[Official] Classic Revamp [Quenched]

[sully800]

perhaps the 'troop city disks' could be 'troop city domes', in keeping with the globe legends.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, jiminski. Make the army shadows 3D instead of circular? If so, I think that would be distracting and would make the troop numbers harder to read. If that's not what you mean, perhaps you could illustrate it or explain it in another way?

[Nzen]

I prefer no words on the legend, but since people keep asking for one, consider this compromise: you can put two letters on each instead of the whole name. It could be NW SW, N-0* [supposed to be zero degrees] S-0*, & NE SE. Alternately, NA EU AU, et cetera might jive instead.

[jiminski]

perhaps the 'troop city disks' could be 'troop city domes', in keeping with the globe legends.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, jiminski. Make the army shadows 3D instead of circular? If so, I think that would be distracting and would make the troop numbers harder to read. If that's not what you mean, perhaps you could illustrate it or explain it in another way?

No you have it correct Sully, I did experiment by adapting the globe legends (slightly larger than the discs so the troop-count could still sit under and be readable) and placing them on every city. I have to say it looked very cool.. like the cities had a kind of micro-climate Biosphere, a force-field or something.

However, I think that it would perhaps be distracting. Sadly my computer overheated (too much porn running with design software I imagine) and i lost all that i was working on. In light of my conclusion that it may be distracting (though pretty sexy) i will not replicate the experiment.

[sdhillson]

Not sure if you're still taking comments for major modifications to cities, but I'm not a regular and just saw the post. Here are my thoughts:
IMO, Asia could still be improved. A city in China has to be to central territory, not Delhi. I say pick either Delhi or Mumbai to be India, bring back Shanghai or Chengdu (they were in previous versions of the maps) as China, and bump Hong Kong over to Taiwan (of course, then that Taiwan to Novosibirsk connection is pretty questionable). Another option is to bump Delhi to Shanghai/Chengdu, Hong Kong to Beijing, Beijing to Novosibirsk, Novo to Astana, and Astana to Samara (new territory in Russia). The problem is Russia was given way to many territories cause of the Cold War back in the original game so it's tough to squeeze in all the territories that were in N/NE Asia with legitimate cities.

Then there are other small changes like replacing Magadan with Petropavlosk, Bogota with Caracas, and pick 1 in S Africa and bring back Kinshasa.

[The Neon Peon]

Please, just get rid of the compass. It is way too distracting.

[Robinette]

Please, just get rid of the compass. It is way too distracting.

You know... i tend to agree with this...

Since there have been no official comments about the suggestion of making the compass more "Classic" (putting the CC star in a circle and adding just a few fine compass lines),,, then perhaps just the CC Star, down in the left corner, to balance the ghostie sully thing...

[sully800]

Not sure if you're still taking comments for major modifications to cities, but I'm not a regular and just saw the post. Here are my thoughts:
IMO, Asia could still be improved. A city in China has to be to central territory, not Delhi. I say pick either Delhi or Mumbai to be India, bring back Shanghai or Chengdu (they were in previous versions of the maps) as China, and bump Hong Kong over to Taiwan (of course, then that Taiwan to Novosibirsk connection is pretty questionable). Another option is to bump Delhi to Shanghai/Chengdu, Hong Kong to Beijing, Beijing to Novosibirsk, Novo to Astana, and Astana to Samara (new territory in Russia). The problem is Russia was given way to many territories cause of the Cold War back in the original game so it's tough to squeeze in all the territories that were in N/NE Asia with legitimate cities.

Then there are other small changes like replacing Magadan with Petropavlosk, Bogota with Caracas, and pick 1 in S Africa and bring back Kinshasa.

Thanks for your interest in the map!

I'm still willing to change cities, and a lot of your suggestions are okay (perfectly possible) but they don't seem to have clear reasons. Why Caracas instead of Bogota? Bogota is much bigger and better known in my opinion. (Caracas is the largest city in Venezuela, I know, but I don't want to choose cities simply because they come from the countries that were arbitrarily chosen for some other map ).

