World 2.0/1 Map [Quenched]

[reverend_kyle]

Indonesia is NOT in oceania... however, oceanias region is commonly known as australasia which is indonesia malaysia and oceania... if you renamed australias continent australasia it would work.

[gavin_sidhu]

Indonesia is NOT in oceania... however, oceanias region is commonly known as australasia which is indonesia malaysia and oceania... if you renamed australias continent australasia it would work.

The eastern half of Indonesia is part of Oceania, on this map Sorong, parts of Central Indonesia as well as parts of Java (all the islands to the east) is part of Oceania. Leave it this way, it improves playability and if we incorporate these territories into Asia it will create problems withing Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania

[Marvaddin]

I cant see the problem of some accuracy about this... Why should Oceania include Asia parts? So, make it include Asian Southeast, too...

Seriously, the single thing to do is adjust the bonuses accordingly, but you guys seem to want repetitive things... continents with same sizes, same number of subcontinents, and subcontinents with same size. Whats the problem having small continents, or medium / big subs? "These are sub-continents and I'm thinking about them as stepping stones on the way to control of the full continent." - but them we cant have a more simple to take Oceania? And maybe you dont realize, but I doubt they will work this way, I think people will hold one, and when its protected, try another region in another point of the map, where its possible. Even why this spread of small areas make it a better strategy. Maybe Americas are more possible (by the way North America is very strong with 3 small AND adjacent, simple to expand, areas), but who will fight for that Africa? And why should our first map with this much countries be limited strategically, with all small continents? The full continents dont substitute in strategy the medium / big ones of normal maps. The smallest one is bigger than gigantic classic Asia. Why try it instead of another small are you will need conquer 2 more countries?

[howie]

A sexy map that has to succseed

[zim]

...And expand Scandinavia so it's not a useless bonus of one.

Happy, I presume you'd recommend adding a sea route between Sweden or Finland and the Baltics and adding them to the Scandinavian region? Let me know if this is your intent or not. Thanks.

I cant see the problem of some accuracy about this... Why should Oceania include Asia parts? So, make it include Asian Southeast, too...

Seriously, the single thing to do is adjust the bonuses accordingly, but you guys seem to want repetitive things... continents with same sizes, same number of subcontinents, and subcontinents with same size. Whats the problem having small continents, or medium / big subs? "These are sub-continents and I'm thinking about them as stepping stones on the way to control of the full continent." - but them we cant have a more simple to take Oceania?

Marv I agree with what you are saying I just think we are quite close to achieving it. I think we do have substantial variety amongst the continents and subcontinents, I've included my updated chart of territories, borders to defend, territories that can attack/be attacked and continents borders (counting subcontinents for subcontinents and full continents for full continents) below. Certainly there is room to adjust these but I think you're wrong to think they are "same sizes, same number of subcontinents, and subcontinents of the same size." (Sorry for the size of this image should have cropped it but it was uploaded already and I've got Thanksgiving dinner to get to.)

And maybe you dont realize, but I doubt they will work this way, I think people will hold one, and when its protected, try another region in another point of the map, where its possible. Even why this spread of small areas make it a better strategy. Maybe Americas are more possible (by the way North America is very strong with 3 small AND adjacent, simple to expand, areas), but who will fight for that Africa? And why should our first map with this much countries be limited strategically, with all small continents? The full continents dont substitute in strategy the medium / big ones of normal maps. The smallest one is bigger than gigantic classic Asia. Why try it instead of another small are you will need conquer 2 more countries?

This may well be how the strategy plays out though I think a strong case can be made for expanding into adjacent territories on the way to control of a full continent versus the distributed approach you suggest. I'm eager to find out how it unfolds in practice as I think we're likely to see alot of interesting experiments before an 'optimal' strategy emerges. I think whether people fight for full continents or not will depend alot on the ratio of full continent bonus to subcontinent bonus and critically on whether they are playing escalating, fixed or no cards and how many players. I think it would be hubris on my part to think I'll forsee all the possibilities I want to make sure the map accomodates various potential strategies, that the bonuses are as balanced as I can make them and then let the creativity and reasoning of the players take over.

Thanks as always for the insights, comments and encouragement.

Cheers,

Zim

[Marvaddin]

Look at that again...

There are 22 total areas:
11 tiny - small areas (3-5 countries)
4 medium areas (6-7 countries)
1 big area (9 countries)
4 gigantic areas (none with 10 countries, minimum of 13, by the way)
2 incredibly huge areas (25-26 countries)

Can we call it balanced??
1st, no sane guy would even consider those mega continents (Asia and Africa). So, adding some more countries wouldnt make a difference.

In fact, if full continent bonuses are simply normal, they will not be attractive. If you want incentivate people trying full continents, they need have great bonuses, but this would make more difficult to hold, since the enemies would try break it a lot, many countries still to conquer, and so, I hardly imagine someone trying them before getting other small areas. For example, you hardly see guy that own Oceania trying to get Asia, he usually go for South America, if he can. So, why would someone holding Scandinavia try to get full Europe, having to conquer that many armies, only to be broken, when he will not probably get many problems taking Australia?

