EUROPE MASSIVE Feedback Thread

[mvpoker]

Sounds fun! Can't wait to check it out

 

[flyboi]

hiya! I already said in the development thread of this map that i'm concerned with the sea routes. Now, here's my two cents (for aesthetics and realism - gameplay might be a different cup of tea altogether):

A) denmark definitely needs to be connected to götaland, not stockholm
b) the sea routes from norway should leave vestlandet, not midt-norge
c) where's the faroes? As a stop-over on the way to iceland, f.x.
D) the sear outes from scotland need to leave the eastern shores (except the ireland one) - there's nothing in the west.
E) why does luxembourg connect to bretagne?
F) andorra and luxembourg could be a tad bigger.
G) albania was never part of yugoslavia, so it should either be a neutral or a command of its own.
H) what about a sea connection across the black sea from black sea region to crimea?

There are also some name changes i'd like to propose:

In germany, there are two-letter shorthands for each federal unit (like in the us):
A) northern germany = sh + ni (+ hb + hh)
b) western germany = nw + rp + sl
c) east germany = mv + be + bb + sn + st + th
d) south germany = bw + by

west ukraine should be galicia

montania should be muntenia

northern greece should be greek macedonia

viciebsk should be vitebsk

if you don't agree with any of these ideas, that's fine. I open the floor for discussions.

Ps. And, a real error: In the brief, the bonus for 'cyrpus' will be 'auo-deployed' to 'cyrpus'....

wow!

 

[riskyone]

Sebrim knows his history and geographically. Thanks for mentioning these suggestions.

 

[Sebrim]

thanks both of you for your nice mentions. I'm just a 'Pan-European' with an interest in geography

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

The one thing I've noticed, and I'm not sure the impact in the game as a whole, is that the Troop count gets really high really fast.

It seems the number of troops easily outpaces the value on the reserve cards on an escalate game. It seems that playing defensively can lead to a stalemate and I find the urge to recklessly attack just to lower the number of troops overall.

 

[Shepherd]

While I have no control over the rate of escalation, one thing I can control is the flat rate amount. With so many troops, it might make sense for flat rate on this map to be ten or twelve.

 

[LordAdef]

When is this map going to be released to the us? It's unfair to be advertised without letting us play

 

[masterjskye]

When is this map going to be released to the us? It's unfair to be advertised without letting us play

When it's ready.

 

[thenoahw]

While I have no control over the rate of escalation, one thing I can control is the flat rate amount. With so many troops, it might make sense for flat rate on this map to be ten or twelve.

I think this would be much better

 

[Shepherd]

It is about 3pm Pacific time on Sunday. For those of you playtesting, be warned that I'm about to start re-uploading some of the images associated with this map so things are going to be weird. I'd suggest not taking turns for a couple of hours, if you can avoid it.

If you are on the clock and you have to take turns, clear your browser's cache and reload the map... and good luck.

 

[LordAdef]

When it's ready.

Thanks for that Master

 

[Shepherd]

OK, I've done most of what I can on this map for today. The map is considerably changed visually, and it's 40 pixels smaller vertically to better allow folks to highlight players on the map.

Some things will still be funny for a couple of hours. There's a delay between when I upload files to the server and when I see them appear on maps. Until I can visually inspect the map I can't fix some of the issues around where the highlights and troop containers are, etc. It's playable, but quite funky. Clear your cache and hope for the best - or wait until morning to take your turns.

 

[Shepherd]

Most issues are fixed. I still have a bunch of changes to complete, but the basics are in place. On my end I think the map will be be site-worthy by next weekend.

 

[smi]

First of all the map looks really great!

One small aesthetic suggestion: bold each command borders, it will really tie the map together!

 

[Sebrim]

Hiya Shep! the map looks much less psychedelic, and the sea connections are nice. I only miss the name changes I proposed:

West Ukraine should be Galicia

Montania should be Muntenia

Northern Greece should be Greek Macedonia

Viciebsk should be Vitebsk

And, a real error: In the Brief, the bonus for 'Cyrpus' will be 'Auo-deployed' to 'Cyrpus'....

And what abuot Albania? Shall it remain part of theBalkans command, or should we move it out on its own? It's very anachronistic and historically impossible

 

[OneEyed]

Adding a sea route to the eastern half of Iceland would play well.

I do not know if I saw the current version, but what about this connection?

OneEyed

 

[Sebrim]

While I have no control over the rate of escalation, one thing I can control is the flat rate amount. With so many troops, it might make sense for flat rate on this map to be ten or twelve.

I disagree. One of the reasons people play flat rate is that it isn't a game changer, but tones the luck aspect a bit down. Classic Massive is an example, where flat rate really doesn't change a thing, and this should be the same.

 

[Shepherd]

name changes are still to be done - as well as the brief map, new troop containers, etc. There's a lot left to do on my list.

 

[pyth]

With respect to the renaming of some territories, being suggested repeatedly by Sebrim, i am not sure whether the sensitivity of such issues is realised.
Please allow me to disagree with the "Northern Greece should be Greek Macedonia" proposal.
Northern Greece is comprised of Macedonia, Thrace and Epirus which are counties such as Surrey, Kent, etc. in the UK; hence, referring only to the Greek Macedonia part is rather inaccurate. I could go furhter and argue that there is no nation called "Macedonia", since the formal adopted appellation has been "FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)" since 1992, but this is not the place for political disputes....

 

[Sebrim]

With respect to the renaming of some territories, being suggested repeatedly by Sebrim, i am not sure whether the sensitivity of such issues is realised.
Please allow me to disagree with the "Northern Greece should be Greek Macedonia" proposal.
Northern Greece is comprised of Macedonia, Thrace and Epirus which are counties such as Surrey, Kent, etc. in the UK; hence, referring only to the Greek Macedonia part is rather inaccurate. I could go furhter and argue that there is no nation called "Macedonia", since the formal adopted appellation has been "FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)" since 1992, but this is not the place for political disputes....

Actually, Epirus is not part of the region of the map that's currently called Northern Greece. I agree that this is a very sensitive issue, however, and would be happy wiith changing 'Mac.' to 'FYROM' (if it fits in) and leave 'Nor. Greece' as it is