Conquer Club

Last date of revision: 11/27/06

This map proposal is a rough depiction of the Indian Presidency armies, ca 1893.
This map is being updated as revisions are made through the discussion thread here in the Map Foundry.


There are six continents:
Bengal
Bombay
Burma
Disa
Lahore
Madras

The 36 countries are the approximate borders of the regional military authorities. License has been taken with names and borders to facilitate gameplay.

The Indian Presidencies were provinces of British India, what are today the independent countries of India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Myanmar. The history of the region is quite complex; suffice it to say that by 1893, the British had very nearly complete administrative control of the area.

Relevant Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madras_Presidency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Presidency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Presidency

Image Links:
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~poyntz/India/images/Presidencies1893.jpg
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~poyntz/India/maps.html

hmm could be interesting. I don't really know anything about the time or the area at the time, but the map looks like a decent start.

One thing i'm confused about. What makes up a presidency district that you get a plus one for holding? Is every territory a district? And thus you get a plus 1 for every territory you hold, if so i think thats an amazing idea that would make this map very unique.

Hoff wrote:What makes up a presidency district that you get a plus one for holding? Is every territory a district?

No, not every territory - just the hatched ones: Bengal, Bombay, and Madras. These territories were the seat of power for the respective Presidencies.

oh i see now. Thats cool, i would find a way to make them stand out more or make it more obvious as to what you mean.

I don't believe a map with so few territories and continents has any playability (except for possibly three man games). Even in three man games the continents would be too hard to capture and hold because the map is so small. Also, there is another map of the Indian subcontinent that was being made (I'm not sure if Gavin is still working on that or not)

I must say I really like the visual style of this map, though it seems a little small (but that isn't necessarily bad...we've had a lot of big maps recently). But the idea of 3 continents seems a little low, but perhaps it works.

I like the idea you have going with the presidency, adds a little something.

But a real issue is with borders

```Bengal...9 borders!
```Bombay (didn't India rename it mumbai?)...5 borders
```Madras...5 borders.


There have been a few name changes in India recently...I remember hearing something about bengalore also. Renaming


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:But a real issue is with borders

```Bengal...9 borders!
```Bombay (didn't India rename it mumbai?)...5 borders
```Madras...5 borders.

Yes, there are lots of borders. My only defense is that these districts, as shown, are accurate. And the 1 army bonus for holding these territories must be earned by defending its many borders.

AndyDufresne wrote:There have been a few name changes in India recently...I remember hearing something about bengalore also.

Names and spelling are definitely an issue. But in 1893, the date captured here, the names are accurate. And keep in mind that the borders don't necessarily represent the borders of an administrative territory, but the region of influence/responsibility of the local military authority.

Hoff wrote:oh i see now. Thats cool, i would find a way to make them stand out more or make it more obvious as to what you mean.

The Presidiency districts are now simply called Capitals, and called out with an asterix as well as the hatching.

As you possibly know already, geographical / historical accuracy is usually not so friendly to playability... In this idea, we should have some more territories, but mainly some more continents and unpassable borders.

Graphics are good, and the capitol idea isnt bad, of course. But, your capitols are pretty near, huh? And with 3 continents only, big ones and with many borders, the capitols are the main bonuses to fight for... They shouldnt be so near, and surely not adjacent.

V. interesting map, get rid of the name Ceylon or change it some way, looks like part of the map.

sully800 wrote:I don't believe a map with so few territories and continents has any playability (except for possibly three man games)

Marvaddin wrote:As you possibly know already, geographical / historical accuracy is usually not so friendly to playability... In this idea, we should have some more territories, but mainly some more continents and unpassable borders.

gavin_sidhu wrote:get rid of the name Ceylon or change it some way, looks like part of the map

I have attempted to address these concerns, as well as some others, with the following changes:

1) Did some sub-division to create more continents and territories.

2) A couple of impassables have been added, though personally, I'm not sold on impassables as a requirement for gameplay.

3) Renamed the continents and some territories to make the map read better.

4) Lightened up the whole tone of the map to make it more readable (IMO).

5) Lightened up the text designating neutral territories in an attempt to eliminate confusion. Included Ceylon in the Madras continent.

Well like I stated earlier, I am amazed by your visuals and artistic talent. I really enjoy the look of the map faded in the background, along with how it still sort of stands out in the 'non-gameboard' areas.

As for gameplay:

• Bengal - 8 Countries, 6 Borders
• Bombay - 8 Countries, 6 Borders
• Burma - 6 Countries, 3 Borders
• Lahore - 7 Countries, 6 Borders
• Madras - 6 Countries, 3 Borders

Is it just me, or does everything look very similar? Burma and Madras...Bengal and Bombay and Lahore. It doesn't seem that there is very much diversity right now.

Borders are a big issue, along with 'replica' continents with the same number of countries. Are there any other ways to perhaps divy up countries to continents that eliminates the replicas?

