England Map [Quenched]

[Merciless Wong]

On Theme: It could be irony. I'll wait for Mr. Benn's view.

It could be a subtle reference to the Blake poem (something like my sword will not rest until I see Jerusaleum in England's green and present land)..... He could add a metaphorical terit in the sea named Jerusaleum if that's the case. 99 neutrals. Automatic win for who gets it.

Paraphrasing..the map doesn't speak to me if I ignore the visuals.

On Uniqueness: If a unique location and color scheme is sufficient then I'm dibs on Russia & China At War as a separate map. It'll use lots of different shades of red. Just like this uses a lot of green and Greenland uses blue. I'd just like to hear if that is Mr Benn's interpretation of uniqueness for my own development.

On Gameplay: Even if meant to be open, I think the balance issue matters. Ignore me. Put it to a forum vote. Fix it. Whatever you prefer. Map screams for bonus vs terits vs defensibility analysis on a provincial basis.

[saaimen]

He could add a metaphorical terit in the sea named Jerusaleum if that's the case. 99 neutrals. Automatic win for who gets it.

Now thát would be unique. And pretty lame aswell.

Edit: I retract that last bit. I just don't think it's a good idea, as this is a very geographically correct map. The Jerusalem joke won't fit, IMHO.

[Merciless Wong]

I usually know I am on track when people resort to personal attacks. I have never said the map sucks, is not good, is lame or applied any other point-scoring term.

I have constructive points, based on standards applied elsewhere in maps that are stalled or dead. None of which have been answered by the map-maker.If the uniqueness criteria is relaxed for this map, let's get the reason why out in the open to guide other map-makers.

[saaimen]

Sorry for the 'lame' bit. I was in kind of a bad mood.
Watch previous post.

[MrBenn]

Right, let me get this straight... My comment about a map having to be unique was in reference to the Rio Slums map draft, that forced the classic gameplay into a map of Rio. If you want to read the whole post in it's proper context, then you may do so by clicking here.

The criticism I leveled at this version of Merciless Wong's map is contained within the following spoiler....

Spoiler

You'd be better off starting with your own graphics and idea from scratch, rather than bastardising the combined effort of several mapmakers...

Seriously, you'd be better off coming up with something a) original, and b) decent.

I get that you're trying to produce a slightly amended/enlarged version of the classic map, but I'm really not convinced this is the right way to go about it... The map has a vague 'City' theme, but doesn't look or feel anything like a city map would - it looks incredibly look a poor knock-off of a shapeless map.

As it currently stands, there is nothing to give me an indication of what you are hoping to achieve, nor can I see the glimmer of a butterfly inside its cocoon...

Look, I'm not likely to bother with this map if Mr. Benn as cartographer is dead set against anything that might be an alternative to his 'classic' efforts. I'd just like to see him openly admit he's suffering from 'not invented by me' syndrome.

Firstly, let's keep the flaming and baiting out of the forum.

Secondly, I have no idea what you mean about my "classic efforts", and I'm not dead-set against anything, unless it is of poor quality...

I stand by my earlier comment: "I get that you're trying to produce a slightly amended/enlarged version of the classic map, but I'm really not convinced this is the right way to go about it..." The best way of exploring the idea of a slightly amended/enlarged version of classic would be to have some discussion about it, rather than producing a knock-off the existing Classic Shapes map.

... and was simply my reaction to what I referred to as the "bastardisation" of Classic Art. I may have been a bit harsh in my choice of words, but Twill accurately summarised the sentiment of that particular map in his newsletter interview:

Twill Interview

Q: What is your best memory as Community Manager?

A: The Star Chamber. That was the singularly most moving experiences any Communtiy Manager could have asked for, in the best and worst of ways. Thank you Gentlemen.

Q: What is your favourite map of all time?

A: I'm going to go with World 2.1, but Classic Art will always have a special place in my heart. I don't think anybody understands what went into that (see above "favourite moment").

None of this is relevant to the discussion about this map, but it needs to be put here, where all the fuss has been made.

[MrBenn]

So, moving back to the map of England:

Moderator Nepotism
None of the Foundry Moderators have ever given themselves a stamp, or been given an advance ticket through the foundry.

Uniqueness
The map is unique both in geography (there is no other Map of England and her Counties) and in gameplay (it is not a copy of any map already on the site).