As for another city in China instead of India? Shanghai would be my favorite choice, but it is in a pretty cramped region. I think Delhi is a better choice than a lesser known city like Chengdu, though that is just an opinion. In the end we can go back and forth on many city options (and have) without actually improving the map, which is a shame. But as I said, if there are good and clear reasons to swap cities I will still listen.

I notice that Mumbai is awfully far into the ocean with no real need, so I will bump that in toward the land a bit for the next draft.

Please, just get rid of the compass. It is way too distracting.

You know... i tend to agree with this...

Since there have been no official comments about the suggestion of making the compass more "Classic" (putting the CC star in a circle and adding just a few fine compass lines),,, then perhaps just the CC Star, down in the left corner, to balance the ghostie sully thing...

I can get rid of the compass, but I do like it for balance of the bottom of the map. I like the compass rose with triangular points, instead of the straight lines that Robin suggested, because it fits nicely with the points of the CC star. Despite that, I'd be okay with scrapping the compass and keeping the CC logo itself. Most compasses on maps are unnecessary because almost all maps are oriented the same way!

[pamoa]

I can get rid of the compass, but I do like it for balance of the bottom of the map. I like the compass rose with triangular points, instead of the straight lines that Robin suggested, because it fits nicely with the points of the CC star. Despite that, I'd be okay with scrapping the compass and keeping the CC logo itself. Most compasses on maps are unnecessary because almost all maps are oriented the same way!

another possibility is to split the Europe - Africa / Asia - Oceania globe in two
so you have 3 globes and fill equally the bottom of your map

[john9blue]

^ Very good idea. ^

I've sort of disliked the globes because they seem imbalanced (both being circles, but one has 2 and the other has 4). Splitting the right one up into two makes brings much more balance to the map overall, without the need for a compass.

[ender516]

I can get rid of the compass, but I do like it for balance of the bottom of the map. I like the compass rose with triangular points, instead of the straight lines that Robin suggested, because it fits nicely with the points of the CC star. Despite that, I'd be okay with scrapping the compass and keeping the CC logo itself. Most compasses on maps are unnecessary because almost all maps are oriented the same way!

another possibility is to split the Europe - Africa / Asia - Oceania globe in two
so you have 3 globes and fill equally the bottom of your map

Yes, then the natural split and position of the globes is

• The Americas in the South Pacific,
• Europe/Africa in the South Atlantic, and
• Asia/Oceania in the Indian Ocean.

Each mini-globe is then down and to the left of the corresponding region of the main map. I'd love to see a version like that.

[sully800]

Can do! I didn't originally want to split Europe and Asia since they are really a continuous land mass, but I'll just rotate the globe so each bonus is in the center of that particular legend.

[sdhillson]

sully,
Thanks for the reply. If you want some elaboration on why some of my recommended changes should be made, I'm happy to explain further. In general, modern geopolitics is the main reason (after all, population can't be the only reason since some cities have to be included simply because of geography).

The main area to address is Asia. With Delhi being the current center of Asia, that results in there being no connection with China and SE Asia which is confounding considering China's dominance in the region. The solution to this is to keep Mumbai (I'll explain why later), bump Delhi to Hong Kong (which I think is OK instead of Shanghai because it gives some space from Beijing and hints at England's colonialism), Hong Kong to Beijing, Beijing to Yakutsk (making Yakutsk the new hub of NE Asia), and Yakutsk to Norilsk (a city in far northern Russia filling a relatively empty spot on the board). The tough part then is the connection from Norilsk to Petropavlovsk, but just fudge Norilsk a little further east and Yakutsk and little south and it should be OK. (Petropavlovsk should be chosen instead of Magadan because it is has a Russian submarine base and has direct access to the Pacific making for a more logical connection with Anchorage.) One final thought on Asia, with Mumbai in southern India, you could move Tehran to Kashmir (Islamabad or Lahore if you want exact cities), which highlights the angst between India and Pakistan in that region and is closer to Afghanistan to justify the connection with Moscow (the war in the 80's). On a personal note, in college someone from Pakistan was actually mad that Pakistan was part of India in the original game, so adding Kashmir would satisfy him.

