Eastern Hemisphere [Quenched]

[Gilligan]

Heya Oak...

Game 4437079... In the midst of killing of FP I thought I had gotten the Southern Africa bonus accidentally, but then realized that Madagascar is a part of it. Is there any way to get that purplish tint around Madagascar too to show that it is a part of that bonus?

[gho]

Masagascar needs the extra tint and I agree that Oceania bonus is a bit rich considering how easy it is to expand into South Asia after 1 or 2 turns holding it. Can you change the bonuses during the beta stage of the map, or does it have to stay the same?

Also are neutrals placed randomly on this map or is there specific territories which have them?

[oaktown]

Masagascar needs the extra tint and I agree that Oceania bonus is a bit rich considering how easy it is to expand into South Asia after 1 or 2 turns holding it. Can you change the bonuses during the beta stage of the map, or does it have to stay the same?

Also are neutrals placed randomly on this map or is there specific territories which have them?

There are no pre-assigned neutrals on this map other than Naval Superiority.

Madagascar is on my punch list. Oceania I'd rather see fixed in some method other than reducing the bonus, so I'll give it some thought.

[oaktown]

1am and I'm all body clocked-out from travel... let's make some map!




Here's what I've done...

Inner glow has been ramped up on madagascar.
Alps have been improved, I hope.
"Impassable mountains" not added above legend... good or bad?

The suggestion to put a Japanese flag on Korea and China isn't working for me. The side effect of this would be to make Japan a world power, able to take naval Superiority (unreaslistic in 1910) and bombard lands throughout the hemisphere. I'm not sure now much influence Japan had on the politics of West Africa, but I'm guessing it was very little.

Adding a british flag to part of China to represent Hong Kong was toyed with months ago and rejected.

Splitting New Guinea into two territories - a German and Portuguese colony - was also discussed ages ago and rejected because that part of the map is already too busy. Another territory would be hard to squeeze in, especially on the small map. BUT... what about this idea?? What if we left it a single territory, but put BOTH flags on it? It would make New Guinea very valuable as it would then be a part of three different bonuses, and it would add another defense point for the Oceania player, perhaps making it more worthy of the +4 bonus.

Talk to me.

[gho]

Im glad you rejected the other suggestions, but im not too keen on the two flags on guinea idea.

I dont know about the two flags on guinea. The problem with oceania is early on in the game. If you get lucky with cards on turn 3 or 4 you can be holding oceania at siam and the phillipines. This early in the game nobody is going to use the naval superiority because they are too busy trying to get there own continent, which gives the player in oceania time to take out South Asia as well giving him a two continents worth 7 with two borders at Canton and India with 3 other territories that have a border of 4 (the naval superiority). Putting the flags on guinea doesnt change this, i think it makes it more detrimental, as suddenly the German and portugese bonuses are useless, as nobody is going to be able to get them (guinea is a long way from africa).

How about if you connect sumatra to burma (which you could change the shape of graphically to include a slither of western siam) and connect the phillipines to taiwan (as well as canton). this would put oceania in direct competition with japan with 3 borders, but would make japan worth more than 2, but less than 3, so you could add another territory, the kuril islands, okinawa or some other japanese territory that doesnt connect to any outside territories, so you would have japan with 5 countries, 3 border countries (bordering 3 different continents) worth a bonus of 3.

The Middle East could also do with an extra territory, its bonus is quite generous (or maybe just attach it to one of the horn of africa territories).

[JustCallMeStupid]

Im glad you rejected the other suggestions, but im not too keen on the two flags on guinea idea.
How about if you connect sumatra to burma (which you could change the shape of graphically to include a slither of western siam) and connect the phillipines to taiwan (as well as canton). this would put oceania in direct competition with japan with 3 borders, but would make japan worth more than 2, but less than 3, so you could add another territory, the kuril islands, okinawa or some other japanese territory that doesnt connect to any outside territories, so you would have japan with 5 countries, 3 border countries (bordering 3 different continents) worth a bonus of 3.
The Middle East could also do with an extra territory, its bonus is quite generous (or maybe just attach it to one of the horn of africa territories).

