World 2.0/1 Map [Quenched]

[Lupo]

Why do not make Antartica a unique single territory, giving it a -1 attacking bonus? I mean when you attack from this territory you have to decrease of 1 your highest dice?
Or, if this weren't still technically possible, why do not make antartica a single territory continent with a -1 bonus?

[zim]

Keep all those countries in Indonesia seperate. It always bothered me in the classic map, thirty countries balled up into a 'siam' or a 'kamachkata', and thats what makes this map awesome: one-hundred and thirteen countries. Keep it the way it is, and split up as many others as readability and gameplay will allow.

Tri:

Keeping Indonesia as it is is my preference as well. In terms of splitting large territories further I think I'm near (or maybe just over ) the limit of how much will fit but the goal is definately to have as close the the 'real' wolrd as screen real estate and playability allow.

Why do not make Antartica a unique single territory, giving it a -1 attacking bonus? I mean when you attack from this territory you have to decrease of 1 your highest dice?
Or, if this weren't still technically possible, why do not make antartica a single territory continent with a -1 bonus?

Lupo:

I don't think the -1 to each (or to one) die when attacking is an option with the current CC engine. The other suggestion of making it a -1 bonus (like the radioactive territories in USApocalypse) is doable but I don't think it's the right thing to do, I think having the continent worth 0 is sufficient penalty for it's harsh climate. I also think making it a single territory makes it into the central crossroad of the map and focuses too much strategic energy there for my liking.


Thanks to both of you for your comments and suggestions look forward to wiping you off the map soon

Cheers,

Zim

[happysadfun]

When I said indonesia, i was talking about the subbonus.
So subbonus of indonesia+papua+Brunei+Philippines=East indies subbonus

[happysadfun]

The two recent map pics----- they don't match.

[zim]

The two recent map pics----- they don't match.

Sorry I wasn't clear; the first one is my attempt to rejig Canada/USA to make the ratio of territories to borders 6/4 or 6/5 versus 6/6 to address Andy's comment. I don't think this solution works.

The second one is intend as a quick reference for discussing the bonus armies allocated for each sub/full continent.

Cheers,

Mark

[Jargo The Axe]

I think your map is awesome. Just create it the way it is. It's masive but I like the idea of a super huge map. It's kinda realistic as far as the increased difficulty of full domination!!!

[zim]

Current (small) version just to make sure everyone is looking at the latest...



and the overlay...



Thanks for all the compliments, critiques and comments.

Cheers,

Zim

[DublinDoogey]

It's looking awesome, I'm just curious about whether the small map in the bottom right is still accurate to the big map. To my eye, mongolia looks to be included in far east, but in the little map its not.

[zim]

It's looking awesome, I'm just curious about whether the small map in the bottom right is still accurate to the big map. To my eye, mongolia looks to be included in far east, but in the little map its not.

Good eye Doogey, it's not included in the min-map. I'll add it in the next rev.

Thanks,

Zim

[zim]

Minor update correcting the mini map by adding Mongolia to Far East and Iran to Middle East which had been overlooked.

Small:




Large:


Looking for any last critical map changes before I start on the XML.

Cheers,

Zim

[edmundomcpot]

is there a reason why iceland is the same colour as moskova, baltics, ukrane etc.

[zim]

is there a reason why iceland is the same colour as moskova, baltics, ukrane etc.

Edmundo,


All of the countries in each continent that are not part of a sub-continent are the same colour, in this case a bright green. If you haven't read the history of this map the Coles Notes version is that each of the continents has sub-continents, if you hold a sub-continent you receive it's bonus, if you hold all of the sub-continents in a continent and it's un-aligned territories you receive the full continent bonus. For example in Europe if you hold British Isles, Iberia, France, Italy, Poland and Germany you have captured the Western Europe sub-continent worth three bonus armies per turn. If you then capture Norway, Sweden and Finland you've added the Scandinavia sub-continent worth another two armies a turn for a total of five. After that capturing Iceland, Greece, Baltics and Ukraine doesn't add any incremental armies (well except for the one for adding three more territories to your total) but if you then add Moskva so that you've got all of Europe you get the full continent bonus of eleven (or six more than just holding the two sub-continents).