The excess of small subs not only attract people because they are easy, but also because all players can get some without a problem. No one will need go for a hard task, all players can get their own small sub. The high number of these make them less valuable, if you understand, and people will quickly collect them, and those trying full continents will probably be crushed.

By the way you disagree me, but Im sure you are going against your goal of incentivate full continents. Opinions about it, people?

EDIT: by the way, making some larger subs we could have some better designed ones, with less countries in the borders.

[zim]

Look at that again...

There are 22 total areas:
11 tiny - small areas (3-5 countries)
4 medium areas (6-7 countries)
1 big area (9 countries)
4 gigantic areas (none with 10 countries, minimum of 13, by the way)
2 incredibly huge areas (25-26 countries)

Can we call it balanced??
1st, no sane guy would even consider those mega continents (Asia and Africa). So, adding some more countries wouldnt make a difference.

In fact, if full continent bonuses are simply normal, they will not be attractive. If you want incentivate people trying full continents, they need have great bonuses, but this would make more difficult to hold, since the enemies would try break it a lot, many countries still to conquer, and so, I hardly imagine someone trying them before getting other small areas. For example, you hardly see guy that own Oceania trying to get Asia, he usually go for South America, if he can. So, why would someone holding Scandinavia try to get full Europe, having to conquer that many armies, only to be broken, when he will not probably get many problems taking Australia?

The excess of small subs not only attract people because they are easy, but also because all players can get some without a problem. No one will need go for a hard task, all players can get their own small sub. The high number of these make them less valuable, if you understand, and people will quickly collect them, and those trying full continents will probably be crushed.

By the way you disagree me, but Im sure you are going against your goal of incentivate full continents. Opinions about it, people?

EDIT: by the way, making some larger subs we could have some better designed ones, with less countries in the borders.

Marv,

I think I see where we are thinking about this differently (don't know whose way is right but i think I get where we're disconnected)...

I think the likely course of action is to capture one subcontinent in a full continent and use that to progress to the the next nearest sub and hence to the full continent as this allows a player to capture more bonus armies without increasing their total number of frontiers/border i.e. (though it usually happens in the other direction which makes the numbers a little more complex but the principle the same) adding south america if you already hold north america gives you two extra bonus armies per turn without adding a frontier/border. Following this logic I expect someone to for example capture Canada and extend their borders quickly to Greenland/Alaska on the East and West (like a Europe player in Classic tries to do with Greenland) and to then add the US and ideally Mexico (which will be the strategic equivalent of the Ukraine for a player holding Asia), etc., etc.... This causes me to think of North America not as two 3 territory subcontinents, one 4 territory subcontinents and a 14 territory full contient but as two 3 territory subcontinents (Canada, Central America) and two 4 territory subcontients (US and unsubcontinented North America).

Your perspective is that people will target continents in order of ease of capture/hold regardless of their geographic proximity or the incremental frontiers they add for a player. I have to confess that I haven't seen the example you suggest of a player holding Australia and then targeting South America but I'm early in my CC career and my dice playing Risk was mostly with the same bunch and hence generally similar strategies.

Anyway from my perspective the continent distribution looks like:

Canada 3
Central America 3
Scandinavia 3
Australia 3
United States 4
Unsub North America 4
La Plata 4
Unsub South America 4
Horn of Aftica 4
Far East 4
Unsub Asia 4
Indonesia 4
Indian Subcontinent 5
Amazon 6
Unsub Africa 6
Western Europe 6
Unsub Oceania 6
Southern Africa 7
Unsub Europe 7
Middle East 7
Mahgreb 9

which feels reasonable well distributed with lots of smallish 3-4 territories a reasonable group in the middle 5-6 and a smattering of large 7-9 territories.

Let's see which perspective other readers take as I think we're both trying to forsee how the best players will tackle things once people have played enough games on a mega map (103 territories still) like this to evolve their strategic thinking.

Thanks for your comments and insights, I really do appreciate your input and passion for getting the map right.

Cheers,

Zim

[Marvaddin]

Can an experienced player give us an opinion about this question?

[AndyDufresne]

I've been following the creation of this map, and it's jumped leaps and bounds.

As for the idea you two are discussing, it is an interesting one. Right now, I leaning toward Marv's position. Africa seems like a wasteland, and north america and south america gold mines, due to country dispersion. The hardest thing about this map, is Country Dispersion. You've done rather well thus far, but I think it still needs to be tweaked some how.

I'll have to ponder it more, and hopefully come up with a better response.


--Andy

[happysadfun]

I've been following the creation of this map, and it's jumped leaps and bounds.

As for the idea you two are discussing, it is an interesting one. Right now, I leaning toward Marv's position. Africa seems like a wasteland, and north america and south america gold mines, due to country dispersion. The hardest thing about this map, is Country Dispersion. You've done rather well thus far, but I think it still needs to be tweaked some how.

I'll have to ponder it more, and hopefully come up with a better response.


--Andy

I agree that it needs to be tweaked a bit. africa should have some merges and maybe four subcontinents.

