Nordic Countries [Quenched]

[Industrial Helix]

Glad you got rid of the bombardments. I know this is a graphics suggestion, but anyway, perhaps you could make the boxes that surround the islands of the same color as the bonus region they are a part of.

[natty dread]

Glad you got rid of the bombardments. I know this is a graphics suggestion, but anyway, perhaps you could make the boxes that surround the islands of the same color as the bonus region they are a part of.

That's an excellent idea! Thanks! And don't worry, I think this is a bit of both (graphics & gameplay) since doing it will make the gameplay more clear

So, how do you feel about the baltic islands? Should I just make them normal territories again? It would make the text in the upper right corner less cramped. So the island bonus would only apply to faroe & svalbard.

[iancanton]

Poll Result

Do we need more bonus areas?

You may select 1 option

The current bonus areas are fine. ... 6 ... 50%
Divide Sweden into 3 bonus areas. ... 4 ... 33%
Divide Finland into 3 bonus areas. ... 0 ... No votes
Divide both Sweden and Finland into 3 bonus areas each. ... 2 ... 17%

Total votes: ... 12

it looks as if the most popular option for sweden and finland is to keep the current divisions!

ian.

[natty dread]

it looks as if the most popular option for sweden and finland is to keep the current divisions!

Yeah, just barely. OTOH, half of the voters would like to divide the bonus areas somehow, and the other half wants to keep them as they are. So in a way it's a tie... Still, I guess I'll just go with the bonus areas I have now.

Now here's a semi-update with IH:s suggestion of colour-coded inset frames. Also I did that thing where the baltic islands are again normal territories, and Iceland has no extra bonus territory... I figured this would be the most balanced solution, this way if you take iceland you get +3 (+2 and +1 autodep) but if you want to expand you either need to take n.norway or denmark, you can't use the islands to expand from Iceland. OTOH... I wonder if Denmark is too strong now? But I somehow doubt it. From Denmark you can only expand to Iceland, and I have a feeling that in most games, someone takes Denmark, and someone else takes Iceland... Kinda like SA and AUS in classic.

So ian, what do you think as a mod: is the gameplay well enough balanced now?

Oh yeah, and the update:

Click image to enlarge.

[alster]

God... Just saw this. And didn't read the 19 pages... but judging from the map, did you get any input whatsoever from anyone living even closly to these countries?

1. It's not "Söder Lappland" - If such thing would exist, it would be "Södra Lappland".
2. Why are the Finnish areas named after cities and not regions/counties like the rest? And why are the Finnish names, with the exception of Åland/Ahvenanmaa in Finnish only? Swedish is a constiutionally equal language with Finnish in Finland and thus it would make sense to have the Swedish names for those areas here Swedish is predominantly used (coastal regions in the west and south).
3. "Medelpad" is way out of bounds comprising Medelpad, Ångermanland, Härjedalen and the southern parts of Jamtland. Half of Jamtland is part of Medelpad, more sense would be to combine Jamtland and Härjedalen (since they form one County).
4. "Jämtland" would be "Jamtland". (Jamtland is the second largest region in Sweden after Lappland, now it looks like a little tea pot.)
5. Småland, Götaland and Uppland is, well, just wrong. Uppland takes over Svealand (which is a more prominent region/name), Småland takes over Halland, Götaland is just weird, and Värmland takes over Bohuslän. Skåne can (as it does) include Blekinge, that's fine for historical reasons.
6. The colors are not nice, makes it look like a bad science fiction film poster.

[natty dread]

God... Just saw this. And didn't read the 19 pages... but judging from the map, did you get any input whatsoever from anyone living even closly to these countries?

I live in Finland myself, and I've had lots of feedback from Norwegian and Swedish people.

1. It's not "Söder Lappland" - If such thing would exist, it would be "Södra Lappland".

I'll change that for the next version. The Lappland region had to be divided in two for gameplay reasons. I didn't want too large territories in this map.