Cheers,

Zim

[ZawBanjito]

I want to say about Iceland though, in the small version it takes a wee bit of squinting to work out what color it is. Any way you could make it darker so it shows through the circle better?

[zarvinny]

I don't know if this has been suggested yet for this map, but,

I think it would be a cool idea to be able to play with more than 6 people on this map. Kinda like Battle Royal, but only for this map. How phun would that be?

Imagine, for a moment. one of 12 people vying for complete world domination. Slow and painful taking of areas, slowly taking over africa for instance, one bonus set at a time. More realstic.

Or, 4 teams of three, or even 2 teams of 6 or 3 teams of 4 duke it out on the great wide soil of nother earth.


I'm surprised, also, that this idea wohked out. I saw it at its very beginning and thought "no way is this going anywhere" but I was proven wrong. Shows how anyone can make any idea into a good, playable, creative map.

Excellent Job

[Triforce]

I want to say about Iceland though, in the small version it takes a wee bit of squinting to work out what color it is. Any way you could make it darker so it shows through the circle better?

No, it has to be clear that Iceland isn't part of any sub-continent. If anything the two sub-continents should be of a more discernable color; they look the same.

I think it would be a cool idea to be able to play with more than 6 people on this map. Kinda like Battle Royal, but only for this map. How phun would that be?

I thought about that too and I agree. Phun. Could it work? And, like he said, amazing job.

[AndrewLC]

Is hawaii part of North America?

[cowshrptrn]

no, its part of oceania

[AndyDufresne]

Hm, well since there can't be much done about North America (except removing the connection between Greenland and nunavut to help the border situation up there... )lets look at the other remaining continents quick.

===Africa===
(26 Total)


~~Mahgreb --9, 5 Borders

~~South Africa --7, 4 Borders

~~The Horn --4, 3 Borders

~~Nons -- 6, *****


The Mahgreb looks alright, but the Horn is questionable. 3 borders for it? The route between Yemen and Somalia is a double edged sword. It helps create movement around the map, but specially hurts the horn, which doesn't have a whole lot of strategic value to begin with.

So it seems...

Southern Africa seems to be like one of the better starting points, if you can grab it. Easily knock it down to 8 countries (including mad.) and 3 borders.

The Horn doesn't have a whole of strategic value unless you take Southern Africa to Horn. You can limit yourself to 4 borders and a bonus of 7.

So the strategy here seems to be a 'Southern-Horn-Expand' as 'Mahgreb-Expand' isn't so beneficial due to the number of borders you'd have to defend.

Psst, I noticed your 'Zim'...in Zimbabwe.




===Europe===
(14 Total)


~~Scandinavia --3, 2 Borders

~~Western Europe --6, 3 Borders

~~Nons --5, *****



Europe is an interesting place. It seems to be a decent starting point, compared to other place...comparable to parts of north america and south america.

You can most easily expand from near anywhere...and get a bonus of 11 for 4 borders if you take the whole area....hm...





===Oceania===
(13 Total)


~~Australia --3, 2 Borders

~~Indonesia --4, 4 Borders

~~Nons --6, *****


Australia is much like Scandinavia in Europe. But Indonesia is not like Western Europe. It's got the hindrance of perhaps excessive borders.

The Java - Western Australia connection is important for flow, as is Thailand - Sumatra... I think the problem lies within what are the 'nons' and what aren't. Right now, Indonesia seems pointless to go for, if you only get a bonus of 3 for 4 borders....

I'd definitely look into Indonesia a little more closely.





===Asia===
(26 Total)


~~Middle East --7, 4 Borders

~~Russia --5, 5 Borders

~~Indian Subcontinent --4, 3 Borders

~~Far East --5, 4 Borders

~~Nons --5, *****



Middle East can pass, but it is near impossible to do much, except maybe grab The Horn in Africa for 5 borders.

Russia has the Indonesia problem...too many borders. Is the Irkutsk - Japan connection really needed? Russia is already hurting, lets not hurt Far East anymore.

