Nordic Countries [Quenched]

[natty dread]

OK, I've come up with a bonus structure.

Iceland: 2
Denmark: 3

N. Norway: 3
S. Norway: 4
All Norway: 9

N. Sweden: 4
S. Sweden: 6
All Sweden: 13

N. Finland: 4
S. Finland: 3
All Finland: 9

This would apply to the latest image, with 2 less territories.
Iceland would be a 2 because there's easy access to Faroe which gives another +1.

[ender516]

OK, I've come up with a bonus structure.

Iceland: 2
Denmark: 3

N. Norway: 3
S. Norway: 4
All Norway: 9

N. Sweden: 4
S. Sweden: 6
All Sweden: 13

N. Finland: 4
S. Finland: 3
All Finland: 9

This would apply to the latest image, with 2 less territories.
Iceland would be a 2 because there's easy access to Faroe which gives another +1.

Well, Denmark has easy access to Faroe as well. Does one extra non-border territory really deserve the extra bonus?

[natty dread]

Good point actually... I didn't think about it like that.

Maybe I should make both of them a +2.

Or maybe I should just quit being lazy and calculate it with the bonus calculator... it's just a real pain when I don't have an excel program so I need to calculate them by hand.

PS. what's your opinion on the bonus area issue?

[ender516]

Good point actually... I didn't think about it like that.

Maybe I should make both of them a +2.

Or maybe I should just quit being lazy and calculate it with the bonus calculator... it's just a real pain when I don't have an excel program so I need to calculate them by hand.

PS. what's your opinion on the bonus area issue?

I can imagine that there would be a way to redistribute Sweden into three zones instead of two. Just where the divisions would lie and how much they would earn will require a little more thought.

As far as using the bonus calculators, have you considered getting OpenOffice.org? It's a freeware office software suite, which can load (and presumably run) the spreadsheets that I found in the Map Making Tools topic.

[natty dread]

I can imagine that there would be a way to redistribute Sweden into three zones instead of two. Just where the divisions would lie and how much they would earn will require a little more thought.

As far as using the bonus calculators, have you considered getting OpenOffice.org? It's a freeware office software suite, which can load (and presumably run) the spreadsheets that I found in the Map Making Tools topic.

I've considered it... but I'm lazy. Installing new programs is such a pain...

[natty dread]

Ok, according to bonus calc I got the following numbers. The areas with capitals were adjusted to take the capital autodeploy in account.

Area = Bonus (bonus w/autodeploy)
Iceland = 2 (3)
Denmark = 2 (3)
N.Norway = 4
S.Norway = 4 (5)
N.Sweden = 5
S.Sweden = 6 (7)
N.Finland = 5
S.Finland = 3 (4)

So my original estimates were actually pretty accurate!

Supercontinents will thus have

All Norway - 10 (+2)
All Sweden - 14 (+3)
All Finland - 10 (+2)

(Or 11,15,11 with capital autodeploys)
Sweden gets 3 more because it's in the middle.

Here's also statistics about the bonus areas...

Code: Select all

Bonus area  Territories  Borders  Attacking territories    

Iceland     6            2        2
Denmark     7            2        2
N.Norway    4            3        5
S.Norway    10           3        5
N.Sweden    5            4        5
S.Sweden    10           5        7
N.Finland   5            4        5
S.Finland   10           2        2

So then... I'll update the bonus values on the map and post it in a minute.

edit.
version 26b:

Click image to enlarge.

Oh, and also added a text to explain the sea routes. This should fix the problem of not knowing whether the sea routes connect to the capitals or the territories under them.

[natty dread]

Some minor adjustments to territory borders, and army circle & territory label placement. Hälsingland now connects to Uppland.

Also trying out yet another set of frames for Iceland & Faroe. Are these better than the ones in previous version? I think they look kinda cool...

V. 26c

Click image to enlarge.

[ender516]

I'm good with all the changes in the last versions except those rubbery digits you are using for the bonus values on the mini-map. I prefer the font you had before.