Also, be careful of 'angle border connections', a la Sind, Mhow, and Disa. It is hard to tell if Disa can attack Sind or not. Perhaps make that a little clearer when we get the next revision and update.

Lastly, do I count 35 countries? 36 makes a much better country count...less number of 'neutrals'.


--Andy

sully800 wrote:Also, there is another map of the Indian subcontinent that was being made (I'm not sure if Gavin is still working on that or not)

Dont have the artistic talent to finish it, so it is probably going to rot in the foundry.

ConformOrDie, where did u post the image with the changes outlined, cant seem to see it.

I like how there is only three continents, but madras, i feel, is too strong. It has the largest bons and if bengal and assam are taken a person could have 4 borders for a bonus of 8, game over.

AndyDufresne wrote:As for gameplay:

• Bengal - 8 Countries, 6 Borders
• Bombay - 8 Countries, 6 Borders
• Burma - 6 Countries, 3 Borders
• Lahore - 7 Countries, 6 Borders
• Madras - 6 Countries, 3 Borders

Is it just me, or does everything look very similar? Burma and Madras...Bengal and Bombay and Lahore. It doesn't seem that there is very much diversity right now.

Borders are a big issue, along with 'replica' continents with the same number of countries. Are there any other ways to perhaps divy up countries to continents that eliminates the replicas?

Andy, I guess some of this depends on whether a map favors the attack or the defense. Yes, Madras has only 3 countries that border another continent, but there are 8 borders that Madras can be attacked across.

Madras and Burma definitely favor the garrison, while Bengal, Bombay and Lahore will be much more difficult to defend. Perhaps adjusting the bonuses can help to balance things a bit. That said, I will certainly be investigating alternatives, and taking your other comments into consideration, at my earliest opportunity.

gavin_sidhu wrote:ConformOrDie, where did u post the image with the changes outlined, cant seem to see it.

Just look at the first post.

See the first post for the latest revisions.

AndyDufresne wrote:be careful of 'angle border connections', a la Sind, Mhow, and Disa. It is hard to tell if Disa can attack Sind or not. Perhaps make that a little clearer when we get the next revision and update.

Lastly, do I count 35 countries? 36 makes a much better country count...less number of 'neutrals'.

The intersection in question has been cleaned up. Madras has been subdivided, to make 36 countries.

A path has been added to connect Ceylon to the Andaman Islands; and a new river barrier was added along the northern boundary of Madras and Haidarabad.

Lets see...

• Bengal -- 8 Countries, 6 Borders, Bonus of 4 (+1 Capital)
• Bombay -- 9 Countries, 7 Borders, Bonus of 5 (+1 Capital)
• Burma -- 6 Countries, 3 Borders, Bonus of 3 (+1 Capital)
• Lahore -- 7 Countries, 6 Borders, Bonus of 4 (+1 Capital)
• Madras -- 6 Countries, 3 Borders, Bonus of 4 (+1 Capital)

Now I remember you speaking of the various 'mind sets' for each continent. Madras and Burma easily are the stronghold continents, as you mentioned.

That said, I'd consider making both Burma and Madras the same bonus...and the bonus of 3...due to the fact the capitals are not borders and both are similar. Making them both 4 seems like it would be make these continents too powerful compared to the other 3.

As for Bombay, it s going to have a hell of a time defending 7 positions, as there really aren't any ways to take over more countries and limit your borders. Also, I feel that Bombay's capital will most likely go to whoever can grab Madras, as they can keep their borders down 3 if they grab Pooma and Bombay and defend Bombay plus Haid. plus Ceylon. The mountains actually hurt the Bombay continent more than they help it. I like the idea of mountains, but perhaps Bombay needs a few more strategically placed. Bottomline, the Bombay continent is extremely tough to hold and defend for a bonus of 5. I'd consider boosting that up t 7-8 (+1 for Capital). That might help off set the two 'stronghold continents'.

Regarding Bengal, it is slightly, ever so slightly better off than the Bombay continent. It has 1 less border, but its capital is also a border state. Luckily for Bengal though, as of right now, it would be difficult for the Bombay area to make holding the Bengal capital tough. Again the bottomline here is a bonus of 4 seems too low, and might need to boost that up to offset the stronholds. Something maybe around the range of 6-7 (+1 for Capital).

And now to Lahore. It is in similar boats as Bombay and Bengal. Its capital is a border, but it being near the Bombay continent helps it out slightly. Bottomline once again, a bonus of 4 seems too low. Look into boosting it up similar to the others, to perhaps around 6-7 (+1 for Capital).

It still seems like there are too many 'twin/alike' continents. I question the diversity again.

How open are you to the addition of any more impassable borders? I don't mean to suggest making Bombay, Lahore, and Bengal like Madras and Burma, but perhaps give them a small break...but let them still offset the stronghold regions.


--Andy

See the first post for the revised map.

AndyDufresne wrote:Lets see...

