Jewel of the Empire coordinates & xml (new xml?)

[Neilhouse]

I like the new mountains but the desert not so much. I also am digging the new background. It adds to the tone of the map without distracting. Very nice.

[Gozar]

Yeah, the new mountains look great. The desert has more of a "smudged" look to me than a sandy one.....

Is that little elephant guy gone for good? If not stick him beside the title.

Looks nice!

Cheers

Gozar

[Contrickster]

Left title (and Elephant) for now.

This update features a new territory name font (last one was Arial!) and different background colours. They are lighter so you can see the background more - does it distract? If if does I can dim it, however I think not...

If in doubt, make mountains look like mount fiji! I don't know why I didn't do that earlier. Hope there is never a Japan map. The desert - some people like the smudge look. But I didn't do it well last time. I've tried again. Any better?

Finally, the sea routes, I want to make them less conspicuous because of the new background, so I've returned to dots, small dots.

NOTE: Just realised I've forgotten "Ocean passage" - you'll have to imagine that.

I'm getting a bit closer (could always be wishful thinking) but I'm not QUITE yet happy with the map. I think it's the desert. Maybe I could add some SHADE behind the sea route? As always suggestions/ideas welcome!

Which colour?

[Evil DIMwit]

These backgrounds do look a lot more cluttered. If anything, I prefer the darker one.

[Contrickster]

These backgrounds do look a lot more cluttered. If anything, I prefer the darker one.

The darker ones were too dark, made map less attractive because it clashed with the territory colours. However they are not direct equivalents as the picture on the above map is at 100%, on the darker map it's at 30%. I still like the above maps at 100% though; the pictures do not make you lose concentration from the board because they are appropriate. Himalayas in the north, palms, ship, colonial battle, Taj.


Do you like anything about the above map. Which colour would you prefer?

[Gozar]

I prefer the darker image, although it makes "Hindus" hard to read.

[Contrickster]

Nothing's sacred.

I like the darker image too.

Any other comments?

Requests for next update

- Darker background
- Dim the picture.
- Work on desert

I prefer the darker image, although it makes "Hindus" hard to read.

Really? Hindus is very very clear on the darker image, as are all the colours. Don't know where you are coming from here. (Perhaps you meant to say "lighter" - ie. the purple one above?)

[Coleman]

IF we have to pick one of those I want the first one where colonialists is actually readable.

[unriggable]

I hate those backgrounds!

The rest of the map is extraordinary though.

BTW don't forget to sign it.

[Neilhouse]

Out of those presented I like the darkest the best. Out of them all, I like the dark blue the best. (Page 10)

Don't forget the ocean passage text, the title, the elephant and your sig!

[Contrickster]

Dark backgrounds: Green, Blue or Brown?

My sig is at the bottom right.








BTW where would the Elephant go? Do you guys & gals really want the Elephant?

[Neilhouse]

The elephant is cool but not really necessary. You didn't mention that you updated the desert, but I like it.

I think I may like the blueish green the best. It's a difficult decision. I definitely like the darker colors better than the lighter ones.

[casper]

Looking good but your "green" still looks a bit too blue to me. It's more of a teal? Try to match the green on the Indian flag perhaps? Something like this?





Oh and I vote for no elephant.

[Samus]

LOL, I vote for casper's green.

And no elephant too.

[mibi]

Brown is by far the best, its most Indian. Allthough if it were a bit more red it would be even more Indian. Indians are all about the red!

[Samus]

The two main gameplay related problems I see are:

1. I count 34 territories. Many people (myself included) believe the bare minimum a map should be is 36 territories. Since you're so close to that number it shouldn't be too much trouble to add 2.

2. Most of your impassible borders aren't really functional as region dividers. What I mean is, look at Thar for example. The desert divides it from Rajputana, but it is still connected to Punjab, so it is still a border territory. Nepal and Bohtan are the only two territories protected by an impassible border.

So I looked at this map on Wikipedia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... po_big.jpg

One of the first things I noticed is that there seems to be a pretty major river running between Hyderabad and Nagpur. If you put that in, it would divide off Nagpur and Sambalpur from being border territories for the Hindus region. Taking that all the way to the eastern coast would divide Eastern Ghats into 2 territories (you'll need a bridge to connect them). The mountains you have already on your map appear to stop at that river on the map I linked to, and I think that works out pretty well.