[natty dread]

Well, I'm mostly supposed to focus on gameplay now... but just to indulge you:

Click image to enlarge.

[ender516]

Well, I thought I might do some real analysis on the bonus values before voting in the poll, so I figured it would be good to try some alternative configurations and see what values they gave, using the bonus spreadsheet attributed to cairnswkin the Map Making Tools topic.

Taking your numbers:

Code: Select all

Bonus area  Territories  Borders  Attacking territories    

Iceland     6            2        2
Denmark     7            2        2
N.Norway    4            3        5
S.Norway    10           3        5
N.Sweden    5            4        5
S.Sweden    10           5        7
N.Finland   5            4        5
S.Finland   10           2        2

and presuming that what you count as borders, is what the spreadsheet calls defending territories, I get the following:

Code: Select all

Iceland   2
Denmark   3
N.Norway  3
S.Norway  5
N.Sweden  4
S.Sweden  6
N.Finland 4
S.Finland 3

Since these differ a bit from your figures, I thought I would ask if you or anyone could clear this up before I do any more monkeying around.

[natty dread]

I think I used a different spreadsheet, one that also requires a 4th value - the amount of neighbouring bonus areas.

edit: yeah I used Widowmakers' one.

I also substracted 1 from bonus areas that have a capital.

[MrBenn]

I still think you should take the opportunity to try and include the other islands that are considered Nordic in some shape or form... The Scandinavian mainland could be shrunk down a bit, and you could always find a different land projection to trace your borders from... I find the insets a little heavy, and they give no indication of where the islands really are - if you're going to go with insets, then I'd suggest including them on the minimap in some way too?

As for tips about including extreme (geographically) islands, then you could resort to including only the tip of the landmass (as I did for Greenland in Europa)?

Anyway, for reference, here is a map of the Nordic Countries and islands:

[natty dread]

I still think you should take the opportunity to try and include the other islands that are considered Nordic in some shape or form...

The map is already quite large, and adding more stuff would make it cluttered. I don't really see the point of it...

I appreciate your feedback, but at this point I'm going with the countries I have now, unless the majority of people want to see more stuff in the map.

The Scandinavian mainland could be shrunk down a bit, and you could always find a different land projection to trace your borders from... I find the insets a little heavy, and they give no indication of where the islands really are - if you're going to go with insets, then I'd suggest including them on the minimap in some way too?

As for starting the border tracing from scratch at this point... well, let's just say I'd like to avoid that option. Shrinking the land ("zooming out") would make the map really cramped. I would be forced to cut back on territories, especially in Denmark, but probably in Finland and Sweden too. I find the idea of cutting territories from the major countries just to include a few obscure islands a bit backwards...

However your point about the insets makes sense. I'll see what I can do about them.

As for tips about including extreme (geographically) islands, then you could resort to including only the tip of the landmass (as I did for Greenland in Europa)?

That could be feasible, but again I don't really see the point of it. How would it improve the gameplay to include these regions?

Anyway, for reference, here is a map of the Nordic Countries and islands:
http://snca.files.wordpress.com/2006/10 ... calmap.jpg

That's nice. I kinda feel bad for turning down your suggestions, I don't want to give the impression that I'm uncooperative...

However all (or most) of your suggestions come to the point of increasing the scale of the map, "zooming out" in a way... I'm not sure if you've been following the evolution of this map from the start, but if you have you may recall it started as a map of nordic countries + estonia, and was called "Northern europe".

At that point it soon came to the choice of either increasing all of the baltic states, and hey, why not Poland as well, and so on, to make the map a real representation of Northern Europe. Or, to just focus on the Nordic countries and make a good map about them. The latter option proved more popular by far, so I started developin the map in that direction.

So you see, I have a clear idea of the direction of the map development. However I'm willing to bend it if the need arises, but only if that's what the majority of people want... I mean no disrespect, but the changes you are suggesting are so huge that I'm very hesitant to go through with them based on one man's opinion only, only to later to find out that lots of people dislike it and tell me to "change it back".