In Africa, South Africa is not that major a player and including Kinshasa gives a nod to a lot of the instability in central Africa. Along those lines, Mogadishu might be a better choice for E Africa because of the piracy and again, sea access. However, E Africa is the hub, so Nairobi being a little more centralized might be better, but this change is way down on the list.

Finally, In the case of Caracas over Bogota, Venezuela is a much larger player in global affairs (mainly because of the power that comes with being an oil exporter) and has sea access.

Hope these explanations are helpful.

[lackattack]

Caracas is the largest city in Venezuela, I know, but I don't want to choose cities simply because they come from the countries that were arbitrarily chosen for some other map

Actually, I beg to differ. Other things being equal, I think it's preferable to choose cities that come from countries in the original Classic because that could make this revamp more recognizeable.

[stahrgazer]

Check it out! Pretty high quality, though I'm sure that means the file size is ridiculous or something



I wish it were a bit smoother (it's currently 38 separate images) and there is a bit of a jump as Australia leaves the map, which is the point the loop repeats. IF there is a groundswell of enthusiasm for such an image, I will put more work into smoothing it out (more pictures, bigger files, more hours nudging and warping and pasting!) But of course, I don't want to do that work until I know if people like it, and the distraction concerns are outweighed by coolness concerns. If not, and distraction is still an issue, I am more than willing to scrap the animation.

What about scrapping it for the map, but using it for CC front page?

[sully800]

Caracas is the largest city in Venezuela, I know, but I don't want to choose cities simply because they come from the countries that were arbitrarily chosen for some other map

Actually, I beg to differ. Other things being equal, I think it's preferable to choose cities that come from countries in the original Classic because that could make this revamp more recognizeable.

I agree, all things being equal. Hence Tokyo is my choice instead of Seoul, and several other examples.

The problem comes with recognizability of cities. I think more players would be able to find Bogota on a map than Caracas, which means choosing the correct city from the drop down is easier without having to reference the map. This assumption could be wrong, but I personally wouldn't have recognized Caracas as being in Venezuela while I would be able to find Bogota in Colombia. How does everyone else feel?

[MrBenn]

What are the names of the bonus zones ? I was under the impression they have to named even with a minimap-- for obvious reasons.

Well we can see what lack or Mr Benn thinks about that. I personally think it is worth reducing the clutter because you can look at the map and know the names of the bonus regions. For maps where everyone doesn't know those names at the beginning, I'd agree with you that labeling is necessary.

I'd be inclined to err on the side of keeping region names on the map if possible.

As for the compass and globes, I'd reiterate what somebody else said - this is your map... One thing I notices about the compass rose, was that some of the shading appears to be a bit off - if you look at the shading on the CC star, you can see that the light source isn't directly up - but is slightly off to one side. By switching some of the shadows around, it will gel more closely with the star in the middle - although this won;t do anything to appease those who think it looks out of place in any case.

With regards to city placement, I don;t have anything else constructive to add.

[saaimen]

In my case, Caracas immediately rang a bell. For Bogota I was like "Hmm, wait, where is that again...?" I did guess Colombia

You see, you won't please everyone with either as you can't tell how many people will know one or the other. So I think you should either choose to stay close to classic Risk, or go for current geographical & economic importance. That's your decision to make, I'm afraid...

[Peter Gibbons]

Caracas is the largest city in Venezuela, I know, but I don't want to choose cities simply because they come from the countries that were arbitrarily chosen for some other map

Actually, I beg to differ. Other things being equal, I think it's preferable to choose cities that come from countries in the original Classic because that could make this revamp more recognizeable.

I'm going to disagree with this and side with sully.

