Gameplay element I'd like to use in a map

[Ditocoaf]

Well, it's feeling about time that I take another attempt at making a map.

I've long thought it would be interesting to require players to attack through neutral territory to conquer an entire continent. This already happens when a "continent" is simply a set of diverse goals to hold for a bonus, but what if the continent was still a physical location, but with impassables dividing it into two or more pieces?

That line of thought brought me to the following setup:

This would want this to be just a part of a map. The entire "north wall" would be a bonus, but the outer "north wall" territs cannot attack the inner "north wall", or the central "north wall", without going through the corners first. I realize this would make the corners incredible bottlenecks, but I don't think this always has to be a bad thing. Holding the corners would be key to holding a wall, of course.

But my question is simply this: do you think such an element as what I drew above can be used in a map, or is something about its setup inherently bad for gameplay?

[Ditocoaf]

No comment, huh? Well, I suppose I'll just finish up the rest of the draft, and hope it's well-received.

[OliverFA]

Hey Dito. I was about to comment in your map idea, but then I realized that what I can comment is that I don't have enough information about what your idea is about.

Looks like you have an interesting concept in your mind. But I am afraid it is still in your mind and not in this thread. So please, could you explain that concept a bit more extensively here so we can also know it? I am sure that you will have much more comments then

[Pedronicus]

But my question is simply this: do you think such an element as what I drew above can be used in a map, or is something about its setup inherently bad for gameplay?

It's bad because it's no different from chinese checkers or connect 4.
Good maps need a balance of easy to grab bonuses and hard to hold bonuses.
The reason Classic worked so is because every continent was different.

Another mirror image map lacks thought on the map makers behalf and will be fairly shit to play.

Drop the idea before you spend anymore time on making a map that no one plays

[psilotum]

Another mirror image map lacks thought on the map makers behalf and will be fairly shit to play.

The specific gameplay element he is talking about does not need to be part of a symmetrical or mirror image map. Each continent could still be a different size.

[Ditocoaf]

But my question is simply this: do you think such an element as what I drew above can be used in a map, or is something about its setup inherently bad for gameplay?

It's bad because it's no different from chinese checkers or connect 4.
Good maps need a balance of easy to grab bonuses and hard to hold bonuses.
The reason Classic worked so is because every continent was different.

Another mirror image map lacks thought on the map makers behalf and will be fairly shit to play.

Drop the idea before you spend anymore time on making a map that no one plays

This is just part of the map showing just 4 continents (and they would be changed to not be symmetrical). There would be more to the map all around this; I just am looking at whether this kind of area is worth having in a map.

Hey Dito. I was about to comment in your map idea, but then I realized that what I can comment is that I don't have enough information about what your idea is about.

Looks like you have an interesting concept in your mind. But I am afraid it is still in your mind and not in this thread. So please, could you explain that concept a bit more extensively here so we can also know it? I am sure that you will have much more comments then

All I'm thinking about is whether a group of continents like shown in the image above would be interesting in a map. You cannot attack from one part of the continent to the other, without going through an area that is not part of the continent.
Hmm... I'll draw on this to explain more clearly and get back to you.