2. Why are the Finnish areas named after cities and not regions/counties like the rest? And why are the Finnish names, with the exception of Åland/Ahvenanmaa in Finnish only? Swedish is a constiutionally equal language with Finnish in Finland and thus it would make sense to have the Swedish names for those areas here Swedish is predominantly used (coastal regions in the west and south).

Swedish is an official language in Finland, yes. But as this map features both Finland and Sweden, and all the territory names are in local languages, it would not make much sense in having Finnish territories in Swedish, now would it?

As for Finnish territories named after cities: in the case of southern finland, the territory names are actually named by the provinces. For example the Turku territory is named after "Turun lääni" which translates to "Province of Turku" and the same is true for Mikkeli. In the case of northern finland, there is only one province in northern Finland, Lappi, so unless I wanted to make the whole northern Finland just one territory I had to be a little creative there.

3. "Medelpad" is way out of bounds comprising Medelpad, Ångermanland, Härjedalen and the southern parts of Jamtland. Half of Jamtland is part of Medelpad, more sense would be to combine Jamtland and Härjedalen (since they form one County).

I have had to merge several territories for gameplay reasons. There's only so much room in a map, the small version can only be 630x600 and all the army numbers must fit, also all the borders need to be legible. This places some limitations on the number of territories.

4. "Jämtland" would be "Jamtland". (Jamtland is the second largest region in Sweden after Lappland, now it looks like a little tea pot.)

"Jamtland" is the Jamtish name. I'm using the Swedish name "Jämtland" for consistency.

5. Småland, Götaland and Uppland is, well, just wrong. Uppland takes over Svealand (which is a more prominent region/name), Småland takes over Halland, Götaland is just weird, and Värmland takes over Bohuslän. Skåne can (as it does) include Blekinge, that's fine for historical reasons.
6. The colors are not nice, makes it look like a bad science fiction film poster.

Thank you for your input, but we are now in the gameplay phase so any major graphics alterations will have to wait until the graphics workshop.

Am I to understand you would like Uppland renamed Svealand? That is doable.

Like I said, some geographical accuracy had to be sacrificed for the gameplay to work. Function trumps form, as it says in the Foundry guidelines.

[alster]

2. Why are the Finnish areas named after cities and not regions/counties like the rest? And why are the Finnish names, with the exception of Åland/Ahvenanmaa in Finnish only? Swedish is a constiutionally equal language with Finnish in Finland and thus it would make sense to have the Swedish names for those areas here Swedish is predominantly used (coastal regions in the west and south).

Swedish is an official language in Finland, yes. But as this map features both Finland and Sweden, and all the territory names are in local languages, it would not make much sense in having Finnish territories in Swedish, now would it?

As for Finnish territories named after cities: in the case of southern finland, the territory names are actually named by the provinces. For example the Turku territory is named after "Turun lääni" which translates to "Province of Turku" and the same is true for Mikkeli. In the case of northern finland, there is only one province in northern Finland, Lappi, so unless I wanted to make the whole northern Finland just one territory I had to be a little creative there.

3. "Medelpad" is way out of bounds comprising Medelpad, Ångermanland, Härjedalen and the southern parts of Jamtland. Half of Jamtland is part of Medelpad, more sense would be to combine Jamtland and Härjedalen (since they form one County).

I have had to merge several territories for gameplay reasons. There's only so much room in a map, the small version can only be 630x600 and all the army numbers must fit, also all the borders need to be legible. This places some limitations on the number of territories.

Like I said, some geographical accuracy had to be sacrificed for the gameplay to work. Function trumps form, as it says in the Foundry guidelines.