Far East is intersting also, is the Hawaii - Tawain connection needed? It doesn't add much to flow, as you can get through to Phillipines. I'd consider removing it. If you remove the Irkutsk - Japan connection, you have a much more manage 3 borders for 4 bonus.

Indian Subcontinent is much like Western Europe, but without as many expansion possibilities.

So it looks like...

One a good strategy, and perhaps the best, is the 'Far East to Russia plus Kaza.' If you can manage Far East...and can grab Russia quick enough plus Kaza, you can limit yourself to 5 borders for a bonus of 8. That seems to be the best, then you would most likely be able to expand into the rest of the continent for a decent, but well earned bonus.



As for Antarctica, I support it not being a continent, but rather a traveling route around the world, I'd keep as is. It does seem like the British Claim is near useless though, perhaps consider adding a connection from it to Tierra Del Fuego. That'd help make the whole continent a nice traveling route.


Just some thoughts...I'd like to make sure the whole gameplay of this map is great before we get to all the visuals.


--Andy

[happysadfun]

You should switch the colour of Scandinavia, especially if you add the Baltics too it. It's just too similar to W. Euro.

[zim]

Andy,

Thanks for the analysis and comments. See my responses inline below...

Hm, well since there can't be much done about North America (except removing the connection between Greenland and nunavut to help the border situation up there... )lets look at the other remaining continents quick.

I agree that removing the connection between Nunavut and Greenland would make Canada more attractive but I'd prefer to keep it in for two reasons. First esthetically and for accuracy Baffin Island and Greenland are close enough that I think it would be strange for them to be disconnected. Second I think a smart Canada player will make capturing Greenland a priority so I don't think it will make a significant difference in practice. Thoughts?

===Africa===
(26 Total)


~~Mahgreb --9, 5 Borders

~~South Africa --7, 4 Borders

~~The Horn --4, 3 Borders

~~Nons -- 6, *****


The Mahgreb looks alright, but the Horn is questionable. 3 borders for it? The route between Yemen and Somalia is a double edged sword. It helps create movement around the map, but specially hurts the horn, which doesn't have a whole lot of strategic value to begin with.

So it seems...

Southern Africa seems to be like one of the better starting points, if you can grab it. Easily knock it down to 8 countries (including mad.) and 3 borders.

The Horn doesn't have a whole of strategic value unless you take Southern Africa to Horn. You can limit yourself to 4 borders and a bonus of 7.

So the strategy here seems to be a 'Southern-Horn-Expand' as 'Mahgreb-Expand' isn't so beneficial due to the number of borders you'd have to defend.

I agree the optimal route to getting all of Africa is to start in the south and head north (after picking up Madagascar) though of course it will depend on where your troops begin with the Mahgreb being hard to get initially given it's size but relatively east to expand as I would push Algeria to Libya, Niger to Chad and Nigeria to Cameroon and then Libya to Egypt, Chad to Sudan, Cameroon to Congo adding six territories (and blocking two sub-continents) without adding any additional borders. On the horn I could replace the Somalia-Yeman connection with a Sudan-Yemen link. It's less accurate but does preserve the flow benefit of having two Africa to Asia routes while removing a border from the Horn. What do you think?

Psst, I noticed your 'Zim'...in Zimbabwe. Wink

Wait to you see the special XML that will go with it

Code: Select all

If player name="zim" then "zimbabwe" bonus =+2 else zimbabwe=-2

===Europe===
(14 Total)


~~Scandinavia --3, 2 Borders

~~Western Europe --6, 3 Borders

~~Nons --5, *****



Europe is an interesting place. It seems to be a decent starting point, compared to other place...comparable to parts of north america and south america.

You can most easily expand from near anywhere...and get a bonus of 11 for 4 borders if you take the whole area....hm...

I'm also uneasy about the richness of Europe at 11 relative to North America also at 11. I'm thinking now that Europe should drop to 10 as a bonus. What say you?

===Oceania===
(13 Total)


~~Australia --3, 2 Borders

~~Indonesia --4, 4 Borders

~~Nons --6, *****


Australia is much like Scandinavia in Europe. But Indonesia is not like Western Europe. It's got the hindrance of perhaps excessive borders.

