All right, lots of good responses, lots of ground to cover; here we go:
My Attitude (and Identity)MarshalNey wrote:I will say that all of the tourism stuff leaves no room for geography, but DiM stated that was the angle he was taking and I'm fine with that.
First of all, I'm flattered to be possibly confused with the legend of yore, I feel the need to say that while our names happen to be similar, let there be no confusion between myself and the great mapmaker -- at the very least capitalize the ""I" when you refer to me.
Second, the angle I was taking is far from definitive. I consider this map to have started as a community brainchild and it will end that way. That said:
The InterstatesPeter Gibbons wrote:I like the ingenuity of the interstate crossing idea, but I don't like it in practice. First, it's very hard to decipher visually.
I think there are ways to make the visuals easier to understand, for example by opening up the state borders wherever the interstates cross.
The Bison King wrote:As for roads: I'd like to see this with no roads and complete territory interconnect ability
What Ney said here. If there were no impassable boundaries, this map would be just too open to be any fun; especially with the airports bringing everything close together. Except for a few states in the fringes, it'd be impossible to hold anything worth defending.
In my mind, that leaves three possible types of bounds: Geography -- that is, rivers, mountains, and so forth -- political divisions, and arbitrary lines. The last option, to me, seems like a last resort measure. Geography is possible, but I'm reluctant to go that way, in part because even with the major rivers and mountains in, much of the map would still be quite open; and in part because I don't want to represent mountain ranges as thin lines (because they aren't), nor as space-filling boundaries (because they cover a lot of land that would otherwise make fine territories, including half of Colorado, most of Pennsylvania, and all of West Virginia).
Second, it creates several dozen impassables that aren't really impassable at all. Third, I'm reminded of The Hunt for Red October, where they talk about driving state-to-state "without papers." Part of America's political geography is the fact that you can walk across these borders without having to drive through specific points. The interstate connection-only concept runs counter to that.
I don't think that the interstates necessarily give that impression. Nor do I think your walking-across-borders argument has much merit: Sure, you might get through one or two, but try walking from Texas to Missouri and tell us how easy that was.
...The more serious point being that the location of highways is certainly a major factor in how people move around the country; mountains and rivers are easy to cross if there's a road going through. Yes, the road system is very very simplified here; even among the major interstate roads there are some missing in the name of gameplay. But total openness, as I've said, would be a gameplay disaster.
The Bison King wrote:Also Interstates are a theme that dominate the pre-existing USA map pack. There are all ready 4 to 5 maps of the USA on this site which use that device.
The only ones I see that are so explicit about it are the Map Pack and Route 66. It's still a valid point, though. All I can offer in response is that highways are a natural way to represent American travel, and I hope you think of another way to keep the gameplay from being to open that hasn't been used in a map already.
The InsetIndustrial Helix wrote:The inset is a bit wonky as well, I'd say cut ohio out and somehow emphasize DC/Maryland/Delaware more.
Ohio in the inset so that it could have three territories -- it is the 7th most populous state (I'd've liked to give Illinois 3, as well, but there'd be no room for Chicago's icons). I guess it wouldn't be a disaster to reduce Ohio to two.
Maybe we can have two insets: One from PA-NJ to Maine and one for MD-DE-DC. I'm not sure if that can be done without looking awkward, though. I'll also note that under the inset, the western half of Maine juts out of the image bound.
RjBeals wrote:you shouldn't whack the new england states off. It looks really bad. If you have to for size reasons, then you should try to make it look better - maybe split pennsylvania and nj across or something.
Do you mean with a straight line? Sure, that'll work.
IconsIndustrial Helix wrote:I like the Historical landmarks and the parks are nice too. But there's got to be a better way of translating that into an image without using simple icons.
Did you have any alternatives in mind?
My initial thought was to represent national parks by a green patch where the park is. The problem is that a few of the parks (e.g. Cuyahoga Valley in Ohio, and especially Hot Springs in Arkansas) are quite small and would either not show up or only cover a few pixels. I'd rather not have to drop the small parks, either, just because the two that I listed above are near the top of the most-visited parks list.
History, Entertainment, Etc.I admit, these aren't necessary. But the Colonies-style this-much-bonus-for-this-many-states system could take a while to build at this scale, and I think it's useful to have smaller collectible bonuses to break up the monotony.
The History and Entertainment bonuses are also a way to bring some American culture into this American map, to keep it from being all travel. The Mint facilities, I admit, are a little more obscure; they just happen to be a discrete collection of five related places that are spread out throughout the country.
The Bison King wrote:Besides nothing makes sense about you getting more armies for holding more disney lands? I'm not saying that the additional bonuses should be removed just that there shouldn't be as many of them. I like the idea of the scenic wonders but I also feel like "why is holding the St. Louis Arch going to win the war for me?" What if they were actually useful things like the Pentagon, NASA HQ, Pearl Harbor, Whatever Air Force base they have going on at Denver, Or random Missile Silo's in Neveda?
I don't usually think of CC maps in purely military terms; the little numbers could just as well represent political or cultural conquest. You do raise a good point though: The U.S. military is a pretty important factor in what makes the country special (well, more so abroad than at home nowadays...). So military facilities are another possible bonus set, but I think they'd be there in conjunction with parks and recreation or whatever else we have on the map.
I don't know, maybe this map could still be fun with just the basic state bonuses. Really, what do you guys think?
Puerto RicoI put Puerto Rico in because it's a significantly populated American territory -- the U.S. isn't just the 50 States -- but I left the other territories out because I didn't want a profusion of one-territory state equivalents littering the bonus system and taking up space on the map. It's quite possible to put in the other territories with some kind of special bonus structure, and it's also quite possible to cut out Puerto Rico, if there's consensus towards it.
And finally...
WyomingI gave Wyoming only one territory because there were simply no one-terr. states west of the Mississippi, and the least populous state seemed like a good candidate. I could see Wyoming being split up into two, but I fear that leaving the West utterly without singletons would imbalance the map. Maybe North Dakota or Iowa would be a good candidate?
The Bison King wrote:Besides my biggest problem with Wyoming is that holding 1 single territory gives you access to 5 different bonuses. That's the real problem.
It's not, strictly speaking, five bonuses; more like five quarter-bonuses. Anyway, is someone really going to stack on Wyoming for the express purpose of breaking other players' holds on the surrounding states? I think it's more likely that Wyoming be held as a defensive point. There are plenty of more extremely connected territories: Chicago, for example, connects to nine states between its highways and airlines.
Most of the other singleton states are that way because there was no room for two territories -- or in Tennessee's case, two territories and a guitar -- but some of those are malleable, I think. I could litter the Atlantic with even more pointer lines to split up Vermont, Connecticut, or South Carolina further. If entertainment centers don't make the cut, I can certainly split Tennessee again, though it's a tight fit. But at any rate a bit of variety isn't bad at all; it seems, in this regard, to work for Thirteen Colonies. And if we need to start them neutral, then so be it; there's plenty of room for that on this map, too.