Theme
As previously mentioned in this thread, Blake's "Jerusalem" is about as English an anthem as you'll find , and resonates with the English (even though the theology behind it is dubious). The English psyche is stereotypically pleasant, and we've traditionally believed that the world would be a better place if we all behaved like pleasant chaps and just jolly well got on with one another. The stereotypical view of the English towards battle, was that it was an inconvenient necessity worth enduring, with the proviso that there would be breaks for tea and cakes on the lawn. The thematic focus therefore is English through and through: Green and Pleasant.

Graphics
I'm happy with the graphics as they stand, and am confident that they meet the ever-increasing standard that the Foundry expects and demands. If somebody is able to raise legitimate concerns about the differentiation of regions, or fuzzy borders, misplaced army numbers etc, these are the things I'm still looking to iron out.

Gameplay
The bonuses on this map are the one thing that I am not satisfied with. I love the 'build-your-own' region style of play, and wish there were more maps that utilised it.
There may be a coupe of balance issues, but so far the only specific concern is that the North-East is likely to provide an unfair advantage if somebody gets it on the drop.
Bottlenecks and chokepoints are a strategic feature of many maps - early on I experimented with adding impassables, but there are no natural features in the right places, and the artificial barriers I experimented with felt awkward. Since then, I have settled on open gameplay. It is possible that games may settle down into a 1v1 North v South battle, but that would be entirely appropriate for a nation which has a very distinct socio-economic North-South divide.
What I want to achieve with the gameplay is an open map with 'build-your-own' bonuses... The structure I've arrived at is simple to explain, and (in my mind) allows for an array of strategies. Whether it is simple to understand is open to discussion, but I would speculate that there are more confusing and difficult to understand maps further on in the process than this one.

[LED ZEPPELINER]

totally agree, thanks for clearing that up

[Merciless Wong]

I agree - its not relevant. But when disclosing all fairly harsh criticism to show off context. Lets be complete.

---------------------------------
Re: Prince Of The City [V3] + 1 suggestion

Postby MrBenn » Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:55 am
I get that you're trying to produce a slightly amended/enlarged version of the classic map, but I'm really not convinced this is the right way to go about it... The map has a vague 'City' theme, but doesn't look or feel anything like a city map would - it looks incredibly look a poor knock-off of a shapeless map.


As it currently stands, there is nothing to give me an indication of what you are hoping to achieve, nor can I see the glimmer of a butterfly inside its cocoon...

---------------------------------------------

Secondly, the fact that Twill was offended is for Twill to say. Not sure how someone who holds the draft stamp is suppose to assume the right to retaliate. And if you feel that way, you should consider recusing yourself from Prince of the City and requesting another party to make the decision.

[Merciless Wong]

Now to substance, and I being genuinely constructive here:

Theme: So if Jerusaleum is very English, why not quote the additional lines to imply conflict? Having said that, I will defer to your knowledge of English culture now it has been politely explained.

So the bottom line is that the map is unique in theme simply because there is no English map even though we have a United Kingdom map.

I am happy for the "new geography is automatically unique" argument to be out there. So why isn't the Rio's Slums map unique in theme. Its a different geography than Brazil as a whole, just as England is different from the UK?

Graphics: Pretty. Not really unique but pretty. All one color isn't unique is it? Someone already got an all blue map up and running. If I remember some maps are already all desert or all grassland. If you complained about a draft as being too alike others and they merely said, I used a different color scheme or say used attack lines instead of borders, would you give them a pass?

Gameplay: I agree an open map would be different. If you can make it work, that would do it.

But the bonus system you are proposing is not very different. Your districts are 2,3,4,5,6 in size. The bonus is the same as no bonus for number of territories. A continent bonus an a +1 bonus for getting 3 territories for larger territories. The only time you can hit +2 is when you get all of the 6 territory district. Reworded your bonuses are:

Continent bonus of +2 for 2,4,5 territory districts, +3 for 3,6 territory districts
No regular bonus for number of territories.
+1 special bonus for 3 or more territories in districts with 4,5 and 6 districts

This is just a continent bonus, with a +1 on special objectives. I think Scotland or one of the other UK maps is already like this with continent bonuses and a +1 per city or something.

On restoring balance:
The 2 territory +2 and the 3 territory +3 is a problem. I see no way around it.

Sealanes connecting some of the easily defended territories may solve your problem on balance e.g. if 2 terits on the edge are clearly desirable, connect their protected rear territories by sea to make both harder to hold.