The current focus of the map is on the 5 main countries of the Nordic. True, the broader definition of Nordic countries also includes Greenland & Svalbard, but usually when we talk of the Nordic countries we refer to those 5 main countries.

Faroe & Åland are included already... Faroe is there purely for gameplay reasons (as a connector between Denmark & Iceland) and Åland is there because... well, it is in the actual area of the map so it would be real silly not to have it.

Again, I hope you don't take my post as a sign that I'm unwilling to listen to advice. I really do appreciate your feedback and suggestions, but at this point I feel the changes you're suggesting do not fit with the direction I want the map development to take.

But I'll see what I can do with the insets and minimap. Also, perhaps after this current poll has run it's course, I could start a new poll asking if people want more countries/regions/islands represented on the map. If the majority does wish it then I'll be glad to rethink my stance on this.

[natty dread]

OK Mrbenn how's this? As a compromise, I added Bornholm to the map. Although this may just push Denmark to a +3 bonus value... I put it in as a neutral to keep the territory count within the optimal numbers.

V.27

Click image to enlarge.

Also now that I've thought about it, it might be feasible to add Svalbard to the map in the same way as Faroe, but between Iceland and Norway. But I'd like to hear other opinions about this as well, what do people think about adding Svalbard in this way?

(however I still can see no feasible way to include Greenland in this map, sorry).

[natty dread]

Here's a version with Svalbard included. How does it look? (Svalbard and Faroe are not in scale with the rest of the map btw... However I don't think it matters since they're in insets)

Click image to enlarge.

[ender516]

I think I used a different spreadsheet, one that also requires a 4th value - the amount of neighbouring bonus areas.

edit: yeah I used Widowmakers' one.

I also substracted 1 from bonus areas that have a capital.

Even allowing for the capitals, we have some different values.
Well, both spreadsheets use a count of the neighbouring bonus areas. (I suspect that these two spreadsheets do essentially the same computations.) Maybe we have different counts for neighbouring bonus areas.
This is what I got:

Code: Select all

Iceland   2
Denmark   2
N.Norway  4
S.Norway  3
N.Sweden  4
S.Sweden  4
N.Finland 3
S.Finland 2

Is this where we part ways?

On a different point, I agree with you regarding MrBenn's suggestions for expanding the map. Unless gameplay would be significantly improved by the addition of Svalbard and Bornholm, I wouldn't add them. Adding Greenland as a single region seems odd tp me, but fitting it in as 3 to 5 would mean squeezing the rest of the map into illegibility.

[natty dread]

Well, I have in my latest post a version with Bornholm and Svalbard. You tell me, do they bring anything more to the gameplay?

As for the bonus calculations... I don't know, your numbers seem a little low. The map is quite large now, so larger bonus values seem more appropriate.

[natty dread]

Idea: add bombardments between the 3 baltic islands.

Click image to enlarge.

edit.

I have another idea for Svalbard: make it into an Alcatraz -type territory, which would give a +1 bonus instead of autodeploy, but it could not attack anywhere, ie. there would be one-way attack routes from Iceland and Norway to it. Of course then I'd have to also connect Iceland and Norway directly to each other again.

How does that sound?

[natty dread]

OK lots of changes here I'm not sure everyone will appreciate, so if you think I shouldn't keep some of the changes just post on the thread.

Click image to enlarge.

List of changes since last "official" update:

- Added Svalbard.
- Made Svalbard into a true "dead end" territory: it can only be attacked, but it gives a +1 bonus instead of autodeploy (forgot to put this last part on the map though! )
- Trying a grunge layer on the neutral land. Not sure if it fits this map...
- added bombardments between baltic islands, which also makes Denmark a +3 bonus.

[natty dread]

OK, so I made this XML for the map just so I could run some rough gameplay simulations on the XML wizard. (If anyone else wants to try, here's the file -> http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/5/8/1902058/natty.xml)

The XML wizard is real handy for this. It doesn't give a totally accurate representation, as there are no dice throws or troop amounts or deploying, you just choose which territories each player conquers. But if you go by a rough estimate, like, for every 3 troops a player receives he can conquer 1 territory per turn, you'll get a rough idea of how the gameplay works.