Agree with No on 2 flags guinea idea.
Agree with connecting Phillipines to Taiwan border additionally. This alone should make Ausie a more difficult of a bonus. In the few games where someone gets lucky in Ausie and two idiots fight over Japan... oh well crap happens right?
Leave Japan at + 2 with 3 borders to guard, people will still go for it despite the additional border. Middle East is probably ok with +3, it has a lot of bordering territories on its 3 to defend. Much more than japan.

Extra Extra Disregard all about it:
Too late for this idea: I havent played a map yet where I thought a territory turning back to neutral was a 'cool' idea (sorry) however,I do love your map design, but, Id rather see a -2 or -3 units per turn autodeploy myself.

Alternative solution Ideas for Ausie: Anyways, lowering the neutral from 4 to 2 gives people much more incentive to bombard Ausie early the game. Or if Naval could actually take over a territory then it would be worth taking even at 4 units even if it could only land in Ausie Flags and no other flag territories. But, I doubt anyone will ever actually use Naval territory except for an escalating game to eliminate someone (and rarely). No one wants to take it advancing 5 units so they hope they can brake a bonus, only to lose all remaining, and 5 units attacking anything is never a guarantee, you need at least 7 for 98% shots and then you lose 6 (neutral attack) to brake someones 4 unit ausie bonus? What a waste, better off never attacking navel and just going for the fortified borders at least I believe that would be almost everyone's strategy.

If Naval could attack European countries and advance (hence you can save the 10 units you advanced in order to smash ausie or a flag... then the boat would be worth it. Also, then the idea of Naval changing to 4 neutral after any turn is now reasonable, since you can save your guys by fortifying them. Otherwise keep it at the start of the players next turn, not just anyone's next turn.

[oaktown]

Agree with No on 2 flags guinea idea.
Agree with connecting Phillipines to Taiwan border additionally.

OK, 2 flags on New Guinea - bad idea... I didn't include it on the last update because I wasn't feeling it very strongly, but it was worth throwing out there.

Connecting Phillipines with Taiwan has long looked like an obvious possible addition, but I think it's a terrible idea. If the concern is that Oceania is too strong, why give it access to another easy-to-capture bonus?

I've only been in a handful of games on the map, but my sense is that there are multiple bonus regions on this map that one can secure and hold to gain an advantage. I've seen players start strong in Asia, and my 1v1 win happened because I was able to expand from North Africa into Europe, despite my opponent controlling Asia.

I am of the opinion that the Oceania bonus is the right size IF the Naval Superiority option is a viable one. Considering the cost of using it - forces moved in there are gone - perhaps the best solution is the simplest one: reduce the Naval Superiority neutral value to 3. ??

[gho]

The problem with this map (which also makes it really unique and good) is that everything is linked. If you change the naval superiority to 3, that makes holding all those african continents nearly impossible, look how many flags are on southern african territories.

I got into paint and drew some lines. One of the main problems with oceania is that you only have 2 borders to defend if you take siam, adding these links would leave the owner of oceania with 3 borders no matter how far out he expands. If you think the japanese bonus isnt worth 3 with 5 territories maybe you could link kuril islands to Amur.

Also in regards to loosing all troops placed on naval superiority, could you make Naval superiority able to attack the home lands? It wouldn't do much to gameplay, but would allow you to take your men off naval superiority once you'd finish attacking.

[lt_oddball]

The suggestion to put a Japanese flag on Korea and China isn't working for me. The side effect of this would be to make Japan a world power, able to take naval Superiority (unreaslistic in 1910) and bombard lands throughout the hemisphere. I'm not sure now much influence Japan had on the politics of West Africa, but I'm guessing it was very little.

Adding a british flag to part of China to represent Hong Kong was toyed with months ago and rejected.