[zim]

Folks,

Just a quick plea for your input. I'm looking for some more opinions on what needs tweaking (or not) on this map in terms of the sub-continents in particular (their size, distribution, etc.). Don't worry about the rewards for the sub-continents these are a few versions out of date but please let me know how you think you'd play, which continents you'd target and why, etc.

Thanks,

Zim


Current version (19):

[P Gizzle]

id probably target NA because of the amount of territories and bonuses. whens this gonna be ready?

[Molacole]

it's too difficult to guess what I would do until I know the worth of each bonus. As of now North America looks extremely easy to hold once you get canada. Especially considering the current bonus of South America being worth less as a total with just as many borders and territories. Probably wont be very desirable in my opinion. That might make North america even easier to hold due to nobody focusing on S America because of the lack of bonus vrs borders.

Maybe make a connection from east canada to british isles to even it up some.

[Marvaddin]

The main point in discussion is, should we:
- have a mix of small, medium and big subcontinents?
- have a great number of small subcontinents like it is already, almost all with 3-5 countries?

This discussion is important because we want make the full continents playable, not an insignificant accessory. In my opinion, more variety would make the full continents more interesting. Like I said, after conquering Scandinavia, or Central America, would a player try to get the full continent? I dont think so... I imagine players would quickly try to grab a big number of subs, doesnt matters if they are disconnected. But, if someone takes a subcontinent like USA + Canada, try conquer the full North America is much more reasonable. Am I...
- right?
- wrong?

[Jolly Roger]

The current bonuses for subcontinents appear to be awarded solely based on how difficult a sub is to defend and not on how hard it is to acquire. The map in its current form is fine so long as the bonuses for subcontinents with more than five countries is increased to make them more attractive. Taking a large subcontinent would require a player to sacrifice a greater number of armies than taking a smaller one. Why make the investment if there's no hope of additional benefit in the long run? I also agree with Marvaddin in that the full continent bonuses should be increased to provide incentive.

It is difficult to comment from a strategic perspective since strategy is often a function of the initial random placement of armies. While it's clear that Asia would be no one's first choice, who wouldn't consider giving it a stab if most of their armies were intially placed there, particularly if they were really well positioned to take an Asian subcontinent in the first couple of rounds?

In some cases, I am unsure of the rationale behind the bonus amounts. The Middle East, for instance, has seven countries, four of which must be defended, but it is only worth a bonus of 2.

If you're interested in splitting up Canada but are worried about space, there are some shorter regional names such as Prairies, The North and Maritimes which might be incorporated. Another solution might be to establish paths of attack via the Arctic circle. Players who've taken Scandinavia or Canada might not get so cozy if they are able to attack one another.

Regardless of its final form, I think I'm going to enjoy this one.

[mr. incrediball]

The fact is that some countries (Russia, Canada, China, USA) are just too big it makes it much easier to control territories, if you capture russia, for instance, you're instantly halfway to controlling the biggest continent on the board.

[mr. incrediball]

oh wait, that latest map looks a lot better

[zim]

Latest version;



Changes:
Split Canada up to create another larger sub-continent (six territories).

Created a link from Scandinavian sub-continent to Iceland for both historic/cultural accuracy and to make the sub worth more bonus armies.

Recalculated all of the bonuses using a new formula that gives more weight to the number of territories in a sub/full continent.

I think we're in the home stretch, what say you?

Cheers,

Zim

[onbekende]

this map now has onbekende's seal of approval

[RexRegis]

is this the large or the small map?

and I have some problem to read some of the country names, like germany, poland and italy..
it is possible, but if it's possible to make it a little more clear it would be great.

[zim]

is this the large or the small map?

and I have some problem to read some of the country names, like germany, poland and italy..
it is possible, but if it's possible to make it a little more clear it would be great.

Rex,

This is the small. I'll scale it up for the large once w'ere closed on a layout. I"ve tried to make the text as legible as possible given the density of the map and I think this is about as good as it's going to get on the small version. Should be significantly clearer on the large.

Cheers,

Zim

[cowshrptrn]

looks great, can you tinhk of a better name for 'stan? it looks out of place with the other genuine places. Maybe Turkmenistan/ can't tinhk of anything shorter... but having it go over, like afganistan doesn't look that bad.

[Evil Pope]

is this the large or the small map?

and I have some problem to read some of the country names, like germany, poland and italy..
it is possible, but if it's possible to make it a little more clear it would be great.

Rex,

This is the small. I'll scale it up for the large once w'ere closed on a layout. I"ve tried to make the text as legible as possible given the density of the map and I think this is about as good as it's going to get on the small version. Should be significantly clearer on the large.

Cheers,

Zim

I think that only the white names, like in the middle east, need work.. they're very difficult to see.. Other than that, the map is fine..

[gavin_sidhu]

looks great, can you tinhk of a better name for 'stan? it looks out of place with the other genuine places. Maybe Turkmenistan/ can't tinhk of anything shorter... but having it go over, like afganistan doesn't look that bad.

Agree.

[tomatoman25]

Question: Isnt there going to be Any Bonus for holding Antarctica?!? everything else has gone from continents to subcontinents, yet i believe you're completely excluding our 7th continent.