Land and Sea [Quenched]

[edbeard]

The +1's are because I hate people dropping a small +2 continent and dominating because of it. But, we'll see how other people feel.

It is annoying seeing people drop with +2s (A certain Haiti game comes to mind...), but if no one drops with them, would anyone really put the effort into taking 4 territories with two borders for just a +1? I guess if the other bonuses are relatively low this isn't an issue.

they're actually 3 territories. I think you'd now agree the +1's are apt?

Yea Atlantic is definitely at least a +5. I don't like making something a large bonus simply because it borders a ton of continents but it does border 8 continents which means only one continent does NOT border the Atlantic. hmm. perhaps this should change somehow.

Well, it's going to be hard to really mess with the borders, unless you remove a land-water connection to the Atlantic, which I'd advise against, because then you lose a part of the connection between land and water. If the whole point of this map is the dual existence of land and water, shouldn't you have as many connections as possible? I suppose if it makes for better gameplay you could drop one of the connections. I can't see a way to redraw the territories to reduce the number of borders. Thus I think just giving it a +5 is the easiest solution.

the +5 definitely makes sense but I was really just talking about how it'd be possible to have other places border africa and Eurasia (indian ocean and arctic ocean). I just can't think of another map offhand that has a continent which borders so many other continents. it just might be an area of concern and something to keep thinking about.

I'm a bit surprised by your Eurasia comment. 9 territories is a lot. It does only have 4 borders against 4 continents though. maybe something should change here too. more territories is something I'd like to avoid simply because space is a big issue.

+6 is a lot of men for just holding 4 borders. I think 9 territories is a bit too easy to get the +6 with. Consider Classic in Europe, which is only 7 territories with 4 borders but has a +5. At the same time, though, +5 is too low for Eurasia. So I think increasing the number of territories to 10 would make this a clearer +6.

I will think about this more.

Pacific does border 6 continents. it has 6 territories. 4 of them are borders though. 5 is something to consider though.

When I counted the Pacific, I thought it was 9 territories . I assumed that each side of the map had separate territories; not that the territories wrapped around. I assume this will be much clearer in the good graphics version, but the +4 makes much more sense to me now.

it will be much clearer, yes. Army circle on one side. Territory label on the other. I'm sure a few people will still screw that up but I feel that's more than enough. Ok well perhaps (since likely the legend will have blank space), we should put a remark in the legend too just to be 150% sure.

[ZeakCytho]

The +1's are because I hate people dropping a small +2 continent and dominating because of it. But, we'll see how other people feel.

It is annoying seeing people drop with +2s (A certain Haiti game comes to mind...), but if no one drops with them, would anyone really put the effort into taking 4 territories with two borders for just a +1? I guess if the other bonuses are relatively low this isn't an issue.

they're actually 3 territories. I think you'd now agree the +1's are apt?

Hmm...Well, I suppose. It's really a tricky decision. I guess +1s work - and if it doesn't, you can always change it in Beta, right?

the +5 definitely makes sense but I was really just talking about how it'd be possible to have other places border africa and Eurasia (indian ocean and arctic ocean). I just can't think of another map offhand that has a continent which borders so many other continents. it just might be an area of concern and something to keep thinking about.

It does border a lot, but I'm not sure this is a major problem. Again, though, I'm no expert at predicting gameplay.

I think this is ready for an advanced draft?

[onbekende]

who is the guy that frequently does long analysis on gameplay and bonuses on maps? I'd like to PM him to take a look here and see if we can get discussion going.

I be famous (and its "he" btw )

as for th current map, only South America and Australia need a +2 bonus instead of a +1 bonus.

But I got something else in mind for this map, but don't have time to do it at this point, but should be done tonight thou

[onbekende]

This is a very simple change, everything that has a mutual border, borders eachother. This not only opens much gameplay, its also very easely to do here.

forgive my l33t paint skills, you should be able to read the numbers (and I added names already to in this explaination, so people who can't read and don't know a single country in the world may leave now

Click image to enlarge.