The problem with this line of thinking is twofold:

1) The original board has regions with one country name that would clearly encompass more than just that country. So, taking the example being debated, Caracas and Bogota would both land in the territory that's referred to as "Venezuela" on the other board. So, just because that other board picked these names decades ago means that other larger and more important cities that aren't in those real-life countries can't be included in the map? I don't see the reason for implementing such a restriction. I ESPECIALLY don't see it because only in certain areas of the old map are countries even used as region names. So, for example, we have "Northern Europe." That general description allows for cities to be selected from about 7 different countries (at minimum, Berlin, Amsterdam, Brussels, Copenhagen, Vienna, Budapest, Prague would all be acceptable here). But because someone chose "Venezuela" instead of "Northern South America" many moons ago... we are now stuck with Caracas? I don't buy it.

2) If such a policy were enacted, then it has to apply across the board (pardon the pun). That means Nuuk has to be in play to represent Greenland. All of Canada has to be shifted around. And Chicago has to be eliminated because only two cities are allowed in the lower 48 United States. Havana is also out. I'm not advocating any of these changes, of course. My point is just that it doesn't make any sense to consider it "preferable" to tie back to the original countries on the other board. Because, if that's the preference where possible, then A LOT of changes need to be made.

I'd simply argue that this started as a "World Cities" board. It's great that it's going to utilize the Classic gameplay. But that shouldn't mean it has to lose it's feel and sacrifice the niche it was looking to carve out. Sully's aim has appeared to be, more or less: "pick the biggest, most important cities in the world, while staying true to Classic gameplay and not crowding the map." I say let him stick with that. There are debates to be had on importance (Mecca v. Dubai), debates to be had on crowding v. picking large cities (see almost all of Asia) and debates to be had on how to integrate city selection with gameplay (Oceania is an example, as well as the Asia-Americas connection). But I don't think we should be adding another hurdle that makes those other three debates even more difficult to hash out.

[john9blue]

Much agreed.

What is the biggest city in Kamchatka? I don't even know. Who cares?

[gho]

I like the names of the cities in all the continents, except for Asia.
I personally would like to see Delhi's dot moved more south, Novosibirsk's dot changed to Lhasa, Yakust changed to Ulan Baator and Magadan (i doubt anybody on this website has heard of this city) changed to Yakust. I dont know if this would be possible, because you might have difficulty putting Lhasa in between Hong Kong and Delhi.

If this isnt possible, maybe change Novosibirsk to Ulan Bator, the capital of Mongolia. The population isn't drastically different, Novosibirsk has a population of 1.4million while Ulan Bator has 1.1million (with the population of Novosibirsk actually decreasing over time). I don't know what you'd change Magadan too though.

[sdhillson]

Let's move on from Bogota vs. Caracas - Bogota is fine. That was not my main concern and it sidetracks the discussion to a single city when an entire continent still needs work. To re-iterate my biggest objection, you cannot have a map without a connection from China to SE Asia (in this case Bangkok). For that connection to exist, a city in China must be the central territory. Hong Kong is OK, but Shanghai is bigger (8 vs 16 million, biggest city in the world according to Wikipedia). Start from there when building Asia. Then the question becomes what to do in N/NE Asia, but I've already stated my case there.

If this isnt possible, maybe change Novosibirsk to Ulan Bator, the capital of Mongolia. The population isn't drastically different, Novosibirsk has a population of 1.4million while Ulan Bator has 1.1million (with the population of Novosibirsk actually decreasing over time). I don't know what you'd change Magadan too though.

Your first idea of adding Lhasa has way too many territories in S Asia, but changing Novo to Ulan Bator is fine with me to add to the diversity of countries represented (i.e. take away territories from Russia). But if you want diversity, I will again advocate for Lahore, which is comparable in population to Delhi (10 vs. 12 million) and brings Pakistan in as a new country. Of course, that would involve losing Tehran (8 mil) since the central territory that was Delhi got moved to China if I get my way. One, good reason Tehran could be removed though is that Iran and Turkey border one another, so a connection between Istanbul and Tehran would make more sense than Moscow-Dubai; so moving Tehran to Lahore removes that situation. If you really want to keep Tehran, move Astana to Lahore, Delhi to Hong Kong, Hong Kong to Beijing, Beijing to Ulan Bator and Novo to Astana.

