Jewel of the Empire coordinates & xml (new xml?)

[Contrickster]

I think you want your background images to only occur in one of the areas around the map...

the way you have it now you have borders of pictures in the centers of some of the oceans...pick one image for each area (ex NE land, SE ocean) and try and stick to one image per area....with some blending in between two touching areas...

I believe it's called a montage. It's deliberate. Adds flavour/interest to the background and each type of image is deliberately chosen to illustrate a portion of the map. Top right - Taj/Mughals. Top - himalayas. Palms - Goa. Bottom - Fall of Tippu Sultan (Mysore, Deccan). Ship, Calcutta/colonials.

The borders between images have been blurred. I could blur them some more but I don't think it would improve the montage as there is always going to be a point where one image becomes another.

At least it would have something to do with reality..

In case you forgot: that area was never controlled by the confederacy.. it was however for a while controlled by the sikh empire.

Why not call it Kashmir, then?

Kashmir - did that name exist then? Kashmir has a whole bunch of political issues that I'm keen to avoid, particularly as I have alternative names to use.

There was a Sikh Confederacy. It's not in the exact same place as the real one but it's in the general area of NW India, which is where the Sikh Confederacy was.

Sikh Empire would be less accurate than Sikh Confederacy as Sikh Empire was much larger area than Sikh Confederacy. It doesn't make sense to call one territory an "empire".

[darkmagus]

Kashmir - did that name exist then? Kashmir has a whole bunch of political issues that I'm keen to avoid

since 1150 at least it seems - both countries use the name, even the same spelling so no political issues with the name.

The old english spelling on maps is Cashmere.

[Contrickster]

Kashmir - did that name exist then? Kashmir has a whole bunch of political issues that I'm keen to avoid

since 1150 at least it seems - both countries use the name, even the same spelling so no political issues with the name.

The old english spelling on maps is Cashmere.

Sikh Confederacy is a much better name though, isn't it? That it is historically relevant and relevant to "Sikhs" continent also matters.


NEUTRAL ARMIES.

I'll think more about the neutral army issue and to see if I can add one more territory to make it 35 without disrupting the gameplay. As everything is tied to everthing else simply adding one territory will force change in continent bonuses.

However with five players you then have ONE option of not having any neutral armies. With 34 territories you have no option but to have games with neutral armies.

The territory I am thinking of is the Laccative Islands - a colonial territory to the west of Goa.

[Jack0827]

green

[Geographical]

brown

[darkmagus]

It was the Sikh empire that held jammu & kashmir. Twenty years after the confederacy was dissolved.

Now it´s probably going to annoy me a little bit to play the map knowing the confederacy never ruled most of the area called by that name.

since you don´t call the continent "sikh empire" anymore... is it possible to change it to that or something else?

Not opposed to that change. I chose "Sikh Confederacy" because I liked the name. At that time it made sense because I had Sikh Empire for the continent name.

I guess I started misunderstanding you just around here.. thought I could help.. never mind

[Samus]

The two main gameplay related problems I see are:

1. I count 34 territories. Many people (myself included) believe the bare minimum a map should be is 36 territories. Since you're so close to that number it shouldn't be too much trouble to add 2.

There are existing published maps with less than 34 territories. What is the case you are making for "bare minimum"? Does this map need two more territories? No. That is your preference not a game minimum.

Yes, you are right, that's just a preference. I think you'll find that it's a preference that many people share, but if it's not what you want for your map then ultimately it's up to you to decide. It sounds like you intend for this map to be played by 3 players, so I guess 34 is fine.

2. Most of your impassible borders aren't really functional as region dividers. What I mean is, look at Thar for example. The desert divides it from Rajputana, but it is still connected to Punjab, so it is still a border territory.

Impassable borders are borders that are impassable.The Thar desert prevents Mughals from direct attack from Hindus. It also forces Mughals up into the Punjab. If you think a bit more about it you will discover that Punjab is a key territory.

Yes, I did see that. Several maps have areas where a region can consolidate 2 borders down to 1 by taking a territory, but yours would be the first to go from 3 to 1. At a certain point, you might as well consider it part of the Mughals region, since all rational players will obviously take it anyway. With only 2 borders, I do not feel it is worth as much as Deccan, which has 4 borders.

Nepal and Bohtan are the only two territories protected by an impassible border.

I don't understand your definition. The logical definition of "impassable border" is a border that cannot be passed. I've not just thrown in mountains anywhere, there are strategic reasons for everything I've done.

From a gameplay perspective, the point of impassible borders is to reduce the number of territories required to defend a region. The Himalayas region is the only place where that is accomplished (directly). If we're going to basically consider Punjab as an unofficial part of the Mughals region, those work as well. I don't understand what you think the other 2 mountain ranges are accomplishing though. The Vinhaya mountains do not increase the number of territories between Punjab and Deccan (it's still 3), and I'm not even clear what the mountains near Eastern Ghats are intended to divide.