I will just add the basic bonuses now as I calculate them always.

North America: 7 terr, 7 def/att, 4 cont => Bonus of 7 (perhaps a 6, douptfull thou)
South America: 3 terr, 3 def/att, 3 cont => Bonus of 3 (good)
Eurasia: 9 terr, 8 def/att, 6 cont => Bonus of 8 (good, big thing, will be fought over, and has the only inter-continent territorie)
Africa: 5 terr, 5 def/att, 3 cont => Bonus of 5 (seems well for its position)
Oceania: 3 terr, 3 def/att, 3 cont => Bonus of 3 (good)
Pacific: 6 terr, 6 def/att, 7 cont => Bonus of 7 (could be better a 6, this map doesn't go well for "bonus>#terr")
Atlantic: 7 terr, 7 def/att, 8 cont => Bonus of 8 (as said with Pacific, better a 7 just he )
Arctic: 4 terr, 4 def/att, 4 cont => Bonus of 4 (good)
Indian: 4 terr, 4 def/att, 6 cont => Bonus of 5 (indeed a 4 is better)
Antarctica: 4 terr, 4 def/att, 3 cont => Bonus of 4 (good)

so it seems that they almost all get the same amount of bonus as they have territories, which makes for interesting and straight forward playstyle!

Now I will do every 1 single territory to shed light on its borders, and say why there are 2 sea-sea routes extra.

North America:
1) Alaska
- Borders: N.A. 2, Pacific 1, Pacific 2, Arctic 1
- possibility to add link to Euroasia 8, thou I don't see the need.
2) West Canada
- Borders: N.A. 1, N.A. 3, N.A. 4, N.A. 5, Pacific 2, Arctic 1
- note that there is no link to the Atlantic here, pleace keep it this way or N.A. becomes a doormat between Atlantic and Pacific in a way that screws over both Oceans
3) East Canada
- Borders: N.A. 2, N.A. 4, N.A. 5, N.A. 6, Atlantic 1, Atlantic 3, Atlantic 4
- possibility to moving the Atlantic 3-4 border to cancel the border with Atlantic 4
4) Arctic Islands
- Borders: N.A. 2, N.A. 3, Atlantic 1, Atlantic 2, Arctic 1, Arctic 2
- good as it is
5) West U.S.A.
- Borders: N.A. 2, N.A. 3, N.A. 6, N.A. 7, Pacific 2, Atlantic 4
- would be nicer without the Atlantic link
6) East U.S.A.
- Borders: N.A. 3, N.A. 5, Atlantic 4
- will get links to both N.A. 7 and Atlantic 3, which I find fitting
7) Middle America
- Borders: N.A. 5, S.A. 1, Pacific 2, Pacific 3, Atlantic 4
- with the sea-sea route over it, it will still be used, but as a buffer or staging

South America:
1) Greater Columbia
- Borders: S.A. 2, S.A. 3, Pacific 3, Atlantic 3, Atlantic 4
- nice name no?
2) Brazil
- Borders: S.A. 1, S.A. 3, Atlantic 3, Atlantic 5, Atlantic 6
- correct english name, needed to think about it
3) Southern Cone
- Borders: S.A. 1, S.A. 2, Pacific 3, Pacific 6, Atlantic 6
- you may google the name, but it is correct