For the other new territory, you have a couple of larger territories that could be split. Rajputjana is pretty big, but the Hindus region already has 8 territories. My thought would be Sikh Confederacy, although I don't have much conviction about it so if you think of something which would be better to add a territory, by all means.

Another problem you need to address is the Mughals border situation. If you own that region, you can take Punjab and reduce your borders from 4 to 2 just by taking one territory. I would almost prefer it if all of Thar were desert (no more territory there at all), and just add in another territory somewhere else. Being able to reduce from 3 borders to 2 isn't a big deal.

Anyhow, I'll see if I can come up with more suggestions as I think about it.

[Contrickster]

The two main gameplay related problems I see are:

1. I count 34 territories. Many people (myself included) believe the bare minimum a map should be is 36 territories. Since you're so close to that number it shouldn't be too much trouble to add 2.

There are existing published maps with less than 34 territories. What is the case you are making for "bare minimum"? Does this map need two more territories? No. That is your preference not a game minimum.

2. Most of your impassible borders aren't really functional as region dividers. What I mean is, look at Thar for example. The desert divides it from Rajputana, but it is still connected to Punjab, so it is still a border territory.

Impassable borders are borders that are impassable.The Thar desert prevents Mughals from direct attack from Hindus. It also forces Mughals up into the Punjab. If you think a bit more about it you will discover that Punjab is a key territory.

Nepal and Bohtan are the only two territories protected by an impassible border.

I don't understand your definition. The logical definition of "impassable border" is a border that cannot be passed. I've not just thrown in mountains anywhere, there are strategic reasons for everything I've done.

So I looked at this map on Wikipedia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... po_big.jpg

One of the first things I noticed is that there seems to be a pretty major river running between Hyderabad and Nagpur. If you put that in, it would divide off Nagpur and Sambalpur from being border territories for the Hindus region. Taking that all the way to the eastern coast would divide Eastern Ghats into 2 territories (you'll need a bridge to connect them). The mountains you have already on your map appear to stop at that river on the map I linked to, and I think that works out pretty well.

The map doesn't need more territories as it will unbalance the game design. Deccan worth 4 bonus armies has five territories which makes it slightly easier to get than Mugahls which have 4 bonus armies. The incentive to go for the Deccan is balanced by Colonial territories... and the rest of the map. The game is designed that it can be won from three core areas of the map - NE/NW and South.

Also compared to the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra by India's high standards that is not a major river.

For the other new territory, you have a couple of larger territories that could be split. Rajputjana is pretty big, but the Hindus region already has 8 territories. My thought would be Sikh Confederacy, although I don't have much conviction about it so if you think of something which would be better to add a territory, by all means.

34 territories has been thought about. Smaller maps have been published. There is nothing wrong with smaller maps.

Another problem you need to address is the Mughals border situation. If you own that region, you can take Punjab and reduce your borders from 4 to 2 just by taking one territory.

Yep, that's the idea.

Conflict will also be intense in the Kashmir region. Where do you go from there though? Even if Himalayas is not the first to fall, it's a tough one to get when you can only attack down a channel which limits power projection from that region while Deccan, Bengal come into play. In other games Himalayas may be got first and force Mughals down from Punjab, Rajputana into the Colonial lands.

I would almost prefer it if all of Thar were desert (no more territory there at all), and just add in another territory somewhere else. Being able to reduce from 3 borders to 2 isn't a big deal.

Anyhow, I'll see if I can come up with more suggestions as I think about it.

I've thought through this map a lot. I value your suggestions but I would argue this map is very balanced, the admin like smaller maps, and that the borders have been thought through and not just plonked where they are because that's where they are in real life.

[RAMB0.36]

the blue looks the best

[Contrickster]

Looking good but your "green" still looks a bit too blue to me. It's more of a teal? Try to match the green on the Indian flag perhaps? Something like this?

Ummm! Too green I think!

BTW Indian flag did not of course exist during Colonial era.

Brown is by far the best, its most Indian. Allthough if it were a bit more red it would be even more Indian. Indians are all about the red!

I like all the colours posted however I could be particularly persuaded by brown as it looks historical (IIRC Trivial Pursuit cheese for history is brown) & jibes with the desert. However brown is rarely people's favourite colour.

[JoshJ]

Brown looks the best- it gives a nice base color for the actual map colors to jump off of.

[casper]

Ummm! Too green I think!