[Contrickster]

I guess I started misunderstanding you just around here.. thought I could help.. never mind

You pulled that quote out of context. Read the whole reply. Sorry you got confused. Sikh Empire makes less sense than Sikh Confederacy (which I agree doesn't make 100% sense) but Sikh Confederacy is just such a good name it would be a shame not to use it.


Samus, thanks for your detailed & thoughtful comments

Yes, you are right, that's just a preference. I think you'll find that it's a preference that many people share, but if it's not what you want for your map then ultimately it's up to you to decide. It sounds like you intend for this map to be played by 3 players, so I guess 34 is fine.

No, I think you are right that I should have a map option that does not have neutral armies. With 34 there is no choice. 36 would be too disruptive to the design but I think 35 would work. It's a small map anyway, 35 would provide zero neutral army entertainment for five players!

Yes, I did see that. Several maps have areas where a region can consolidate 2 borders down to 1 by taking a territory, but yours would be the first to go from 3 to 1.

This stops Sikhs being a simple vassel of Mughals. Sikhs, like Bengal should be a hot potato.

At a certain point, you might as well consider it part of the Mughals region, since all rational players will obviously take it anyway. With only 2 borders, I do not feel it is worth as much as Deccan, which has 4 borders.

You assume Mughals will be got first, which with 6 territories, won't always be the case. Not, in fact likely in the majority of cases. More likely Sikhs will be got first. Or Himalayas will get Sikhs. The tension in the region is created because Mughals is worth 4 but is very weak without Punjab and control over Sikhs.

From a gameplay perspective, the point of impassible borders is to reduce the number of territories required to defend a region.

That is one reason an impassable border may be used. They also shape the game by directing play.

The Himalayas region is the only place where that is accomplished (directly). If we're going to basically consider Punjab as an unofficial part of the Mughals region those work as well. I don't understand what you think the other 2 mountain ranges are accomplishing though. The Vinhaya mountains do not increase the number of territories between Punjab and Deccan (it's still 3), and I'm not even clear what the mountains near Eastern Ghats are intended to divide.

You need to read my earlier reply on the subject of the Vinhiya mountains... went into detail. Suffice to say, just because you don't understand why something has be used how it has, does not mean it was plonked there for no reason.

[Contrickster]

Okay, sorry for being grumpy. It's just I wouldn't have attempted to do a map if it wasn't for the fact I had the rough game design planned out before hand. I didn't just decide "oh, I'll do an India map and see how it goes." If I want to do one of those maps, I'd do the European Union, Russia or something else.

Anyway, significant update. The changes.

*Ceylon is gone, two new territories (colonial ports) Colombo and Trincomale have arrived. That brings the map up to 35 territories. With 5 players there will be no neutral armies.

*ALL BORDERS REDRAWN - should look smoother.

*Goa is now protected from Western Ghats with a mountain border. This is to make up for Colonialists having an extra territory.As it happens there are mountains there in real life - Western Ghats.

*Mysore, Western Ghats border adjusted slightly as consequence, which happens to improve the look of that area.

*Brown background chosen. (Slightly darker brown this time).

*Vinhiya mountains moved to the other border. 1. It looks better there and 2 it does the same job (gives Deccan some protection from the NW) while making Vinhiya of more strategic importance. Note -

* Jhansi has been enlarged; now cuts Rajputana from Marathastra.

*New territory texture. This one is soft. Suits the colours and the background better than the last one.

*"impassable borders" note shifted under the legend.

Think that's all the changes.

Here is the proposed SMALL version of the map

[fireedud]

I'm sure that this has been stated, but the calcutta-brahmaputra border is slightly confusing as well as the rann-diu border,

And rann-thar.

[nagerous]

Jhansi and Oudh could be clearer too

[Contrickster]

There is clear water between Rann and Diu and Rann and Thar. Don't know what I could do to make that less confusing. It should be obvious you can't attack across water.

Jhansi and Oudh / Brahmaputra Calcutta don't look confusing to me. Four lines converge, not sure what I can do to make it clearer.

I'll try and make the lines clearer... but at the end of the day it doesn't require much of a mental leap to realise you can't attack across unadjacent borders.

[fireedud]

I know you can't attack over non-adjacent borders, it's just that you might of meant to make it that way, but not drawn it.

[mibi]

+5 bonus for defending 3 borders... i dunno.

[mibi]

There is clear water between Rann and Diu. Don't know what I could do to make that less confusing. It should be obvious you can't attack across water.

Jhansi and Oudh / Brahmaputra Calcutta don't look confusing to me. Four lines converge, not sure what I can do to make it clearer.

I'll try and make the lines clearer... but at the end of the day it doesn't require much of a mental leap to realise you can't attack across unadjacent borders.

word of advice. change the 4 way borders to non 4 way borders and be done with it.

or argue ad nauseum with the legions of people here who hate 4 ways.