So after these simulations, it seems clear that Iceland is a really strong starting place. In fact, with Svalbard on the map it might just be a bit too strong. When you take iceland, and hold it, then if you manage to expand into Northern norway and take Faroe and Svalbard as well, the game is pretty much yours.

This could lead to drop deciding the game. So I've come up with some possible solutions to the problem.

1) remove svalbard alltogether.
2) make svalbard a killer neutral, and have it be the only way between iceland & norway (kinda extreme, but efficient I think)
3) reduce bonus of iceland, north norway, or both

Or if you have any alternate suggestions, I'm all ears... I mean, eyes.

[chipv]

Värmland attacks Akershus is a one way attack. Since there is no indication on the map, maybe this is intended as a 2 way?

(The XML Wizard validates when you load)

[Industrial Helix]

I think the simplest solution would to be to reduce the bonuses.

And why is there the island bombard thing? Seems kind of gimmicky.

[captainwalrus]

The bombardment seems like just a bombardment for bombardment's sake. Why not make it an assault?

[natty dread]

Värmland attacks Akershus is a one way attack. Since there is no indication on the map, maybe this is intended as a 2 way?

You're right it should be a 2-way. I guess I made a little blunder threre.

I think the simplest solution would to be to reduce the bonuses.

And why is there the island bombard thing? Seems kind of gimmicky.

The bombardment seems like just a bombardment for bombardment's sake. Why not make it an assault?

Well, making them assault each other would open up those bonus areas too much IMO. The bombardment was just an idea, and I can just remove it altogether if you think it's an unnecessary feature.

Mainly, the bombardment just felt good at the moment. Can't really explain why, it just seemed to fit: 3 baltic island, of different country each, and they get to trade bombardments. Kinda like the first steps of the war, before it developes into all-on land-assaults...

Also, Bornholm seems a really useless territory without it. As I already explained why I don't want to make them assault normally, there's only the choice of having bombardment or having it as an annoying dead end territory that really serves no good gameplay purpose. Geographical accuracy, sure, but gameplay wise it should have something to make it worth having besides being part of Denmark bonus. Another border with sweden there, and Denmark will become too hard to hold. A map should have a few bonus areas which can easily be taken and held early in the game, IMO.

After deciding to add bombardment for bornholm, the next step came quite naturally: 3 baltic islands, bombardment between.

But if you still think it should be removed then off it goes.

Any comments on the iceland issue (see my last post)? And what to do with svalbard? IH suggested reducing bonuses, but Iceland is already a +2. Make it a +1 then? Or +2 with the capital autodeploy?

One possibility would be to remove autodeploy bonuses from Svalbard and Faroe and just make them regular territories. Maybe you could get a +1 from Faroe if you also hold Denmark, and +1 from Svalbard if you also hold Iceland. This way holding iceland and svalbard would give you a +4, or a +3 if Iceland is reduced.

Northern norway could be reduced to 3, but then nobody would really want to take it as a first bonus, and the guy in iceland would probably have an even easier time taking it. Although: If he only gets +6 from both of them, the balance might be better. The guy next to him in N. Sweden would be getting a +5, so the difference is not too huge.

So the current suggestion wrt. iceland is this:

* Iceland -> +1
* N.Norway -> +3
* remove Faroe & Svalb. autodeploys, make them non-capitals
* remove the 1-way attacks from Svalb. and just have it as a walkthrough territory between ice and norw.
* Denmark with Faroe gives additional +1
* Iceland with Svalb. gives additional +1

What do you think?

[natty dread]

v.29

Got rid of bombardments, instead assigned each island (Faroe, Svalbard and baltic islands) to a country bonus, so that they give a +1 extra if held together.

Click image to enlarge.

How does that sound? The only downside is that it takes a lot of text to explain, which makes the map more complicated. Another option would be to only do it for Faroe and Svalbard. Ie. Faroe gives +1 with Denmark, Svalbard gives +1 with N.Norway, and baltic islands would just be normal territories.