Eurasia:
1) West Europe
- Borders: Eurasia 3, Africa 1, Atlantic 2, Arctic 2
- nothing special here, the Africa 1 connection is thruw Gibraltar he
2) Scandinavia
- Borders: Eurasia 3, Eurasia 4, Euroasia 5, Artic 2, Artic 3
- I know someone of sweden
3) Europa
- Borders: Eurasia 1, Eurasia 2, Eurasia 4, Eurasia 5, Atlantic 2
- simple name, make the boot of Italia red please.
4) Eurussia
- Borders: Eurasia 2, Eurasia 3, Eurasia 5, Eurasia 6, Eurasia 8, Arctic 3
- nice name no?
5) Middle East
- Borders: Eurasia 3, Eurasia 4, Eurasia 6, Eurasia 7, Africa 2, Africa 4, Indian 1
- 2 inroutes into Africa will help a possible need to break east from Indian
6) Central Asia
- Borders: Eurasia 4, Eurasia 5, Eurasia 7, Eurasia 8, Eurasia 9
- as already said and obvious you already saw, the only intercontinent territory
7) British Indies
- Borders: Eurasia 5, Eurasia 6, Eurasia 9, Indian 1
- seems a fitting name for the size
8 ) North Asia
- Borders: Eurasia 4, Eurasia 6, Eurasia 9, Artic 1, Artic 3, Artic 4, Pacific 1
- name fits better then "Siberia" or "Cold Russia", possibility with connection to N.A. 1 thou unneeded
9) East Asia
- Borders: Earasia 6, Eurasia 7, Eurasia 8, Oceania 1, Pacific 1, Indian 1
- big red blob

Africa:
1) West Africa
- Borders: Africa 2, Africa 3, Eurasia 1, Atlantic 2, Atlantic 3, Atlantic 5
- make the territory a bit rounder by adding the small African nations below the Sahel (part of Africa 3)
2) Egyptian Empire
- Borders: Africa 1, Africa 3, Africa 4, Africa 5, Eurasia 5
- nice name no?
3) Central Africa
- Borders: Africa 1, Africa 2, Africa 5, Atlantic 5
- so get some land from Africa 3 (this) to Africa 1
4) Horn of Africa
- Borders: Africa 2, Africa 5, Eurasia 5, Indian 1
- nothing special
5) South Africa
- Borders: Africa 2, Africa 3, Africa 4, Atlantic 5, Atlantic 7, Indian 1, Indian 3
- nothing special

Oceania:
1) Far East
- Borders: Oceania 2, Eurasia 9, Pacific 1, Indian 1, Indian 2
- You don't make it easy here, seeing as this part is technically still Asia but not Euroasia nor Oceania :s
2) Melanesia
- Borders: Oceania 1, Oceania 3, Pacific 1, Pacific 4, Indian 2
- the name is from wiki
3) Australia
- Borders: Oceania 2, Pacific 4, Padific 5, Indian 2, Indian 4
- no comment

Pacific:
1) Northwest Pacific
- Borders: Pacific 2, Pacific 3, Pacific 4, Eurasia 8, Eurasia 9, Oceania 1, Oceania 2, Indian 1, Artic 1, N.A. 1
- catchy name aint it?
2) Northeast Pacific
- Borders: Pacific 1, Pacific 3, N.A. 1, N.A. 2, N.A. 5, N.A. 7
- again a catchy name
3) Centraleast Pacific
- Borders: Pacific 1, Pacific 2, Pacific 4, Pacific 5, Pacific 6, N.A. 7, S.A. 1, S.A. 3, Atlantic 4
- you may trim the south edge of this territory a bit, but don't lose borders
4) Centralwest Pacific
- Borders: Pacific 1, pacific 3, Pacific 5, Oceania 2, Oceania 3
- nothing special
5) Southwest Pacific
- Borders: Pacific 3, Pacific 4, Pacific 6, Oceania 3, Indian 4, Antarctica 1, Antarctica 4
- nothing special
6) Southeast Pacific
- Borders: Pacific 3, Pacific 5, S.A. 3, Atlantic 4, Antarctica 1, Antarctica 2
- last of the beautifull named Pacific Ocean territories

