +1 for first 4 and +1/2 for each beyond 4. Nothing major, just a sort of supplemental bonus.

I would like this one to keep its 'straightforward' gameplay. I know I usually advocate for complex maps but somehow this map seems pretty much solid just like it is - a good old region grabbing style map

[AndyDufresne]

This map probably could go to a new level if it had a greater theme (Golfe Du, California for some recent more dramatic examples)...or even with just a touch (Quad Cities recently).

California, really? I don't think that's comparable in any way. With California, you have a small area with a distinct culture, or at least a smaller base of cultural themes that you can utilize. When you have an entire continent, with as hugely diverse set of cultures like Eurasia, I don't think you can do the same. There's no "Eurasian culture".

As for Golfe du, I don't really want to go toward the style of a paper map - it's not for every map, I've done it on some maps but I don't intend to do it here.

Anyway, I have some ideas on how I want to develop the graphical direction of this map, but I'm thinking I'm going to let them stew for a while, and get the gameplay more in place first.

I've you've misinterpreted what I meant about Golfe Du. I wasn't referring to the paper style, just simply the "fancy" style and colors it had going on.

I don't think your map would be served by doing anything as drastic as those, or as Route 66 or any other map like that. However, Quad Cities had a nice touch of theme element, so did your Yugoslavia.

I think when people are asking you to get a theme, they don't want your map to be akin to North America map.

===

Speaking of which, anyone like the idea of an additional collection bonus? Something like "resource centers" scattered on territories in areas with higher infrastructure... those could give something like +1 for first 4 and +1/2 for each beyond 4. Nothing major, just a sort of supplemental bonus.

I would like this one to keep its 'straightforward' gameplay. I know I usually advocate for complex maps but somehow this map seems pretty much solid just like it is - a good old region grabbing style map

Agreed here.


--Andy

[natty dread]

I don't think your map would be served by doing anything as drastic as those, or as Route 66 or any other map like that. However, Quad Cities had a nice touch of theme element, so did your Yugoslavia.

So how do you suggest applying thematic elements to the map? What exactly can you do that would express the theme of "Eurasia"?
When you're doing a map of a single city, or country, or even a group of closely related countries, it's easy to find things you can use for creating a theme. But when the subject is an entire continent... how exactly would you do it?

Yes, I understood that. But for the coherence aspect ot it I'd prefer to have all regions with (or without) circles.

Yeah, I understand. I'll see which way I'll go with them when I have more of an idea of the graphical direction.

[AndyDufresne]

It is indeed probably a difficult thing to do. Widowmakers went with the easy route for the USA Map Pack---using texture graphics---but something like that would turn this map into a sad mess.

I think your legend and title graphics may be the only way to do something, and to be honest, those look pretty good as they are for the most part.


--Andy

[natty dread]

It is indeed probably a difficult thing to do. Widowmakers went with the easy route for the USA Map Pack---using texture graphics---but something like that would turn this map into a sad mess.

Yeah, I don't think it would work for this map.

I think your legend and title graphics may be the only way to do something, and to be honest, those look pretty good as they are for the most part.

I'm pretty satisfied with the title (although I'm not opposed to experimenting with it a little more), but I do intend to redo the legend completely. I have some ideas on a new legend that will probably bring a little more flavor to the map, but I'm not yet 100% on the details so I'll probably just leave it until after gameplay...

[AndyDufresne]

All in all, as long as this map has clean graphics and gameplay without any additional gimmicks or resources, it'll probably be a map I play often and add to my regular rotation.


--Andy

[natty dread]

Great, I'll invite you for a 1v1 when it hits beta

[Geger]

I like big map with easy game play (like world 2.1). I think it's better to add in small map (in legend) the number of bonuses for each region. I mean like in world 2.1, because it's easier to read.

Btw, I see something wrong about Bonuses for Eastern Asia.

Holding each sub-bonus we get 2,2,4,4 and 3, also total 15; but the bonus for holding all of them is 14

[Victor Sullivan]

I like big map with easy game play (like world 2.1). I think it's better to add in small map (in legend) the number of bonuses for each region. I mean like in world 2.1, because it's easier to read.

Btw, I see something wrong about Bonuses for Eastern Asia.