[ender516]

I'd simply argue that this started as a "World Cities" board. It's great that it's going to utilize the Classic gameplay. But that shouldn't mean it has to lose it's feel and sacrifice the niche it was looking to carve out. Sully's aim has appeared to be, more or less: "pick the biggest, most important cities in the world, while staying true to Classic gameplay and not crowding the map." I say let him stick with that. There are debates to be had on importance (Mecca v. Dubai), debates to be had on crowding v. picking large cities (see almost all of Asia) and debates to be had on how to integrate city selection with gameplay (Oceania is an example, as well as the Asia-Americas connection). But I don't think we should be adding another hurdle that makes those other three debates even more difficult to hash out.

I agree with this. While I was watching the earlier development of this map, I did not get the impression that it was intended to replace Classic Shapes or Classic Art, nor that sully aspired to that. It looked like a map which would be pleasant to look at with virtually unobjectionable gameplay. But now, in order to tread closer to that other board (which strikes me as unwise anyway) we have lost the split-Atlantic novelty, and we are curtailing sully's creative flow more and more for less and less. Peter's three debates seem important enough. Perhaps now is the time to say that these are the only debates to be resolved. It is certainly time to set an agenda so that when the scheduled topics are resolved, we will know that we are done. Otherwise, people will forever claim "this is the flagship map, so we must discuss this issue", and this discussion will drag on indefinitely.

[nesterdude]

Guys
I know youv'e put a lot of work into this, but we're going to need actual territories w/ boarder for this to work. This rail/bubble with lines connecting isn't cutting it.
Sorry just my 2 cents.

[john9blue]

Guys
I know youv'e put a lot of work into this, but we're going to need actual territories w/ boarder for this to work. This rail/bubble with lines connecting isn't cutting it.
Sorry just my 2 cents.

- That's your opinion.

- That would be dangerously close to the board game version.

[sully800]

Guys
I know youv'e put a lot of work into this, but we're going to need actual territories w/ boarder for this to work. This rail/bubble with lines connecting isn't cutting it.
Sorry just my 2 cents.

- That's your opinion.

- That would be dangerously close to the board game version.

And it also makes no sense since the entire premise of this map is that we are using cities. My goal from the start has been to make a map of important world cities. Cities are distinct points, not regions or territories, so the current construction is the only system that makes sense.

Thanks for the well thought out post Sultan!

Shanghai instead of Hong Kong is fine by me. Both are certainly world cities (by any definition). Shanghai will end up being much closer to Beijing/Tokyo, but it should fit. The real space problem was trying to include both Hong Kong and Shanghai at the same time.

Population stats (in millions)

Shanghai/Hong Kong
Metro area: 16,65/15,80
Urban area: 14,65/7,00
City proper: 13,83/7,00

Metro area makes the most sense to me for population definition, so that's what I've been using in my comparisons thus far. It's interesting how much larger Shanghai is in the other two criteria (and notably, it is first or second by the city proper metric, back and forth with Mumbai).

I agree with this. While I was watching the earlier development of this map, I did not get the impression that it was intended to replace Classic Shapes or Classic Art, nor that sully aspired to that. It looked like a map which would be pleasant to look at with virtually unobjectionable gameplay. But now, in order to tread closer to that other board (which strikes me as unwise anyway) we have lost the split-Atlantic novelty, and we are curtailing sully's creative flow more and more for less and less. Peter's three debates seem important enough. Perhaps now is the time to say that these are the only debates to be resolved. It is certainly time to set an agenda so that when the scheduled topics are resolved, we will know that we are done. Otherwise, people will forever claim "this is the flagship map, so we must discuss this issue", and this discussion will drag on indefinitely.