Atlantic:
1) Labrador Sea
- Borders: Atlantic 2, Atlantic 3, N.A. 3, N.A. 4
- nothing special
2) North Atlantic
- Borders: Atlantic 1, Atlantic 3, Eurasia 1, Africa 1, N.A. 4, Artic 2
- nothing special
3) North Atlantic Ridge
- Borders: Atlantic 1, Atlantic 2, Atlantic 4, Atlantic 5, Africa 1, N.A. 3, S.A. 1, S.A. 2
- asked for connection to N.A. 6, like the name btw?
4) Carribian
- Borders: Atlantic 3, Pacific 3, N.A. 3, N.A. 5, N.A. 6, N.A. 7, S.A. 1
- so no connection to N.A. 3 anymore please, the connection to the pacific makes both great oceans a strategic and annoying playingpoint
5) South Atlantic Ridga
- Borders: Atlantic 3, Atlantic 6, Atlantic 7, Africa 1, Africa 3, Africa 5, S.A. 2
- nothing special
6) Southwest Atlantic
- Borders: Atlantic 5, Atlantic 7, S.A. 2, S.A. 3, Antarctica 2, Pacific 6
- nothing special
7) Southeast Atlantic
- Borders: Atlantic 5, Atlantic 6, Africa 5, Antarctica 2, Antarctica 3, Indian 3
- nothing special

Arctic:
1) Chukchi Sea
- Borders: Arctic 2, Arctic 4, N.A. 1, N.A. 2, N.A. 4 Eurasia 8, Pacific 1
- possiblity to retract the border and lose the N.A. 4 link, thou unneeded in my opinion
2) Greenland Sea
- Borders: Arctic 1, Arctic 3, N.A. 4, Eurasia 1, Eurasia 2, Eurasia 3, Pacific 2
- nothing special
3) Barents Sea
- Borders: Arctic 2, Arctic 4, Eurasia 2, Eurasia 4, Eurasia 8
- make sure you know this section borders Scandinavia
4) Kara Sea
- Borders: Arctic 1, Arctic 3, Eurasia 8
- was a fitting name

Indian:
1) North Indian
- Borders: Indian 2, Indian 3, Indian 4, Eurasia 5, Eurasia 7, Eurasia 9, pacific 1, Oceania 1, Africa 4, Africa 5
- think this territorie has the most borders, am I correct?
2) East Indian
- Borders: Indian 1, Indian 4, Oceaia 1, Oceania 2, Oceania 3
- easy name
3) Southwest Indian
- Borders: Indian 1, Indian 4, Africa 5, Atlantic 7, Antarctica 3
- nothing special
4) Southeast Indian
- Borders: Indian 1, Indian 2, Indian 3, Oceania 3, Pacific 5, Antarctica 3, Antarctica 4

Antarctica:
1) Marie Byrd Land
- Borders: Antarctica 2, Antarctica 4, Pacific 5, Pacific 6
- nothing special
2) British Claim
- Borders: Antarctica 1, Antarctica 3, Pacific 6, Altantic 6, Atlantic 7
- nothing special
3) Norwegian Claim
- Borders: Antarctica 2, Antarctica 4, Atlantic 7, Indian 3, Indian 4
- nothing special
4) Australian Claim
- Borders: Antarctica 1, Antarctica 3, Indian 4, Pacifican 5




that was alot , but thats what I got to say

[Ditocoaf]

Personally, I feel that no matter what you choose for the land/water borders, it'll always feel needlessly contrived and arbitrary, on a map that we know well. I think this XML suggestion is perfect for this map (check it out before continuing).

I would love to see a map where you battle on the land, and battle simultaneously, but separately, on the water. The only way one could effect the other is via fortifications. It would need to have an objective of owning all of the oceans, or all of the continents.

[edbeard]

well Dito the XML suggestion in general is a cool one. I don't think it's something I want to use here though. I want this to be a fairly straightforward map and that's anything but straightforward. Even if there were no connections like that, I don't like the idea of never being able to go somewhere if you don't drop there. Not on this type of map. A better solution for your 'problem' with this map would be what onbe suggested (everything connects to everything). I don't think I'm a fan of that idea either. It puts far too much openness in the map for my tastes. It might be good on a map where you can control the borders (inside and outside the continents) to make it so you don't have to hold every territory. But, on this map, you would have have to hold basically every territory in a continent. It'd also bring up problems of smaller continents being harder to hold because they connect to so many territories. It's solvable but difficult. I'd rather not have that to solve but the idea of it for this map doesn't appeal to me.