The Java - Western Australia connection is important for flow, as is Thailand - Sumatra... I think the problem lies within what are the 'nons' and what aren't. Right now, Indonesia seems pointless to go for, if you only get a bonus of 3 for 4 borders....

I'd definitely look into Indonesia a little more closely.

Between your comments and Happysadfun's earlier suggestion I'm persuaded to rejig Indonesia despite it's importance in the real world. I've increased it's territories to 6 while keeping the borders at 4 by adding Phllipines and Brunei to the area and renaming it the East Indies.

===Asia===
(26 Total)


~~Middle East --7, 4 Borders

~~Russia --5, 5 Borders

~~Indian Subcontinent --4, 3 Borders

~~Far East --5, 4 Borders

~~Nons --5, *****



Middle East can pass, but it is near impossible to do much, except maybe grab The Horn in Africa for 5 borders.

Russia has the Indonesia problem...too many borders. Is the Irkutsk - Japan connection really needed? Russia is already hurting, lets not hurt Far East anymore.

I agree the Irkutsk/Japan border can go marginally strengthening Russia and removing a border for Far East.

Far East is intersting also, is the Hawaii - Tawain connection needed? It doesn't add much to flow, as you can get through to Phillipines. I'd consider removing it. If you remove the Irkutsk - Japan connection, you have a much more manage 3 borders for 4 bonus.

If we go with the revised layout in Oceania adding the Phillipines into a sub-continent I think I'd keep the Taiwan - Hawaii link as the Phillipines is now less accessible.

Indian Subcontinent is much like Western Europe, but without as many expansion possibilities.

So it looks like...

One a good strategy, and perhaps the best, is the 'Far East to Russia plus Kaza.' If you can manage Far East...and can grab Russia quick enough plus Kaza, you can limit yourself to 5 borders for a bonus of 8. That seems to be the best, then you would most likely be able to expand into the rest of the continent for a decent, but well earned bonus.

Agreed this is probably optimal though I could also see Indian sub-to-Far East, etc.

As for Antarctica, I support it not being a continent, but rather a traveling route around the world, I'd keep as is. It does seem like the British Claim is near useless though, perhaps consider adding a connection from it to Tierra Del Fuego. That'd help make the whole continent a nice traveling route.

Agree, now that I look at the isthmus sticking out of the British Claim it does seem to cry out for a connection to Tierra.

Just some thoughts...I'd like to make sure the whole gameplay of this map is great before we get to all the visuals.

Thanks for the well reasoned input, appreciate it.

You should switch the colour of Scandinavia, especially if you add the Baltics too it. It's just too similar to W. Euro.

Agreed, I've made it a somewhat browner green, hopefully clearer?

Thanks,

Zim

Updated small:

Updated large:

[Enigma]

this map is beautiful zim, i cant wait to play it.
the green in scandinavia is much better- u just need to change it in the key map as well. the only thing is its really hard to see the grey divider lines in between sweden, finland, and norway.

[happysadfun]

That zim code is UNFAIR!

Brunei is in Indonesia on the map but not on the minimap.

[zim]

That zim code is UNFAIR!

Brunei is in Indonesia on the map but not on the minimap.

All is fair in love and war, no?

I'll add Brunei on the next rev of the mini map thanks for the catch.

The URL below is for the XML if anyone wants to double check it or is curious about what connects to what. It seems OK via Jota's XML tool (thanks dude!).

http://www.zims.com/blog/images/wmv1.xml

Cheers,

Zim

[RexRegis]

6 players
Sequential
Standard
No Cards
Adjacent

This would take as long time to play as WWII was for real... :p

anyway, I think it looks great and I'm gonna play it as soon as possible.
but maybe not with those settings...

6 players
Freestyle
Doubles
Flat Rate
Unlimited

I think these would be a little faster...

anway... love thise map and all the work you have put into it.
might even have to buy premium so I can play this map as much as possible.

[zim]

Ready for beta/play testing?

Small image:



Large image:




XML:

http://www.zims.com/blog/images/wmv1.xml

Cheers,

Zim

P.S. Rex I'm gonna go for 6, sequential, unlimited, flat rate