Can you expand the 2 territory to 3 territory somehow?

Overall:
My view is fix the balance. The map would be different as a England map with no impassability now we have established that geographic uniqueness is sufficient to make something unique.

[LED ZEPPELINER]

this thread is about England, your prince of the city map has nothing to do with it, stop posting things with nothing to do with the sole purpose of this thread

[MrBenn]

Mr Wong,

1) If you want to pick an argument, take it to Flame Wars
2) I never said or implied that Twill was offended - I was referencing his words of affection for Classic Art.
3) Please keep discussion here to the map this thread is about.

[MrBenn]

Lets get the latest images here so we can move on:

[/quote]

[LED ZEPPELINER]

just pointing out that the end of cornwall is cut off on the small map

[LED ZEPPELINER]

Mr Wong,

1) If you want to pick an argument, take it to Flame Wars

there are no more flamewars.

I think that you can move the name Rutland down on both maps. just wondering... have we dicided on no impassables?

[Merciless Wong]

Ok, here's a brief balance analysis that we can all dispute.
Grouping by bonus

+2 tier

NE: 2 terits, 2 terits to defend, +2 total bonus

+3 tier

Yorkshire: 3 terits, 2 to defend, +3 total bonus
NW: 4 terits, 4 to defend, +3 total bonus*
Thames: 4 terits, 4 to defend, + 3 total bonus*
SW: 5 terits, 3 to defend, +3 total bonus*

+4 tier

SE: 6 terits, 3 to defend, +4 total bonus*
W Midland, 6 terits, 4 to defend +4 total bonus*
E Midland: 6 terits, 5 to defend, +4 total bonus*
E Anglia: 7 terits, 6 to defend, 4 total bonus **

* designates a +1 on partial completion
** designates a +1 or +2 on partial completion

My ranking is
NE ++
Yorkshire ++
SE +
SW +
NW Ok
thames OK
W Midland OK
E Midland -
E Anglia -

My suggestion.
-Add a territory to NE. "Tyne and Wear" or whatever it is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyne_and_Wear

-Use sea routes to open up more attack lines for NE and Yorkshire to weaken them.

-Same for SE and SouthWest.
eg Ferry from Cornwall to Cumberland, Ferry from East Sussex to Essex
Ferry from the new North East terit "Tyne and Wear" to East Riding to Norfolk

-new bonus +2 per continent, +1 for 4 territories in one district, +2 for 6 territories in one district


New Result
Grouping by bonus

+2 tier

NE: 3 terits, 3 terits to defend, +2 total bonus
Yorkshire: 3 terits, 3 to defend, +2 total bonus

+3 tier


NW: 4 terits, 4 to defend, +3 total bonus
Thames: 4 terits, 4 to defend, + 3 total bonus
SW: 5 terits, 4 to defend, +3 total bonus

+4 tier

SE: 6 terits, 4 to defend, +4 total bonus
W Midland, 6 terits, 4 to defend +4 total bonus
E Midland: 6 terits, 5 to defend, +4 total bonus *
E Anglia: 7 terits, 6 to defend, 4 total bonus *
* partial bonus on partial compeltion

New ranking is
NE OK
Yorkshire OK
SE OK
SW OK
NW Ok
thames OK
W Midland OK
E Midland -
E Anglia -

Which is much more even. Terits would all be hard to defend.

[iancanton]

The bonuses on this map are the one thing that I am not satisfied with. I love the 'build-your-own' region style of play, and wish there were more maps that utilised it.

the build-ur-own 3-county bonus zones, while innovative, do potentially make the start of each game a complete lottery. someone is virtually certain to start with at least one +2 bonus and, the more bonuses are held from the drop, the more likely that player 1 starts with an unassailable advantage. the only way i see for the build-ur-own bonus system to be fair is for the whole map to be divided by region, with each region consisting totally of its own starting positions, meaning that no-one can possibly start with a bonus in 1v1 (there is a 12% chance of team 1 starting with the north-east in 2v2, though i think we can live with that if 1v1 is solved).

Use sea routes to open up more attack lines for NE and Yorkshire to weaken them.

-Same for SE and SouthWest.
eg Ferry from Cornwall to Cumberland, Ferry from East Sussex to Essex
Ferry from the new North East terit "Tyne and Wear" to East Riding to Norfolk

i dislike the use of unrealistic sea routes, which ruins the shape of the map. what ur comprehensive analysis does show is that there is room to adjust things somewhat to improve the balance between regions.

ian.