1. No, it does not make sense to have areas in Finland named in Swedish, like you did with Åland.
2. But that's not a biggie- what concerns me is the widespread geographical wrongs you do. You're basically butchering Swedish/Finnish provinces for the sake of "game play to work". It's really not just "some geographical accuracy" that is lost, it's a lot. If you wanna be creative, go back to old Finnish regions. No need to have 5 regions in Finnish Lappland. It's really not necessary to have areas evenly spread all over the map. Fewer provinces in the north is ok. Some Norwegian/Danish would have to speak up for Norway/Denmark - but Sweden and Finland definitly have to be redrawn. It's no fun to play on a map with really weird borders. Again, Medelpad is out of control, Jamtland is way to small, Västerbotten is not going towards Norway like that, Götaland would have to be redrawn (just a little piece that goes to the North Sea, Småland has do be redrawn.

Suggest that:
- Skåne takes part of Götaland/Småland that is Halland.
- Värmland / Götaland border is changed, e.g. put in the lakes there for geographic accurancy (a lake doesn't necessary interfer with the borders).
- One Lappland is actually ok.
- Västerbotten borders Lappland (not Norway)
- Jämtland/Härjedalen gets its proper borders (Medelpad gets Medelpand and Ångermanland).
- Consider island bonuses (not the +1 if the rest is held) to make the islands valuable.
- Rethink the many areas and the North/South divide. Doesn't make sense. Less is more on this map. Better graphics, better geography will do alot. Get the areas in shape accuratly, then consider bonuses.
- In fact, a better disposition - now it''s a lot of texts/boxes - could allow a lot of territories. This way, it's cheating. Don't butcher the geography. It's really a slaughter.

[natty dread]

Suggest that:
- Skåne takes part of Götaland/Småland that is Halland.
- Värmland / Götaland border is changed, e.g. put in the lakes there for geographic accurancy (a lake doesn't necessary interfer with the borders).
- One Lappland is actually ok.
- Västerbotten borders Lappland (not Norway)
- Jämtland/Härjedalen gets its proper borders (Medelpad gets Medelpand and Ångermanland).
- Consider island bonuses (not the +1 if the rest is held) to make the islands valuable.
- Rethink the many areas and the North/South divide. Doesn't make sense. Less is more on this map. Better graphics, better geography will do alot. Get the areas in shape accuratly, then consider bonuses.
- In fact, a better disposition - now it''s a lot of texts/boxes - could allow a lot of territories. This way, it's cheating. Don't butcher the geography. It's really a slaughter.

You should have said something like 20 versions earlier. You just kinda jump in here trashing my map, disregarding the 19 pages of discussion that explains how the map got where it is now.

However, I am willing to consider some of your suggestions. I'll see what I can do to make the geography more accurate, within the limits of keeping the gameplay balanced.

[alster]

You should have said something like 20 versions earlier. You just kinda jump in here trashing my map, disregarding the 19 pages of discussion that explains how the map got where it is now.

However, I am willing to consider some of your suggestions. I'll see what I can do to make the geography more accurate, within the limits of keeping the gameplay balanced.

Well, I'm sorry about that. Had I seen this map earlier, I would have made a post then. It's not about thrashing. I just think that you got caught up in certain ways of seeing this map and got lost in that. Accurate geography is really important for game play reasons, a good execution there heightens the experience. Balanced game play is largely subjective. Look at classic. Does any one go for the Asian cities? No, but that doesn't make the map unbalanced. Here, you don't have to spread out little fictive areas across the map to make it look like a chess board. Get the lakes into Sweden, redraw the rather crude boundries more accuratly.

E.g. -
1. Lappland / Norrbotten / Västerbotten / Ångermanland & Medelpad / Jamtland 6 Härjedalen - there you got 5 areas that form Norrland.
2. Dalarna / Värmland / Närke & Västmanland / Södermanland / Uppland / Stockholm (capital) - there you got 6 areas that form Svealand.
3. Skåne & Bleking & Halland / Västergötland & Bohuslän & Dalsland / Småland / Östergötland / Gotland - there you got 5 areas that form Götaland.
4. Put in the lakes in there to make the borders and map look nice and you got 3 bonus areas right there.