Splitting New Guinea into two territories - a German and Portuguese colony - was also discussed ages ago and rejected because that part of the map is already too busy. Another territory would be hard to squeeze in, especially on the small map. BUT... what about this idea?? What if we left it a single territory, but put BOTH flags on it? It would make New Guinea very valuable as it would then be a part of three different bonuses, and it would add another defense point for the Oceania player, perhaps making it more worthy of the +4 bonus.

Talk to me.

**ahum: Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), Japanese fleet bombarding the russian fleet to smithereens in Port Arthur ?
And indeed in this crushing the chinese boxersrising japan and russia supplied the most troops !
Japan by then was already a very considerable power... It was only not appreciated that way by the arrogant aging world powers....

But that is no reason not to look upon the japanese as it should in this map (you already marked them with an "Japanese EMpire" ...then give them more credit).

But the motive is primarily the game concept of allowing bombardment of korea by another naval game superpower.. so to stem that bonus.
THAT is the reason of a japanese colony marker in korea.
(and the same goes for the China area, Manchuria).

What you twisted is the suggestion to allow the holder of Japan to access the NS marker..and that I agree should not be the case ..(as Japan had no aspirations to sail to Africa or Europe..).

** HongKong suggestion: But from those messages there was no proper reason given not to do it.
Only reasons were "HongKong Island drawing on this map is too small...thus not practical to put a colony marker on.
But that is not the problem.. keep shanghai, keep that name..but mark that with the british colony marker.
Or call it "Shanghai-HK".

*** 2 flags on one territory ? Didn't know that was possible. Yeah , of course that is good.

**** previous suggestion OK:
Japan +Kurillen, +1 bonus, link with Philippines, link Somalia to Arabia (Jemen straights is narrow),
previous suggestion not ok
link Sumatra with Burma (realistically too far..then better have Borneo linked to Vietnam), changes to NS (keep it 4..it is pretty balanced).

Everybody should know that you can hit and use the NS to bombard Asian empires in the making ANYTIME when you have one european colonizer...you don't have to "wait" until you control all of europe.
In fact I did it often and I see others did so too that when you notice (fog war) that in the east or in africa someone is gaining bonusses then you must hit that player first before finishing off the european field.


******
What about rhodesia..please remove that colony marker... for gameplay sake..Like Congo it provides a safehaven for troops to reposses the coastal colonies once they are obliterated.
And indeed no navy ship has reached rhodesia (center) to do any harm...(that's why mobutu feels very secure.. ;S )

[JustCallMeStupid]

But that is no reason not to look upon the japanese as it should in this map (you already marked them with an "Japanese EMpire" ...then give them more credit).
**** previous suggestion OK:
Japan +Kurillen, +1 bonus, link with Philippines, link Somalia to Arabia (Jemen straights is narrow),
previous suggestion not ok
link Sumatra with Burma (realistically too far..then better have Borneo linked to Vietnam), changes to NS (keep it 4..it is pretty balanced).
******What about rhodesia..please remove that colony marker... for gameplay sake..Like Congo it provides a safehaven for troops to reposses the coastal colonies once they are obliterated.
And indeed no navy ship has reached rhodesia (center) to do any harm...(that's why mobutu feels very secure.. ;S )

Wow, Odd you are completely revamping the map?
Ive only played a few team games on the map and a couple of standard/terminator games. I still think changing the naval superiority to 3 OR allowing people to fort their units off of it would help circumvent the Oceana advantage. I still think the double flag idea and then adding additional territories to Japan to make it worth 3 units complicates a complicated map further. I think it is all ready an intriguing map and concept, and some minor tweaks would be best before adding territories and removing/adding flags. Ya Rhodesia is not on the coast I dont have an opinion whether the flag should or shouldnt be removed. I think lowering the NS to 3 is a good place to start Ill continue to tell my friends that you need some feedback for the map.

[MrBenn]

I'd support the addition of another target fro the Naval Superiority vessel in China (and possibly Japan)...

[vonunruh]

I have only played 4 games so far but the issues I see are:

Japan basically becomes an extra bonus for whomever can get China. I was thinking connect Taiwan to Phillipines and make Japan worth 3 to prevent that, but I see other posters are concerned that Oceania is too powerful. I have not experienced that in my games.