[Merciless Wong]

Could stick one large neutral(9 troops) in each 3 territory or 2 territory bonus as a handicap.
Possibly do some middle strength neutrals (6 troops)in the identified stronger continents as speed bumps.....
That would give you another balancing feature other than number of border territories if you don't want to play with the bonus.

Further to Incanton's comments, if you make the bonus +1 for 4 terits in the same district only.. you could just stick enough neutrals in each territory so no one could start with all of the territories or more than 3 in each district. The rest would be filled with 3 strength neutrals.

Mind you, you'd be stuck with 25 open starting terits only. That would be unique.

So if the sea routes is out...my summarized suggestions.

-Change bonus to +2 continent, +1 on 4 terits in same continent, +2 on 6 terits in same continent
-Add a territory to the continent with 2 terits called "Tyne and Wear". Apparently wikipedia says its real.
-Make East Riding, Northumberland, Cornwall and Isle of Wight neutral with 7 armies as a handicap to the strong continents
-Make Dorset, W Sussex, E Sussex, Oxford, Beds, Cambs, Norfolk, Suffolk, Stropshire, Worcs, Herefordshire, Rutland, Notts, Derby, and Cumberland neutral with 3 armies.
-This would make it impossible to start with a +1 bonus as there are only 3 non-neutrals per continent to start on
-Definitely make the map unique, it would be open with a unique bonus and use positioning of neutrals to achieve balance
-For added color you could add historical monsters to the strong neutral territories to explain the strong neutrals
-Or you could mark famous castles in those territories to explain the strong neutrals. Alnwick Castle in Northumberland, Tintagel Castle in Cornwall, Carisbrooke castle in Isle of Wight, Wressle Castle in East Riding show up in a quick google

If you like these suggestions, any chance you could return the favor and view my write up on Prince of the City to justify the theme. Happy to add a Mao or Clauswitz quote on politics = war to the map to be more unsubtle on the theme.
I took a very different approach to map creation and focused on gameplay & text first which explains the unusual starting graphics that got everyone so agitated.

[saaimen]

Hey Wong, I really don't want to be offensive here, but...
Do you mind editing your last post when you have something to add? You've repeatedly double-(and even triple-)posted in here. And it might be just me, but it sort of bothers me
And really, I'm not trying to be a pain up your ehm... behind. You have made some good suggestions here.

[hulmey]

Nice map here

[MrBenn]

My internet connection keeps dropping out, and I keep losing the long post I've written...

I'm thinking through a couple of gameplay issues, as I don;t want the North to be overpowered from the start... I'm contemplating having fixed North/South bonuses, with the freer 'build your own' bonuses in the middle, and making them slightly more lucrative...

While I'm fleshing out the idea, any further input would be gratefully received - especially as it's the gameplay holding this thing back

[Merciless Wong]

R u still doing the draft stamps? You haven't been there for a while.

[MrBenn]

Finally, here's another update...

I have changed the gameplay a bit, giving each region a specified bonus, in addition to freer 'build-your-own' bonuses. The way I have them at the moment is so that the North (which looks like a better start) doesn't yield such a large bonus, while the South and Midlands are slightly richer.

The North East is only 2 terrs, so you wouldn't get the +1 for 3, but you would get +1 for the region. Yorkshire is 3 terrs, so you would get +1 for that, and +1 for the region. The 'actual' bonus table is as follows, which takes into account the build-your-own's too:

• NorthEast 1
  NorthWest 3
  Yorkshire 2
  West Midlands 5
  East Midlands 6
  East Anglia 7
  Thames Valley 5
  SouthWest 3
  SouthEast 4

[tlane]

This is looking really nice!
The new gameplay looks much better, and less confusing.
Also the legend looks really nice, but is it possible to + signs before the numbers (don't know how necessary it is).

great job
tlane

[Jook1]

This looks superb, can't wait for it to be made available.
In reference to the above poster, I think a + sign before the number would spoil the aesthetics of the sign.

[MrBenn]

The sign is more or less a replica of an English road-sign that tells you the distance to your destination, so '+' would look out of place, as Jook1 said

I'm thinking that Middlesex should start neutral to prevent the chance of a lucky drop in the Thames Valley (this will bring the number of starting terrs to 42). I can split the North East for 1v1 games using starting positions, but don't really want to add any more neutrals.