[IDEA] Classic Game Play Philippines Map

[Incandenza]

Okay, I've been having a look over the map, and chatting a bit with shep and wids, and I've got a few gameplay things that IMHO are worth discussion:

1. map flow
Right now, this would be by far the most linear map on the site, and the way the map is set up there are what amount to two superbonuses, one in the north, one in the south, that can be held with only two border terits. A linear map plus a lot of chokepoints will make things difficult for anyonr who doesn't get a north-heavy or south-heavy drop. All the impassables certainly don't help matters.
What I would suggest is having ports or something that will facilitate moving across the map a bit more quickly. There's a couple of ways we could do this. One is two simply have a couple of ferry routes, one that connects the far north to the center, one that connects the center to the south. Something like the first map attached (ferry routes indicated by red lines)
The other is to have extra terits, shipping routes essentially, one in the pacific, one in the south china sea, that function in much the same way. The second map attachment shows better what I'm talking about. Each port can attack its corresponding shipping terit, each shipping terit can attack any of its corresponding ports, but ports cannot attack each other.

2. Impassables
Right now, if we don't facilitate some faster movement about the map, I'd suggest scrapping most if not all of the impassables, as they make an already-linear map far far more linear.

3. Bonus values
I'm by nature fairly conservative when it comes to rating bonus values, which is why I'm really not wild about having 3-terit bonuses be worth a +3, no matter how many borders they have. This could possibly be mitigated with the shipping routes concept, or by tweaking the connections and connections so that every 3-terit bonus has only two borders and is worth +2. Or we could just unilaterally say that all 3-terit bonuses are just +2, whether they have two or three borders (this might be the best path... it's certainly the easiest one).

 

[KungFuDuet]

4th Edition

Okay, I've been having a look over the map, and chatting a bit with shep and wids, and I've got a few gameplay things that IMHO are worth discussion:

1. map flow
Right now, this would be by far the most linear map on the site, and the way the map is set up there are what amount to two superbonuses, one in the north, one in the south, that can be held with only two border terits. A linear map plus a lot of chokepoints will make things difficult for anyonr who doesn't get a north-heavy or south-heavy drop. All the impassables certainly don't help matters.
What I would suggest is having ports or something that will facilitate moving across the map a bit more quickly. There's a couple of ways we could do this. One is two simply have a couple of ferry routes, one that connects the far north to the center, one that connects the center to the south. Something like the first map attached (ferry routes indicated by red lines)
The other is to have extra terits, shipping routes essentially, one in the pacific, one in the south china sea, that function in much the same way. The second map attachment shows better what I'm talking about. Each port can attack its corresponding shipping terit, each shipping terit can attack any of its corresponding ports, but ports cannot attack each other.

I have taken the second option to have a look at, but repositioned the ports onto various "Larger Cities", and increased the number of ports to four on each side:

2. Impassables
Right now, if we don't facilitate some faster movement about the map, I'd suggest scrapping most if not all of the impassables, as they make an already-linear map far far more linear.

About the impassables, the sea routes totally changes the map, and I don't think change in impassables would be necessary now, unless you think differently.

3. Bonus values
I'm by nature fairly conservative when it comes to rating bonus values, which is why I'm really not wild about having 3-terit bonuses be worth a +3, no matter how many borders they have. This could possibly be mitigated with the shipping routes concept, or by tweaking the connections and connections so that every 3-terit bonus has only two borders and is worth +2. Or we could just unilaterally say that all 3-terit bonuses are just +2, whether they have two or three borders (this might be the best path... it's certainly the easiest one).

Here are the new bonus values, taken your advice on making all 3 terits commands +2 and added +3 for each route&corresponding ports:

"EDIT": the shipping route had been miswritten as to have four regions - but it should be five, as it includes the route itself

Thanks, and comments anyone?
KFD

 

[WidowMakers]

I don't think the sea regions will get any bonus at all Unless they start neutral and get autodeploys or something.

 

[KungFuDuet]

I don't think the sea regions will get any bonus at all Unless they start neutral and get autodeploys or something.