5. Denmark can form one bonus area (but I would use Jylland / Sjalland / Copenhagen / Bornholm as areas, making it less crowded).
6. Iceland can form one bonus area.
7. Use the old province delimitation for Finland to cut down on the provinces - have two separate bonus areas.
8. Norway - hard to say. North and South looks good, but perhaps cutting down on the areas a bit?
9. Put in an island bonus (Føroyar / Åland / Svalbard / Bornholm), e.g. like on the NYC map.

[natty dread]

Well, I'm sorry about that. Had I seen this map earlier, I would have made a post then. It's not about thrashing. I just think that you got caught up in certain ways of seeing this map and got lost in that. Accurate geography is really important for game play reasons, a good execution there heightens the experience. Balanced game play is largely subjective. Look at classic. Does any one go for the Asian cities? No, but that doesn't make the map unbalanced.

Yeah, I can relate. However, if we take Classic (the old classic) as an example, the areas are in no way accurate, and yet it doesn't matter since the gameplay is solid.

Then we have World 2.1 which is a lot more accurate, but the territory count is a lot higher and the gameplay is way different from classic... and yet, most people prefer classic.

Anyway: I'm going to try to make the borders more accurate for the next version. However, as for your suggestion on dividing Sweden into Norrland/Svealand/Götaland I recently had a poll on the thread about this very issue, and the majority wanted the bonus areas kept as they are now. So unless a lot more people show up telling me they do want Sweden divided in 3 after all, I'm not going to change it.

As for the Island bonus: Åland, Bornholm and Gotland are all part of other bonus areas. Making them into a bonus where you have to hold all islands would not be very useful, since it would be hard to defend. However I'm willing to hear more opinions on this. If more people think they should be made into a bonus then I'll do it.

The main reason for the Svalbard & Faroe being a part of N.Norway and Denmark bonuses, is gameplay balance: earlier, they both gave a +1 autodeploy, but it was noted that this made Iceland way too strong. So this way each Island belongs to the country that actually owns it... Faroe is actually danish territory, as Svalbard is Norwegian territory.

[natty dread]

Version 30, with some changes toward better accuracy.

Click image to enlarge.

Also I didn't put the texture on the land on this version. Just to see how it looks.

[natty dread]

Here's version 31.

The vote said to keep the old bonus areas, but the result was a tie actually - half wanted the old ones, half wanted them divided somehow, so after feedback from alstergren I decided to try something different.

The bonus values need to be worked out again, though.

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

Late Night Special Update 31a

Click image to enlarge.

These will very probably be the final territories, unless someone can point out some very heavy flaws.

Alstergren, I know you wanted the Lappland region in Sweden to be one territory, but I just can't see my way clear to put that big a single territory on the map. Man, it'd be bigger than a few countries here... Besides, it would be weird, since on the other side of the mountains you'd need to go through several territories to advance past the mountain chain, and on the other side you could just take one huge leap by taking one huge territory. So basically, I did put a lot of your other suggestions on the map, so I hope this one thing is not going to ruin the whole map for you.

Everyone who wanted the old bonus areas, where sweden and finland were 2 bonus areas each: I'm sorry, but the solution just wasn't working for the map anymore. I guess one could say the map grew out of them... Anyhow, balancing the gameplay will be much easier this way, we have lots of small bonus areas now that can be used to build a large empire.

A few other last minute changes, removed one territory from Denmark, bringing denmark to 6+1 territories. And it looks less crowded now. Also changed territory names here and there to more accurately reflect the geographical areas. It's kinda hard with 5 countries, each having several region naming systems - they seem to change them every few decades or something... Heck, I live in Finland and even I didn't know we got a new system of administrative regions implemented by the start of the year! I've been going by the old provincial system, although this new system does make a lot more sense.

