The Atlantic

[edbeard]

first let me say although I'm placing this in the ideas section, I'm not necessarily not developing this map but I'm not necessarily developing this map either.


mibi mentioned how he thought a map where the focus of a map is on the Atlantic. we'd have territories in North and South America, Europe and Africa where the path from one land to another all goes through the Atlantic.

Here's an image that I think matches up well with that idea (it needs to be slightly shorter ('bout 70px))

Click image to enlarge.

If you were making a classic-style map, how would you go about this?

1. What would be your continents?

2. Where would your land-sea connections go?

3. Would you go back in time or use present day?

4. How many territories should we shoot for (a range)?

[captainwalrus]

1 The bonuses could be N. America, S. America, Nordic regions (Greenland Iceland and Scandinavia) , Europe, N. Africa and S. Africa.
2 Connections- same as classic (N.Africa to Brazil, France to Britain to Iceland to Greenland to Canada) Then also something like Caribbean is. to The southern U.S and Venezuela.
3 not sure.
4 It depends on how far east and west you go out from the ocean. If you go to about the great lakes in the west and Germany or Poland in the east then I think like 40- 45. If you go less than that then about 35-40

[edbeard]

I guess I didn't make it clear enough. The ocean will have territories as well. You will not be able to jump it from Brazil to North Africa.

Also, we'd probably have to stop the playable area somewhere around Iceland as somewhere around there it stops being the Atlantic and becomes the Arctic. Or maybe we stop right above the British Isles. Someone more familiar with where one stops and one ends can fill us in on that.


I generally agree on your land continents but the real question is what to do with the ocean. North and South? One large area where you get bonuses for holding any X number of territories? One large area that starts neutral and forces players to venture out to find each other.

[Balsiefen]

Maybe instead of countries you could have the major port cities (London, Liverpool, NY, Rio, ect.) and base it around 18-19th century trade routes (and the wars around them)

[edbeard]

I'd need more specifics to give any substantial thoughts on that idea. Right now all I can say is ok or maybe.

[mibi]

I like this idea. Cities could be used too.

[e_i_pi]

Maybe instead of countries you could have the major port cities (London, Liverpool, NY, Rio, ect.) and base it around 18-19th century trade routes (and the wars around them)

I agree with this.

At the risk of sounding like a naysayer, we do already have a map very similar to this in New World. I understand it is a completely different map as it has different gameplay, but instead of making a stock 'territory/continent' map, how about one with some interesting gameplay elements. Here's some suggestions:

• Ports could indeed be used, that are either +1 autodeploy, or "city-states" within provinces, like the NY train map.
• You could have resources points in the middle of the ocean so for instance, Faroe Isles could connect to "Oil", which then connects to Iceland. Each resource point could start neutral and be worth +1 or +1 autodeploy.
• Further to the resources idea, you could use similar resource trading like in Age of Merchants, where you have to deliver the resource to a local port, or perhaps for a greater bonus, to a distant port that has a demand for it.
• Sea routes (a la train maps) could also be utilised, with a full trade routes yielding a bonus.
• Inland territories could be non-existent, with only coastal regions and sea routes.
• One-way attack routes could exist where there are certain sea currents (like in the North Atlantic)

I do like the idea of having maps for pretty much everywhere that exists, but we have so many standard maps. Sure the gameplay on them is simple and neat, but one of the main things that keeps me interested in this site is the variegated gameplay from map to map. Having bombards, crossover continent bonuses, continents-inside-continents, and everything else is what keeps this place interesting

[Balsiefen]

^well expanded there I think.

You could have a couple of inland territories connected to each port perhaps which would be rescources while the city portsports of impirial nations (and some in other areas) could have demands for these items, a different combination for each city (eg London may demand cotton, spices and coffee or something) while ports in africa and the americas will be connected to the rescources. The bonuses could be for holding a rescource, its port, and a port that demands it (eg Cofee, Rio, London)

[captainwalrus]

If you go slightly earlier in the time period to the 1700's then I think the resources idea would work better.
It would be similar to the new world map in that everyone starts out at the begining with just one homeland and has to expand outward. For continents you would have reigions of the same resources. North america could be tobacco and fur, South america ores and coffee, and Africa could be slaves (unless that would offend people). You could get an extra bonus for having all parts of the triangular trade (slaves, tobacco/coffee, then an european port) also.

Proportionaly how much of the territories will be sea territories?

[edbeard]

e_i_pi, your new world comment makes no sense. I think you kinda realize why so I wish you would've just left that out completely because the rest of your post is good.


I'm not sure I like the idea of making this into a conquest-style map. Problem is vague ideas like most people have given don't serve much except for people to say, "that sounds cool." The posts are definitely appreciated but unless someone goes out and gives specifics, they'll just become nothing.


we still really haven't figured out what to do with the sea and it's the main focus of the map but so far only in title. I'd prefer a simple classic-style map but I'll at least discuss some of the non-classic ones that I liked right now to see if people like them as well.

A few things that eipi mentioned were solid at least in idea (I'm not proposing all of them because combined they wouldn't work well and might be too confusing).


1. Inland territories could be non-existent, with only coastal regions and sea routes. This could be combined with cities. Hold a major city and all the surrounding territories for a bonus. Perhaps they have a partner on the opposite coast that gives an extra bonus ala Oaktown's Chinese Checkers map. I don't ONLY seaside land should be used but we don't need Ethiopia or Poland.


2. Sea routes. This would be like Oaktown's trains on the India map which is currently in development.


3. Points in the middle of the ocean giving bonuses.



I'm not sure I like any of these ideas that much though

[Balsiefen]

Heh, shame, if I wasnt so busy on my own project, I'd take up e_i_pi's ideas myself

BTW, I think theres been a lot of specificness concidering this is a map idea

[e_i_pi]

e_i_pi, your new world comment makes no sense. I think you kinda realize why so I wish you would've just left that out completely because the rest of your post is good.

Aww man, less then maximum lovin from edbeard

The main reason I was pointing out New World is that it would be a shame to see this map become something like New World. I was mostly pointing out that there are multiple possibilities gameplay-wise. Drawing experience and ideas from other maps is a good thing, but applying the gameplay of one map to another map that is geographically close isn't a good idea.