I would just like to point out that my aspirations for making this map are being met, though I was admittedly deceptive about that in the World Cities thread.

To re-iterate my biggest objection, you cannot have a map without a connection from China to SE Asia (in this case Bangkok).

Why not? I'm really confused about this mentality. If you insist of having a city in China represent a territory on a different map that is called China, then with that same brush you will also lose Beijing and Chicago and add unknown cities to Canada and Eastern Russia and Madagascar and other places that would make the map much less enjoyable to play (because searching for territories in drop down boxes is not fun for anyone).

For that connection to exist, a city in China must be the central territory. Hong Kong is OK, but Shanghai is bigger (8 vs 16 million, biggest city in the world according to Wikipedia). Start from there when building Asia. Then the question becomes what to do in N/NE Asia, but I've already stated my case there.

If this isnt possible, maybe change Novosibirsk to Ulan Bator, the capital of Mongolia. The population isn't drastically different, Novosibirsk has a population of 1.4million while Ulan Bator has 1.1million (with the population of Novosibirsk actually decreasing over time). I don't know what you'd change Magadan too though.

Your first idea of adding Lhasa has way too many territories in S Asia, but changing Novo to Ulan Bator is fine with me to add to the diversity of countries represented (i.e. take away territories from Russia). But if you want diversity, I will again advocate for Lahore, which is comparable in population to Delhi (10 vs. 12 million) and brings Pakistan in as a new country. Of course, that would involve losing Tehran (8 mil) since the central territory that was Delhi got moved to China if I get my way. One, good reason Tehran could be removed though is that Iran and Turkey border one another, so a connection between Istanbul and Tehran would make more sense than Moscow-Dubai; so moving Tehran to Lahore removes that situation. If you really want to keep Tehran, move Astana to Lahore, Delhi to Hong Kong, Hong Kong to Beijing, Beijing to Ulan Bator and Novo to Astana.

I'll think more about these types of drastic changes later. The problem is when you start suggesting switches for 5+ cities I have to actually go through and rearrange the whole map and change all the labels and try to make the connections fit. Often times these changes are very negative with regards to spacing/visibility, and even if the new result is fine someone else will come along and say "I liked it better the other way" or "That's good, now let's try this..." I don't want to say that I won't change the map any more, but I'm reluctant to do so without a good reason (ie there must be something wrong with the current layout).

I agree with setting objectives so we can know when to stop debating cities. After all, the choices have been flowing for about 10 months now, and trying to meet everyone's unique wishes is a headache. I know I set myself up for a lot of this by trying to listen to everyone's suggested switches in the past.

Before deciding if the current cities satisfy the objectives, let me just lay out the goals of city selection (in order):
[list=][*]Recognizable names. This is a high priority for me, because it affects how user friendly the map is and also relates to how important that particular city is.
[*]Legibility/spacing. Also a high priority because it affects the gameplay. If the cities are too cramped to read, or the army shadows get mashed together then the map will not function properly.
[*]Choosing an "important" city. This is similar to the first point, but it has been my criteria for deciding individual swaps. If both cities are well known (Shanghai vs. Hong Kong is a good example) then population and other factors influence the decision
[*]Picking cities from their corresponding Classic countries. This is an important consideration when possible, but I am not willing to sacrifice any of the previous objectives so that we can get Antananarivo onto the map, for example. [/list]

So which cities currently don't work? I am pretty satisfied with all the current layouts, but especially NAmerica, SAmerica, Europe and Oceania. The only argument I've liked so far is excluding Magadan, because it is not very recognizable. And hence, the problem with including even MORE Eastern russia cities. The good factor for Magadan is that it is within Kamchatka which seems to be everyone's favorite territory.

So if you specifically disagree with Magadan being included (or any other city for that matter) please state specifically why and exactly how you would like to see the map changed. Before doing this, make sure the new cities would be at least as far apart as the current cities so that all of the labels and shadows and everything else will still work. If you tell me that all of these things have been considered, then I will read through the suggestion and try to make it work if it seems positive to me.