When I mean a bonus, I meant a full bonus (ie ports and corresponding route for one bonus)

So,

The South China Sea Route is +3 with 5 regions:
The Route itself, Laguna, Palawan, Sibuguey Bay, and Pangasinan

The Pacific Ocean Route is +3 with 5 regions:
The route itself, Davao, Leyte, Camarines, and Isabela

Note that we can make the regions with ports a double dipper (included in two commands)
if not, we can always just make the port a separate region from the land attackable from the corresponding regions

BTW, personally I think the routes should be renamed to theme (which I think the WWII idea would be quite well used here)... maybe called Pacific Front and South Chinese Front?

 

[KungFuDuet]

Edition 4.1

Stats for Edition 4 of Map:
# Regions - 50
# Commands - 14

Blank Map:

Map Bonuses:

Map with Names only:

Map with Troop Containers only:

Map with Troop Containers and Names:

Any Comments?

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I've been watching the evolution of this map with interest, its really taking shape with all the great suggestions from the mapmakers. I would suggest one thing, using Wid's idea, instead of a +3 for the shipping lanes, can you make a +1 autodeploy if you own them all? That would be a +4 instead of 3, but not a bonus. Or, if this wouldn't make it too difficult to code (not knowing, I suggest things that probably make Evan cringe) make it a +2 autodeploy with them being random, computer-generated as to where they go.

I'd also consider adding a connection between Bohol in Central-West Visayas and Misamis Orl in Northern Mindanao. Central West IS a +5, might as well make it tougher to hold, and this would also relieve the chokepoint/linearity that Inc was talking about a little bit more. With that connection I wouldn't object to putting Northern Mindanao back to a +3.

 

[Shepherd]

A couple of thoughts here...

• Inca nailed the problem of the map being too linear, and I like that you went with the shipping routes rather than the connecting ports.

• I also agree with Wids that the combination of the ports and shipping lanes don't need a bonus. The shipping lanes are going to be powerful enough without a bonus, as it means you can make end-runs around an opponent's natural defenses. Holding one shipping lane frees you from having to defend all of your ports... they'll be similar in this way to the rivers on the South America map.

• In looking at maps of the Philippines, and after some quick searches, it looks like the country's biggest ports are all along the South China Sea... Manila, Subic, and Zaboanga. Cebu looks to be a shipping hub as well, but it's already in the center of things and would just be confusing. The way I see it you could simplify things and just use the three ports on the South China Sea - which you have correctly in Pangasinam, Laguna, and Sibuguey Bay - and lose all the rest. It would add a connection at what looks to be the first northern choke point (Panga + Quirino), the second northern choke point (Laguna + Quezon), and it keeps somebody from being able to hold the entire southern island at just two points.

• Losing the northern sea route would mean somebody could still hold three southern commands with two borders, which is still a problem. But adding one connection - from Misamis to Bohol - makes the southern hold even more challenging without making anything else a border region. Cards also spotted the value of this connection.

• Adding one or two sea route/s means, as you've pointed out KFD, going up to 49 or 50 regions. If they start neutral it doesn't change your starting region count, but if the sea route/s are conventionally assigned starts it gives you some room to play with. Weeks ago you'd added some regions to bring this map up to 48, so now if there's something you want to lose you have the option.

• Losing the impassables entirely is an interesting notion. It's a skinny map with lots of choke points already so you probably don't need them, and it would certainly make the map easier on the eyes if players don't have to sort out where rivers and mountains begin and end. You've alredy got de-facto impassables everywhere that two islands aren't connected. I'm not saying do it, I'm just saying it's worthy of consideration.

• Bonuses are better lower. Like Inca, I don't like a three-region +3 unless it is very significant to the theme of the map. Another thing to consider is what happens when you start coupling commands, but let's nail down the sea routes first.

I think that my overall impression of the latest version of the map is that it's gotten to be a bit too busy, with too much going on. We keep telling you to add things, and you do so thoughtfully, but perhaps now it requires some editing.

here's what the map might look like with one sea route, three ports, and the added connection. I think it's much simpler...