Anyway, the territory count of starting territories is now brought up to 57, which is a nice number, since there is also some room to add a few territories: 57, 58 and 59 are all optimal numbers, I checked.

Now I also made a special bonus for Gotland, Åland and Bornholm, where you get +3 for holding these baltic islands. Even though each also belongs to their own bonus areas. Which brings me to another point: is it clear enough, which bonus areas these islands belong to? It was complained about earlier, but I think that was before the colouring scheme of the territory names. Either way it could be tough for the colour blind.

Also, the bonus values will have to be re-evaluated.

So these are the points I would appreciate feedback & opinions on the most. 1) the bonus values, 2) the clarity of the baltic islands, 3) the baltic islands bonus. Of course all feedback is appreciated, but these are the main points.

[alster]

I think it looks really good. The lakes are really nice, making the map looking more genuine.

- Only thing I could think of would be to shift Ångermanland / Hälsingland border so that Ångermanland incorporates Medelpad,
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Sverig ... p_Text.svg
- Island bonus is clear (but generally, all bonus areas may need to be cut down to decrease the value of holding a bonus since there are so many of them).
- If you want to add three areas, why not add Karelen for good old times sake?

[natty dread]

Thanks a. I'll think about the Medelpad thing. It might be a good thing, having more room in Ångermanland.

As for including Karelia, I think not... I want this to be a map of modern time Nordic countries. Perhaps if I do another, of a pre-WW2 era...

[alster]

Thanks a. I'll think about the Medelpad thing. It might be a good thing, having more room in Ångermanland.

It's really just a gut feeling thing. Ångermanland/Medelpad tends to be viewed as realted (part of the same administrative region) and deemed to be "central" in Norrland. Hälsingland and Gästrikland is commonly bunched together, sometimes under the term "GH" and it's deemed to be "southern" Norrland (and sometimes not genuinly Norrland...). So for real-life reasons, people in Medelpad I think would be happier to see their part of the world together with Ångermanland and not Hälsingland.

Generally, I'm amazed how much effort you put into this. Again, sorry if I came on too strong to begin with. Didn't mean to sound rude.

[natty dread]

Thanks a. I'll think about the Medelpad thing. It might be a good thing, having more room in Ångermanland.

It's really just a gut feeling thing. Ångermanland/Medelpad tends to be viewed as realted (part of the same administrative region) and deemed to be "central" in Norrland. Hälsingland and Gästrikland is commonly bunched together, sometimes under the term "GH" and it's deemed to be "southern" Norrland (and sometimes not genuinly Norrland...). So for real-life reasons, people in Medelpad I think would be happier to see their part of the world together with Ångermanland and not Hälsingland.

Generally, I'm amazed how much effort you put into this. Again, sorry if I came on too strong to begin with. Didn't mean to sound rude.

Yeah, no worries. Generally, I might sound a bit pissed when I get criticism to my work, but really, it's feedback like yours that is the most valuable.

Again, your reasoning for the Medelpad issue seems solid. I'll change it for the next version.

Then another issue, the bonus area names. I've been trying to use local names for the territories, and english names for the bonus areas, since they are more easily recognizable. So I was thinking, in Sweden I now have Norrland, Svealand & Götaland. Götaland translates easily to Gothland, but Norrland & Svealand are troublesome. I could translate Norrland into "Northland" but that doesn't sound right somehow... Svealand could translate as "Sweden Proper" due to historical references... Another option would be just to give up and use the local names for bonus areas, but I was kinda hoping I could keep them in English, to make the map a bit more easily approachable for the non-nordic people.

What do you think?

[alster]

Then another issue, the bonus area names. I've been trying to use local names for the territories, and english names for the bonus areas, since they are more easily recognizable. So I was thinking, in Sweden I now have Norrland, Svealand & Götaland. Götaland translates easily to Gothland, but Norrland & Svealand are troublesome. I could translate Norrland into "Northland" but that doesn't sound right somehow... Svealand could translate as "Sweden Proper" due to historical references... Another option would be just to give up and use the local names for bonus areas, but I was kinda hoping I could keep them in English, to make the map a bit more easily approachable for the non-nordic people.