Holding each sub-bonus we get 2,2,4,4 and 3, also total 15; but the bonus for holding all of them is 14

I think natty more 'slapped' numbers onto the bonuses to be dealt with later.

With regard to the collection bonus: As a supporter/purveyor of 'spicy' gameplay, I even must say I prefer the map as is, as I think it will be a solid classic gameplay map.

-Sully

[lostatlimbo]

This map probably could go to a new level if it had a greater theme (Golfe Du, California for some recent more dramatic examples)...or even with just a touch (Quad Cities recently).--Andy

California is an example of dramatic theme? Hahahaha!

[lostatlimbo]

I'll add my vote to the chorus of "keep the gameplay simple". Plenty going on here as is without additional elements.

Looking forward to this one.

[natty dread]

I like big map with easy game play (like world 2.1). I think it's better to add in small map (in legend) the number of bonuses for each region. I mean like in world 2.1, because it's easier to read.

I don't think the numbers would fit on the minimap. The legend is organized differently on World 2.1, and this map has much more bonuses...

However, I'm going to do what I can to make the legend as easy to read as possible.

Btw, I see something wrong about Bonuses for Eastern Asia.

The bonus values haven't been decided yet, the current numbers are just approximations.

With regard to the collection bonus: As a supporter/purveyor of 'spicy' gameplay, I even must say I prefer the map as is, as I think it will be a solid classic gameplay map.

I would like this one to keep its 'straightforward' gameplay.

Agreed here.

meh.

I'll add my vote to the chorus of "keep the gameplay simple".

Ok... I can see the general trend of opinions here, consider the collection bonus idea scrapped.

However - don't shoot me down yet... there's this one other idea I've been mulling over: how about double dipping territories, ie. territories that belong to more than one bonus area? These could maybe be used on a few bonuses that belong to the same superbonus...

A few examples: Italy could belong to both Mediterranean and Central Europe, Central India could belong to both West & East India, East Sakha could belong to both West & East Siberia. And... that's about it actually, I don't see many more places where this could be useful... I wouldn't want to overdo it, but a few of these I think could be useful, since the map has so many bonuses...

Any support for this?

[AndyDufresne]

However - don't shoot me down yet... there's this one other idea I've been mulling over: how about double dipping territories, ie. territories that belong to more than one bonus area? These could maybe be used on a few bonuses that belong to the same superbonus...

A few examples: Italy could belong to both Mediterranean and Central Europe, Central India could belong to both West & East India, East Sakha could belong to both West & East Siberia. And... that's about it actually, I don't see many more places where this could be useful... I wouldn't want to overdo it, but a few of these I think could be useful, since the map has so many bonuses...

Any support for this?

I could live with something like this, as long as it is intuitive, and there were just enough of them to make the inclusion of the idea worthwhile, without going over board. It could make for some interesting battles, and that sort of aspect is one of the things I remember liking about the Space map, which was the first to employ the idea I think. In general, the 'sharing' idea makes sense of a map where regions, borders, and geography have been shifty.

Anyways, I'd have to see a list of what you propose (if the above list isn't everything and you think of more eventually) to get a better feel for it.

Best of luck,


--Andy

[natty dread]

Well the above list is pretty much it... I don't know if it'd be purposeful with larger bonuses, those are hard enough to hold being large bonuses... but, some ideas:

- Belarus, between the two Eastern Europe bonuses
- Corsica & Sardinia, between West Europe / Mediterranean
- Malaysia, between East Indies & Indochina (since part of the Borneo island is under Malaysia rule, so Malaysia sort of belongs to both areas)

[The Bison King]

Well the above list is pretty much it... I don't know if it'd be purposeful with larger bonuses, those are hard enough to hold being large bonuses... but, some ideas:

- Belarus, between the two Eastern Europe bonuses
- Corsica & Sardinia, between West Europe / Mediterranean
- Malaysia, between East Indies & Indochina (since part of the Borneo island is under Malaysia rule, so Malaysia sort of belongs to both areas)

...meh

Seems needless.

[natty dread]

Seems needless.

Not exactly... it would reduce the number of 3-territory bonuses, which admittedly are a bit small for a map of this size. 4-territory bonuses are much better. Also, it would make sense thematically. Also also, it would encourage going for multiple bonuses.