• Bengal -- 8 Countries, 6 Borders, Bonus of 4 (+1 Capital)
• Bombay -- 9 Countries, 7 Borders, Bonus of 5 (+1 Capital)
• Burma -- 6 Countries, 3 Borders, Bonus of 3 (+1 Capital)
• Lahore -- 7 Countries, 6 Borders, Bonus of 4 (+1 Capital)
• Madras -- 6 Countries, 3 Borders, Bonus of 4 (+1 Capital)

The new breakdown:

Bengal - 5 countries, 4 borders, bonus of 3
Bombay - 5 countries, 4 borders, bonus of 3
Burma - 6 countries, 3 borders, bonus of 2
Disa - 7 countries, 4 borders, bonus of 4
Lahore - 7 countries, 4 borders, bonus of 4
Madras - 6 countries, 3 borders, bonus of 2

AndyDufresne wrote:How open are you to the addition of any more impassable borders? I don't mean to suggest making Bombay, Lahore, and Bengal like Madras and Burma, but perhaps give them a small break...but let them still offset the stronghold regions.

I have added one new barrier, a desert along the Lahore/Disa frontier.

AndyDufresne wrote:As for Bombay, it s going to have a hell of a time defending 7 positions, as there really aren't any ways to take over more countries and limit your borders.

Andy, you basically had the same concern for Bengal and Lahore. The impression I get is that you'd like to see fewer borders to defend, so I've redistributed the countries, created one new continent (Disa), and included a new barrier (see above), to address this issue. However, this brings us to another of your concerns...

AndyDufresne wrote:It still seems like there are too many 'twin/alike' continents. I question the diversity again.

I feel that attempting to make the border issue more equitable may make the situation worse. I don't have a good sense of what you are looking for in a 'diverse' map.

ConformOrDie wrote:The new breakdown:

Bengal - 5 countries, 4 borders, bonus of 3
Bombay - 5 countries, 4 borders, bonus of 3
Burma - 6 countries, 3 borders, bonus of 2
Disa - 7 countries, 4 borders, bonus of 4
Lahore - 7 countries, 4 borders, bonus of 4
Madras - 6 countries, 3 borders, bonus of 2

For those that think Africa is bad, look at Burma and Madras...
Yeah, less borders is better, like half of countries of a continent, but not more.

About twin continents... we usually like a smaller continent to start, with 4-5 territories, and no more of 3 borders, but also some medium, with like 6 countries, and even some big areas, like 9 or 10 territories, where you can hide when you are weak... its like a mix... not really identical areas.

And, is a desert really like a barrier to an army? I think rivers and mountains are better options.

Marvaddin wrote:For those that think Africa is bad, look at Burma and Madras...

I don't get your point. Can you expand on this thought for me?

Marvaddin wrote:And, is a desert really like a barrier to an army? I think rivers and mountains are better options.

Well, yes, a desert can be a very effective border. I guess it all depends on the army in question. In 1893 (the year this map is based on), a desert could be devastating to a large body of troops. Think of the difficulty in maintaining your supply trains in the heat and sand. In India, the British mostly used locals who commanded teams of oxen to haul cannons, supplies, you name it. Oxen don't move well over hot desert terrain. And water was usually gathered on a daily basis, also by locals, who were "attached" to small units, most often no higher than the battalion level, and they depended on short day journeys to fill up their water skins. Then throw in the forage and water for the cattle, oxen, cavalry mounts, and men, and you can begin to understand how daunting a desert can be to a standing army.

So, in short, I think a desert is a valid barrier in this context.

I just wanted to mention quick, I do rather like the idea of having a few 'large offensive' continents to go along with the 'defensive stronghold' continents...as long as they aren't carbon copies of same # of countries and borders. It is an interesting idea to blend the agressiveness and defensiveness together in the map...as long as the bonus are properly proportioned.


--Andy

See the first post for the revisions.

Some minor updates have been made to the map:

Background jazzed up a bit.
Text moved around a bit to accomodate proposed location of army text.

ConformOrDie wrote:

Marvaddin wrote:For those that think Africa is bad, look at Burma and Madras...

I don't get your point. Can you expand on this thought for me?

Africa (classic map) has 6 countries, 3 borders, and with a bonus of 3 is considered for some the most undervalued continent of all maps here in CC. Really, take 6 and defend 3 for a bonus of 2... isnt it a bit... low?

Marvaddin wrote:Africa (classic map) has 6 countries, 3 borders, and with a bonus of 3 is considered for some the most undervalued continent of all maps here in CC. Really, take 6 and defend 3 for a bonus of 2... isnt it a bit... low?

Ah, I get it. I'm certainly willing to adjust bonuses as people see fit.

See the first post for the latest revisions:

Bonuses have been increased across the board.

I preferred the map when u had 3 massive continents (even though u never did, it just looked that way)

Dont put the map on the first slide, it makes it annoying to comment on, because it doesnt appear on topic review.

So ill try to remember what i was going to comment, umm... whats with the sikhs frontier force in the design? sikhs only live in punjab and make up a small amount of the population.