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I like Shep's concept, but I'd like to see ports on the other side of the map, too. As it stands with Shep's changes, you could hold 4 commands at the bottom with only 4 borders, including the E. China Sea port. The ports on the Pacific side of the map have a lot of value in reducing the 'linearity' of the map.

 

[Shepherd]

I like Shep's concept, but I'd like to see ports on the other side of the map, too. As it stands with Shep's changes, you could hold 4 commands at the bottom with only 4 borders, including the E. China Sea port. The ports on the Pacific side of the map have a lot of value in reducing the 'linearity' of the map.

Sure, but KFD's latest version also allowed you to hold four commands with four borders. Like I said in my post, I'm trying to edit - keep what makes the map better, remove what is redundant.

From a map artists' point of view, a single sea lane would also be more elegant, leaving space in the top of the map for titles and legends.

Also, Cards hit the nail on head as to why we need to start considering what happens when you start putting commands together - we don't want places where you get a +8 bonus for defending just three borders.

There's also a choke point right in the center of the map - hold Romblon & Quezan and the map is split in half. Sea Route/s help this.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

From a map artists' point of view, a single sea lane would also be more elegant, leaving space in the top of the map for titles and legends.

Also, Cards hit the nail on head as to why we need to start considering what happens when you start putting commands together - we don't want places where you get a +8 bonus for defending just three borders.

So make a single sea lane including ALL of the ports, E and W. If you put 2 ports on the Pacific side, say on Isabela and Leyte, you could still put the text/brief about them on the bottom, leaving the space on the top for titles and legends.

Also, I agree that considering the 'putting commands together' scenario needs to be considered when making smaller maps, such as this 48-tert map. Not so much on the larger maps. Example: the massive map has at least 3 spots where you can get a +11 for holding 3 or 4 borders. But, on the massive map a +11 is not nearly as formidable as a +8 on a smaller map.

 

[KungFuDuet]

Edition 4.2

Here is a reply to the previous statements.

Naming of the Sea Region
May I get one thing clear - I wouldn't call them shipping lanes, rather I would call them Battlefronts - as I am trying to put the Battle of the South West Pacific into context.

Links and Battlefronts
I have taken into consideration of what Cards and Shep said, and decided upon keeping the Pacific Battlefront. Personally I see the Americans and the Japanese fight on both sides on the Archipelagos, and controlling one ocean front means the reinforcement will be able to land more safely. The ports are placed at where major Cities of Philippines are based on a map I found.
The following links were also added to increase the effort in trying to eliminate linear map problem:
- Misamis Oriental <=> Bohol
- Sindangan Bay <=> Negros Oriental
- Oriental Mindoro <=> Antique

Bonuses
The following Changes are made to the bonus values after a bit of consideration:
- Northern Mindanao +2 -> +3
- I took in Card's idea of autodeploys and indeed making the ports +1 autodeploy each when all held with the corresponding Ocean Front.

Problem in Space
The Pacific Battlefront and South China Sea Battlefront Circles had been moved to Maximise the space available for later artistic use. It is really not too bad when you look at the map - there aren't really that much added into it when you have a look.

The following are the set of maps updated

Map Blank:

Map Bonuses:

Map Region Names:

Comments?

 

[WidowMakers]

OK. SO am I understanding this right?

We are now adding 10 more regions?
2 Sea battlefronts and 4 ports per ocean? (each red and blue dot is a new region)

or

Are we adding 2 new regions
2 Sea battlefronts (the ports are just icons that represent connection from the current land region and batttlesfronts)

EDIT: I got my answer 2 regions. I just need to read first. haha

 

[Shepherd]

If I didn't get it across well yesterday in my lengthy and rambling post (I didn't know it yet, but I was reeling from the onset of a 24 hour flu bug), I will try to make my current concern with this map very clear: what was designed to be a simple, classic play map is becoming really busy. Almost messy. 50 regions, 12 commands, 27 depicted sea routes, eight more invisible/implied sea routes, three impassable rivers, eight mountain ranges, and all of this needs to be depicted on a skinny strip of land.