What do you think?

Dunno. Browsed the Internet but couldn't find any good translations. According to Wikipedia, Gothia and Swealand could be translations (but they sound awful). But "Sweden proper" comes up for Svealand. Sweden proper, Southern and Northern Sweden would work just fine I think. But I have access to the mother of all Swedish-English dictionaries at work, can check it tomorrow if it says something.

[natty dread]

I have access to the mother of all Swedish-English dictionaries at work, can check it tomorrow if it says something.

Thanks, that'd be awesome.

Unless you can find any better alternatives from the dictionary, I think North Sweden, Sweden Proper and Gothland would be my choices.

For Norway, North & South make sense, since North Norway is actually a landsdeler of Norway which is called Nord-Norge which translates as North Norway. And South Norway is actually all the other landsdeler put together, but since this map only has 2 parts of norway North & South work fine.

Finland, well, there's really little choice here. South & Central Finland are obvious choices, I can't think of any better ones for them. Finnish Lapland is also an obvious one, since that bonus area is the Lappi-region of Finland, which translates as lapland. Of course, Lapland is an area that is composed partly of Norway, Sweden and Finland, so Finnish Lapland should be a fairly accurate name for it.

[natty dread]

Update of the day.

Medelpad merged to Ångermansland.

Here I decided to try a grunge layer for the land, instead of an emboss texture. But now I'm thinking it really doesn't work here. So back to drawing board with that, but that's not important yet, it's more of a graphics thing anyway...

I ran the bonuses of Sweden & Finland through a bonus calc. but the calculator spit out values that are so large, it would shitcan the game balance for sure... or what do you think:

sw.north 5.92
sw.center 6.25
sw.south 5,08

fi.north 4.75
fi.center 4.83
fi.south 5.91

Well, I'm not going with those, I think the current bonuses work better. If anything they may have to be lowered a bit.

Oh, and one more thing. The bonus for the baltic islands... there's only 3 territories, so I'm thinking it might be too easy to drop that bonus. I can't make any of them neutral without screwing the optimal territory count, or I'd have to make 4 territories neutral to bring the territories to 53 again... and who wants that. So for now I lowered the baltic island bonus to +2, but I may have to let go of it altogether.

Here's the image:

Click image to enlarge.

[isaiah40]

I would say to go ahead and code 4 islands neutral. 53 is a good number so there shouldn't be any problems.

[natty dread]

I would say to go ahead and code 4 islands neutral. 53 is a good number so there shouldn't be any problems.

The thing is, there's only 3 of the baltic islands. Then there's the 2 other islands, Svalbard & Faroe, but there's really no good reason for either of them to be coded neutral. And if I were to code one of them neutral, which one?

Anyway, since 57 is also a good number, I'd prefer keeping all territories (Except the capitals) as starting terts. Too many neutrals aren't good for certain game types.

So, how about I just set the island bonus at +1, then it won't be that big a deal if someone drops it from the start. It wouldn't be worth taking either though... I wonder if I should just drop the whole baltic island bonus.

[natty dread]

Version 32.

Not getting any better ideas, I scrapped the whole baltic island bonus as it's easier that way.

Lowered all bonus values somewhat. I think they should be balanced now.

Click image to enlarge.

[The Neon Peon]

3 for North Norway is a bit much, 2 would be better. (taking over 4 territories is rather easy, especially when they are not in the center of the map) Also, the +1 for Svalbard increases the value of the bonus anyways.

[natty dread]

3 for North Norway is a bit much, 2 would be better. (taking over 4 territories is rather easy, especially when they are not in the center of the map)

There's 3 borders to defend though... Oh well, maybe I could drop it down to 2.