Also^3, it wouldn't stray too far from the classical gameplay. In fact the gameplay would still be pretty much standard, only with some slight overlap on some bonuses.

I won't push this if it's as unpopular as the collection bonus idea. But I do think this idea would have some merit.

So here's the total list I'm thinking of:
- Italy between Medi/Central Europe
- Corsica & Sardinia between Medi/Western Europe
- East Sakha between West/East Siberia
- Central India between West/East India
- Inner Mongolia between Mongolia/Manchuria
- Split Beijing to 2 territories, the other being "Southern Inner Mongolia" or something like that, and that new territory would be between East China / Mongolia
- Belarus between East Europe / Southeast Europe

That'd be 7 territories split between bonuses, and it'd make for 12 bonus areas out of 24 that would have shared territories. It'd also increase the number of territories to a nice round 130.

[Geger]

I also like the idea .

You can add :

-Pakistan between Middle East/India
(from current "political" situation Pakistan belongs more to Middle East than to India Peninsula, but from history it was part of India)

- Istanbul between Europe/Middle East
(Turkey is a member of European Union, right?)

[natty dread]

The idea was to only add them between bonuses that belong to the same superbonus...

[Geger]

Well, I do not quite understand about creating a good gameplay. I'd suggest those 2 regions, which happened according to the real world, which might fit the gameplay that you want

[natty dread]

Yeah, no worries. I appreciate all the suggestions, even when I don't agree with them. Discussion is always good.

The thing is, I want to keep the shared territories within superbonuses, because this fits the general gameplay dynamics better: This way, the territories will encourage going for the superbonuses more, because then you don't have to worry about shared territories or other players wanting them.

It also fits better thematically, I think.

[Victor Sullivan]

I'm not too fond of the idea, but if you were to do them, you should keep it very limited - have something like 3 or 4 instead of 6 or 7.

-Sully

[lostatlimbo]

I won't push this if it's as unpopular as the collection bonus idea. But I do think this idea would have some merit.

So here's the total list I'm thinking of:
- Italy between Medi/Central Europe
- Corsica & Sardinia between Medi/Western Europe
- East Sakha between West/East Siberia
- Central India between West/East India
- Inner Mongolia between Mongolia/Manchuria
- Split Beijing to 2 territories, the other being "Southern Inner Mongolia" or something like that, and that new territory would be between East China / Mongolia
- Belarus between East Europe / Southeast Europe

That'd be 7 territories split between bonuses, and it'd make for 12 bonus areas out of 24 that would have shared territories. It'd also increase the number of territories to a nice round 130.

I like it. It fits well - gives a sense of the shifting in those regions - and adds a little spice to the gameplay.

[natty dread]

I'm not too fond of the idea, but if you were to do them, you should keep it very limited - have something like 3 or 4 instead of 6 or 7.

Nopes, that'd just be silly. It's all or nothing, we don't do things half-assed here in Eurasia.

I like it. It fits well - gives a sense of the shifting in those regions - and adds a little spice to the gameplay.

Well, seems to me like the overall response for this idea is more positive than the last one. I'm taking this in serious consideration now.

[natty dread]

Ok, so here's an update that shows the shared regions. I ended up with having 6 of them, these are: Belarus, Italy, Central India, South Nei Mongol (split from Beijing), Malaysia & East Sakha.

This reduces the amount of 3-territory bonuses to 2 (earlier 5), and increases the amount of 5-territory bonuses to 7 (earlier 4). Also the territory count is an even 130 now. With 3 neutrals I can still have an optimal 127 starting territories. I'm thinking the 3 african territories as neutral 1:s.

I also removed the army circles for now, although they may make a comeback later. Also, the territory "Inner Mongolia" was renamed to "North Nei Mongol" for consistency.

So anyway, these changes are not set in stone... If people really hate these changes I can revert back to the previous version.

Click image to enlarge.

[The Bison King]

Hmm.... I think I like this. However I really think that the middle East needs a shared territory as well, for consistency sake. Right now it's the only Mega region without a shared territory. How about... Israel?

Also I like South Nei Mongolia alot, but shouldn't the bonus be split between east China and... Mongolia?