BTW Indian flag did not of course exist during Colonial era.

True. And yes the green is a bit too saturated on my image. I was just messing around and showing it as a possibility.

[mibi]

you differ with Samus at your own peril. He generally knows what he's talking about.

As for the 'bare minimum', I agree. 36 is much better. with 36 players you will have no neutrals since its divided by 6, 4, and 3.

With 34, you are gaurenteeing a hefty amount of neutral armies all over the place. Up it to 36, shouldnt be too hard.

I also agree with samus that the border mountains and desert are pretty silly how they currently are. I mean what is the point of an impassible right in the center of Hindus? Also, the ganges should be in there... its not india without the ganges. about 1 billion indians will tell you as much.

[darkmagus]

Sikh Empire was actually much larger area than the area allotted to Sikhs - it went as far south as Sind, for example. I'm not certain it would be a greater historical inaccuracy to call that area "Empire" when the real empire was much larger?

At least it would have something to do with reality..

In case you forgot: that area was never controlled by the confederacy.. it was however for a while controlled by the sikh empire.

Why not call it Kashmir, then?

[johloh]

I think you want your background images to only occur in one of the areas around the map...

the way you have it now you have borders of pictures in the centers of some of the oceans...pick one image for each area (ex NE land, SE ocean) and try and stick to one image per area....with some blending in between two touching areas...

[Contrickster]

Thanks for your comments

Brown looks the best- it gives a nice base color for the actual map colors to jump off of.

I agree. Brown gives a historical feel too.

True. And yes the green is a bit too saturated on my image. I was just messing around and showing it as a possibility.

I've tried blood red too but saved your eyes from it.

Fun!

you differ with Samus at your own peril. He generally knows what he's talking about.

I give every comment I receive thought and reply accordingly.

As for the 'bare minimum', I agree. 36 is much better. with 36 players you will have no neutrals since its divided by 6, 4, and 3.
With 34, you are gaurenteeing a hefty amount of neutral armies all over the place. Up it to 36, shouldnt be too hard

I understand with 34 there will be neutral armies but I actually like neutral armies when I play. They add to strategy. Strategy comes first on this map. I thought up the game design first and that is what I take pleasure in. It would be wrong to ruin a great game design, and I've designed the game as a whole, just to prevent a couple of neutral territories.

I also agree with samus that the border mountains and desert are pretty silly how they currently are. I mean what is the point of an impassible right in the center of Hindus? Also, the ganges should be in there... its not india without the ganges. about 1 billion indians will tell you as much.

Just because you don't understand why I put them where I have it doesn't mean there is no reason for them to be there.

I'm not good at art, at graphic design. I am willing however to lecture you on strategy. The Vinhiya mountains are vital. Why? They separate NW the Mughals and Sikhs continents, from the South, for whom the Vinhiya provides a semblance of protection to compensate for the "openness" of the borders around the Deccan.

You need to think of the map not how it will play at the beginning but when the play has matured after five-ten rounds. Only then can you make a map that is both a strategic challenge and gives the player a fair chance no matter what part of the map they found themselves at the beginning of the game.

What I want to avoid over-powering a continent such that games are predictable, and can be won the same way each game. Eg. Middle Earth map is great but if you get Mordor early you win.

Back to Vinhiya mountains -

In many games if the Mugal/Sikh power wants to go south they'll have to go through Colonial territories because the Vinhiya mountains stops the direct route. Or south via Marathastra, which is a key territory that will be heavily defended by Bengal, Himalayan or southern powers.

Without Vinhiya mountains the NW is over powered; hand in some cards and whoever owns the NW will happily go maurading and ruin all strategic play. It will just be any other dumb dice and cards game. Likewise Vinhiya prevents Deccan from doing the same North and, at the same time, gives Colonial territories (Diu) strategic importance, being a spot from which one can attack the Mughal/Sikh powerbase through Rajputana.

In different types of game, such as one that may end up Hindus continent vs Mughals vs Colonial territory, the Vinhiya mountains may be of less or different importance. The main other effect of the Vinhiya is to direct attacks toward Marathastra and Bengal, thus increasing the strategic importance of the NE corner of the map. It's subtle but without the Vinhiya you don't get that.

Ganges is there. So is the Brahmaputra. And the Indus. All three major rivers are named on the map. However it is not a map about India as such; it is about colonial age scramble for India. Modern Indians are irrelevant to this map.