France and British bonuses are too hard to get, at least in large 6-8 player games. Perhaps have colonies able to attack the home country and vice versa?

Having bombardable territories in Japan and/or China would balance the map out a bit...though once a player is able to secure Africa it is already hard to stop them. The idea of being able to bombard African colonies is nice but in practical terms that is harder to bring about, because to do so you have to load up on an isolated European territory, expend a lot of troops attacking, with no direct benefit. Again, having colonies be able to attack home countries and vice versa might help that.

Love the map!

[oaktown]

Japan basically becomes an extra bonus for whomever can get China. I was thinking connect Taiwan to Phillipines and make Japan worth 3 to prevent that

Really? I haven't seen a game in which a player takes China before somebody can take Japan - my original concern was more that China would become an extra bonus for whomever is lucky enough to start with Japan, but i haven't seen this brought up as a problem.

...I see other posters are concerned that Oceania is too powerful. I have not experienced that in my games.

Neither have I.

France and British bonuses are too hard to get, at least in large 6-8 player games. Perhaps have colonies able to attack the home country and vice versa?

British and French colonies are hard to hold, but that's kind of the point of the map - big empire = big investment. And we toyed with the idea of letting the colonies hit back somehow, but it just wasn't realistic. Losing a colony certainly weakened the European powers economically, but never did an overseas colony physically take over and rule its European overlords.

Having bombardable territories in Japan and/or China would balance the map out a bit...though once a player is able to secure Africa it is already hard to stop them. The idea of being able to bombard African colonies is nice but in practical terms that is harder to bring about, because to do so you have to load up on an isolated European territory, expend a lot of troops attacking, with no direct benefit. Again, having colonies be able to attack home countries and vice versa might help that.

Right, I'm hearing it both ways - I'm hearing that the naval superiority is too costly and doesn't come into play very much, AND I'm hearing that I should add colonies because it would really weaken Japan and China.

Any one change we make at this point it will have an impact on something else. For instance, adding a bombardable colony flag in China will make it weaker, but it will also make Oceania stronger because its nearest neighbor will be more vulnerable. Adding a link between Oceania and Japan gives each region one more neighbor to worry about, but it also gives each of those regions an easy path to conquer another small, relatively isolated bonus region. Just imaging if South America and Oceania were connected in the Classic map - the player who gets the first bonus will easily swoop in and grab the second bonus.

Dropping the Rhodesia flag does two nice things: it makes the British Empire easier to hold (though not much, and it may warrant reducing the bonus to +5), and it gets rid of the unfortunate case of Naval Superiority attacking a land-locked state (which wasn't an issue back when we were calling NS a Trading Co). The negative is that i'm going to see somebody say "Rhodesia was a British colony in 1908; you should include it."

I'm also leaning toward changing NOT the neutral reset of naval superiority, but the initial neutral value. Resetting to four is fine, especially later in the game when folks have more armies. But if it started at three - or even two - the first use of the space would definitely come earlier, and it may give the Oceania player cause to defend Java. It's a minor gameplay tweak, but one that could influence the early stages of the game.

[AndyDufresne]

Oceania plus South East Asia can be come terrific---if you don't get massacred by the Bombarding of colonies. If someone grabs Japan and China, they are formidable against Oceania and South East Asia and can keep them in check, much to dismay in my game.


--Andy

[pamoa]

To my point of view there is no need to change anything in this map
the beauty of it is that you have to keep an eye and some counter attack means on both side of the map
like in Waterloo you can not fight to gain your little bonus in your corner and let the rest of the world empty
you have to be multilateral
nice strategic map indeed
again great work oaktown

[oaktown]

thanks for the recent words of support, but I am leaning toward simply dropping the initial neutral value of naval superiority to three, to get it involved in the action earlier. The reset value will remain at four.

[sailorseal]

thanks for the recent words of support, but I am leaning toward simply dropping the initial neutral value of naval superiority to three, to get it involved in the action earlier. The reset value will remain at four.