So, thanks to both of you for your suggestions but that's not the direction I want to take this map.



onbe you're probably right about the 3 territory continents being +2 which umm someone else was saying before too (wasn't brushing off the last person (or not deliberately anyway)). I guess 4 terr vs 3 terr isn't that big of a deal and we have both 3 terr and 4 terr continents bordering 2 and 3 continents and territories. some people are just gonna have the luck of the draw there I guess.


And, if I'm going to add a 10th territory to Eurasia, there's only really one place to do it (northeast). I'm not saying I'm doing it but I'll look at least to see if there's any natural country or province borders there which I've based most of this map on I think (been a while since I drew the borders).


Finally, onbe thanks for all the names but there's no way I'm going to fit them on this map. Spacing is very very tight so I decided long ago that I'm naming each territory by continent and number. I know it's boring but I don't see how else to fit everything. Possibly the artist will differ in opinion on this and figure something out but I don't see how that can possibly happen.

[edbeard]

Here's something for MrBenn


Points of Discussion:

1. Bonuses:

Arctic: 2
Pacific: 4
Atlantic: 5
Indian:3
NA: 4
SA: 2
Africa: 3
Eurasia: 6
Oceania: 2
Antarctia: 2

2. Connections? Where to place them. Should I change, add, and/or remove any?

3. Eurasia. Should I add one more territory to it to make the +6 bonus more apt? (53 vs the current 52 territories doesn't make any difference. both are considered optimal for above average sized maps by benjikat's analysis of starting number of territories).

[MrBenn]

I think there's always going to be room for small tweaks to bonus values.

The connections are always going to be arbitrary, although I liked the addition of the Panama canal link between Atlantic/Pacific.

I think the gameplay is getting there, so you can have an [Adv] mark next stop, a proper draft

[edbeard]

thanks for the stick.

well that panama canal link would be a nice touch but that wouldn't make sense for the gameplay

as for a 'proper draft', the only thing I'm really missing from the 'move to main foundry' requirements is territory names. As I've said, I'm just going to name them things like NA 1, SA 2, At 5, Pa 4, Eu 1, In 3, An 4, Ar 1, Oc 2, Af 5. If you really need me to put these on the map to get moved then I'll do it. As I've said, I'm planning on getting the gameplay stamp then hopefully someone will say, "the gameplay's already done so the graphics will be fairly easy to do. No need to adjust the graphics for a gameplay change."

I'd like to here more thoughts on the 3 points of discussion.

[mibi]

I like the idea a lot. Though I think there should be more land territories to increase the number of connection each sea territory has, they-by increasing the strategic value of them.

[edbeard]

I like the idea a lot. Though I think there should be more land territories to increase the number of connection each sea territory has, they-by increasing the strategic value of them.

I don't understand what you're talking about. A specific example perhaps?

[mibi]

I like the idea a lot. Though I think there should be more land territories to increase the number of connection each sea territory has, they-by increasing the strategic value of them.

I don't understand what you're talking about. A specific example perhaps?

If there were more land territories, then each sea territory would have more connections to the land. right now the costal atlantic borders 4 territories, but it would be cool if it bordered 6 pr 7. That way the Seas would be come powerful spaces as a way to restrict movement. There could also be less sea territories.

On a bit of a tangent, I think it would be cool if this were just North and south America, and Africa and Europe seperated by the Atlantic, forget the rest. The map could be called the Atlantic or something and it would act as a divider betwen these land forms. Just a thought though.

[edbeard]

hmm.

my problem with your first idea is that atlantic would become quite the unholdable continent. I've got something like 21 water and 31 land territories. In the real world, more than 60% of the world's surface is water. I think I'm barely hanging onto the fence here.


I think your second idea is much better though and I would support and/or help develop a separate map like that.