[Contrickster]

+5 bonus for defending 3 borders... i dunno.

6 Territories, three of them in a channel. Colonialists won't be got first. Meanwhile Deccan has been strengthened with removal of barrier between Eastern Ghats and Hyderabad and the new Mountains around Goa.

[fireedud]

I think it might be good to move pondicherry up, to border Eastern Ghats, as well.

[Contrickster]

There is clear water between Rann and Diu. Don't know what I could do to make that less confusing. It should be obvious you can't attack across water.

Jhansi and Oudh / Brahmaputra Calcutta don't look confusing to me. Four lines converge, not sure what I can do to make it clearer.

I'll try and make the lines clearer... but at the end of the day it doesn't require much of a mental leap to realise you can't attack across unadjacent borders.

word of advice. change the 4 way borders to non 4 way borders and be done with it.

or argue ad nauseum with the legions of people here who hate 4 ways.

Is it a problem with the map or the player?

On the principle FUNCTION BEFORE FORM they will remain an integral, valuable part of the map.

Caveat emptor.

[Contrickster]

I think it might be good to move pondicherry up, to border Eastern Ghats, as well.

Why? It would give Colonialists two borders on Deccan, giving Colonialists an advantage over Deccan.

[fireedud]

I think it might be good to move pondicherry up, to border Eastern Ghats, as well.

Why? It would give Colonialists two borders on Deccan, giving Colonialists an advantage over Deccan.

No, actually it will make colonists a lot harder to control, espeacially since pondicherry is connected to calcutta.

[DiM]

There is clear water between Rann and Diu. Don't know what I could do to make that less confusing. It should be obvious you can't attack across water.

Jhansi and Oudh / Brahmaputra Calcutta don't look confusing to me. Four lines converge, not sure what I can do to make it clearer.

I'll try and make the lines clearer... but at the end of the day it doesn't require much of a mental leap to realise you can't attack across unadjacent borders.

word of advice. change the 4 way borders to non 4 way borders and be done with it.

or argue ad nauseum with the legions of people here who hate 4 ways.

Is it a problem with the map or the player?

On the principle FUNCTION BEFORE FORM they will remain an integral, valuable part of the map.

Caveat emptor.

4 way borders are commonly agreed as bad borders. they cause confussion. i don't think they do but many will start complaining. so it's better to avoid them. mibi had lots of 4 ways in siege and delt with them.

[Contrickster]

I think it might be good to move pondicherry up, to border Eastern Ghats, as well.

Why? It would give Colonialists two borders on Deccan, giving Colonialists an advantage over Deccan.

No, actually it will make colonists a lot harder to control, espeacially since pondicherry is connected to calcutta.

Explain. My reasoning is Pondicherry now can threaten two Deccan territories. So Deccan needs more army defence to cope, spread across two territories.


BTW I'll compromise with the 4-way. I'll remove ONE. Jhansi will link to Oudh.

[Contrickster]

4 way borders are commonly agreed as bad borders. they cause confussion. i don't think they do but many will start complaining. so it's better to avoid them. mibi had lots of 4 ways in siege and delt with them.

Again, that's form over function.

Jhansi - Oudh is arguably a non-essential 4-way so I shall remove it. Brahmaputra-Calcutta is essential.

[fireedud]

I think it might be good to move pondicherry up, to border Eastern Ghats, as well.

Why? It would give Colonialists two borders on Deccan, giving Colonialists an advantage over Deccan.

No, actually it will make colonists a lot harder to control, espeacially since pondicherry is connected to calcutta.

Explain. My reasoning is Pondicherry now can threaten two Deccan territories. So Deccan needs more army defence to cope, spread across two territories.


BTW I'll compromise with the 4-way. I'll remove ONE. Jhansi will link to Oudh.

My reasoning is that If that the people who own the Ganges, Brahnaputra, assam, sundarbans,eastern ghats, and Nizam are the same person, in a truce/ treaty or on the same team, they'lll take calcutta, with the 4 chances to strike, then it'll be easier to take pondicherry with the three borders, rather than the two.

[DiM]

4 way borders are commonly agreed as bad borders. they cause confussion. i don't think they do but many will start complaining. so it's better to avoid them. mibi had lots of 4 ways in siege and delt with them.

Again, that's form over function.

Jhansi - Oudh is arguably a non-essential 4-way so I shall remove it. Brahmaputra-Calcutta is essential.

i understand you're upset but this is how things are done around here. i'm sure andy or keyogy can confirm that 4 way borders are bad.

imagine that the map will be quenched and soon people will start complaining the map has bugs, that they tried attacking from ganges to assam and it did not work. i know it's kinda stupid but it's better to solve the problem now than to have the map removed from live play in order to fix it.

atm you have 4 border problems.
diu <-> vinhiya
sundarbans <->calcutta
ganges <->assam
oudh<->jhansi