I love this map but i have to agree, in most my games Naval Superiority rarely comes into play early on or even midway

[xelabale]

I have seen naval used a number of times in my games, and NOT used when it could have been. I'd say that's bad play not bad design though. I like the idea of encouraging earlier use with an initial 2 value, resetting to 4. My initial thought that gaining china and japan would be a big advantage may be flawed (I keep losing from there!). I think it's a big board and like other biggies sheer number of terits can be very effective for troop count. I say don't do a major revamp, just tweak a bit, I really like it. How many games have finished on it out of interest? Where did the winner come from? Hard facts may help decision making. I'll give a brief summary of my completed games if you want (and i can remember!)

[finchboy]

I just played this map for the second time, great work, i enjoyed it very much, however i think i'm right i saying that the the naval sup get neutral-ed at the end of the turn not nesc the round like it says in the text. I'm not sure, the game number was 4692069. Again, what a great map! Loved it!

[oaktown]

I just played this map for the second time, great work, i enjoyed it very much, however i think i'm right i saying that the the naval sup get neutral-ed at the end of the turn not nesc the round like it says in the text. I'm not sure, the game number was 4692069. Again, what a great map! Loved it!

It's a feature of the site's game engine, not the map. Killer neutrals revert back to neutral if/when it has been held for one entire round. If I take it and nobody else takes it from me it will turn neutral when i begin my next turn. It will remain in my possession through my opponents' turns, so they can take it from me if they wish.

[MrBenn]

The strategy you have to employ varies enormously depending on the type of game you're playing (1v1, 8p etc) and your drop. I have to say that I like this map a lot

[oaktown]

thanks for the recent words of support, but I am leaning toward simply dropping the initial neutral value of naval superiority to three, to get it involved in the action earlier. The reset value will remain at four.

Of course, I realized tonight this isn't possible... it's an XML update we're waiting on, and it's held up one of Wid's maps for months. We can keep discussing gameplay changes, but I'm feeling strongly about any one change yet.

Anyway, I'm going to send lack the fixes to the map - improved mountains, additional line of text, bumped-up coordinates for NS.

large: http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r76/ ... ere54L.jpg
small: http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r76/ ... ere54S.jpg
xml: http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/30/ ... sphere.xml

[vonunruh]

All in all, play is balanced. I think it is possible for one player to steamroll early with China-Japan-Oceania, but then it is up to the other players to prevent that from happening.

I think in large games, British and French are not going to come into play until the end game, but that is fine.

Great map, oaktown, and thank you for the responses.

[karelpietertje]

thanks for the recent words of support, but I am leaning toward simply dropping the initial neutral value of naval superiority to three, to get it involved in the action earlier. The reset value will remain at four.

I agree that 4 is too high at start.
I've played one 5 player, and a couple of 2 player games on this map,
and the Naval Superiority only came in handy sometimes when wrapping up a game that is already won, and if the neutral wall would be lower, it might get more involved in the game.
In my opinion, you could even let it drop to a neutral of 2 armies (both initial and reset value).

Also, you said somewhere that no colony ever physically attacked their homelands. However, there should be some way of striking back.
you could make it possible for the colonies to bombard the Naval Superiority.
In sequential games this might be useless (why attack an army that'll be dead anyway), but in freestyle (speed) games, this would add another gaming aspect to the game.

I wonder if you like this idea
KP

[oaktown]

I agree that 4 is too high at start.

Again, other than lowering the neutral reset value to 3 - which I agree is too low - my hands are tied. When/if an XML update comes through we'll reopen this discussion.

you could make it possible for the colonies to bombard the Naval Superiority.
In sequential games this might be useless (why attack an army that'll be dead anyway), but in freestyle (speed) games, this would add another gaming aspect to the game.

This was my original thought way back in the day when we had Trading Companies rather than the Naval Superiority, but as the map changed it was shot down and replaced with the current system. I play very few freestyle games so I've overlooked the potential value of the bombardment, but I'm not sure this is worth adding one more rule to the NS space. It's already confusing to some as it is.