[yeti_c]

Hmmm - judging by the Water = 66% thing - should it not be the case that 66% of the territories are water territories?

C.

[edbeard]

Hmmm - judging by the Water = 66% thing - should it not be the case that 66% of the territories are water territories?

C.

I think the gameplay works out better this way. Like I said, "I think I'm barely hanging onto the fence here." I was just saying that anything more would be REALLY pushing it.

[mibi]

Shouldn't the title be Land and Sea? Land and Water seems a bit of a mismatch.

[edbeard]

Shouldn't the title be Land and Sea? Land and Water seems a bit of a mismatch.

that's definitely better than Land and Water. not sure if it's the best we can do though.

[MrBenn]

Planet Earth?

[yeti_c]

Hmmm - judging by the Water = 66% thing - should it not be the case that 66% of the territories are water territories?

C.

I think the gameplay works out better this way. Like I said, "I think I'm barely hanging onto the fence here." I was just saying that anything more would be REALLY pushing it.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say by "hanging on the fence" - are you saying you're not sure about the gameplay - and are considering changing it completely.

C.

[edbeard]

I'm just saying that the percentage of territories for land and sea respectively is about as far as I'm willing to go. If I added a few more land or took away a few sea territories then it would 'cross the line' for me

[MrBenn]

I'm not convinced that 66% of the territories need to be in the sea, just because 66% of the planet is covered in water...

Think in terms of population density

[edbeard]

so benn, with regard to my previous statement about territory names...what's the answer there?

as for a 'proper draft', the only thing I'm really missing from the 'move to main foundry' requirements is territory names. As I've said, I'm just going to name them things like NA 1, SA 2, At 5, Pa 4, Eu 1, In 3, An 4, Ar 1, Oc 2, Af 5. If you really need me to put these on the map to get moved then I'll do it. As I've said, I'm planning on getting the gameplay stamp then hopefully someone will say, "the gameplay's already done so the graphics will be fairly easy to do. No need to adjust the graphics for a gameplay change."

[MrBenn]

In order for a map to be stamped as having completed the "Draft" stage and moved on to the Main Foundry it must meet the following conditions:

1. The map, first and foremost, must have some sort of clear plan for how production will go, and the individual/s responsible for the creation of the map must be listed in the first post.
2. Have a playable image (either large or small map); this should include territory names, a working legend, speculative bonuses, proposed impassable barriers, color, and tentative border divisions. It doesn't have to be perfect, but if the map were quenched today people should be able to play on it.
3. The working image needs to be done in some kind of graphics application and be beyond rough draft state. A minimum of two quality updates must be provided.
4. Have honest and interested discussion involving members of the Foundry community. Not just you and three friends.
5. The first post should include any information relevant to how this map will play, including (but not limited to) proposed starting neutral locations and values, victory conditions, unique play features, etc. Do not include every old version of the map in the first post - some of us don't have large displays and fast downloads. If you want us to have access to old versions, links will suffice.

1. Check
4. Check
5. Check

The only thing holding you back right now is an update that makes the map playable (and something that takes the map beyond a 'rough draft'... Do you have any idea at all who's going to be doing your graphics, or how you're going to solicit their help?

For, now, get the territory labels on, and I'll get you rolling

[edbeard]

I've had 2 quality updates and it is easily beyond a rough draft. As Oaktown has said on occasion, could a game be played on your map today. Once territory names are there, the answer is yes.


I don't think not having an artist should stop me from moving to the foundry. Getting a gameplay stamp will make it that much easier to get an artist. They don't have to worry about gameplay changes affecting the map. But, you're not really saying that. I really don't think it'd be too difficult to find someone. Judging by the entries we got in the Brazil revamp we've got quality people around here. I'm sure one of them would be willing to take on this map once gameplay is done.

[edbeard]

Click image to enlarge.

52 territories (31 land, 21 sea)

10 continents


Added names to territories
Added legend note
Changed bonuses per thread discussion
Changed Title




Still looking for gameplay discussion. Or if you want to do the graphics let me know.