This isn't your fault, KFD, because we keep telling you to add things. Now I think we've added everything we possibly could and we need to start stripping away anything that the map doesn't actually need. I actually think this map is very close to playable, but we need to keep it player-friendly.

For starters, I can live with two sea regions. The symmetry of it is nice, though I'm less sold on the auto-deploys. They already have significant strategic value.

To date this hasn't been billed as a WWII map of the fighting in/around the Philippines, and if it were designed as such it would probably be much different looking; we'd be researching where battles took place, which areas are strategically important, where amphibious landings were made, and what the regions were called 60 years ago. Instead we have a 2012 political map of the Philippines, and I think we should be consistent with that. My suggestion would be to simply call the seas by the names of the seas: South China Sea and Pacific Ocean. No shipping lanes, no battlefronts (which should be on land anyway). Keep it simple and true to the theme of the map.

And don't worry about the spacing on your drafts - that can all be dealt with later.

Some of the new island to island connections seem unnecessary, and don't change the overall shape of the map like the sea routes do. The new one from Negros to Sindangan means all regions in that command are borders, which is already the case in a lot of other commands - I'd say give that player one place to hide. Same with Ori Mindoro to Antique - now the biggest command on the map (7 regions) has to be held in 5 places.

Also, the connection from Zambales to Batangas seems unnecessary now that we have the ports and seas. And it's just weird that there is a sea connection that crosses another sea connection - the implied route from Manila (Laguna) to the Sea. Logically if A can attack C, and B can attack D, everybody should be able to attack everybody, right?

Rather than adding sea connections, a simpler way to eliminate some of the linear nature of the map while also making it cleaner would, as Inca suggested, be adding land connections by losing some impassables. For me, the primary purpose of an impassable is to provide protection for a command by reducing the regions that need to be defended. That said:

• The river between Linao and Bukidnon has the important function of making Bukidnon NOT a border region, but this could also be done by simply moving the border a bit so Cotobato runs to the sea. Take some liberties with the border, lose the river.

• Losing the river along Pangasinan just eliminates one impassable between regions that are already border regions anyway; this river doesn't protect any command.

• The Papanga-Quezon range also doesn't provide any defense, as both regions are already border regions.

• Impassables within commands (that don't provide natural borders on the edge of a command, but limit travel within) will just be frustrating play features. The Bukidnon-Lanao mountain range makes that command harder to hold, not easier, by limiting travel within. I'd say kill that range and drop it to +2.

• Lose the mountains that aren't impassasbles; I know it looks nice to have some extra flourishes, but you just don't have the space on this particular map.

 

[Incandenza]

I'd say Shep's pretty dead-on with the blow-by-blow, tho I would like to amplify his point about the map's theme. Regardless of research, I'm not sure a WWII Philippines map would even be all that interesting, since the major battles were either doomed rearguards (Bataan) or naval actions (Leyte). That being said, I'd definitely be in favor of keeping the map thematically simple. We can always do a "Battle of Manila" or "The Search for Buried Japanese Gold" maps down the road.

I think the sea terit can work (but at some point we'll need to figure out just how they'll be represented and thus function in the game interface), but I think 4 port terits is pushing it. Maybe the best solution would be to reduce the ports to 3 (Pangasinian, Antique, and Sibuguey Bay on the China side; Isabela, Leyte, and Davao on the Pacific side), or possibly even ditch the sea terits and just have two ports per side, where, say, Zambales and Sibuguey Bay attack each other and Camarines and Davao attack each other. Just trying to have everything on the table.

Here's another thing I'd like to chuck at the wall and see if it sticks: what if we reduced the number of terits? 48 or 50, either are bad for 4p games since everyone starts with 12 terits. But instead if you went with 46 or even 42 terits, that's a bit closer to a magic number for medium-sized maps. Off the top of my head, Negros and Mindoro could each be one terit.

As far as connections, one thing that sticks out to me after studying the map some more is that you could probably lose one of the Leyte connections. Maybe the Cebu one.

 

[KungFuDuet]

I think the sea terit can work (but at some point we'll need to figure out just how they'll be represented and thus function in the game interface), but I think 4 port terits is pushing it. Maybe the best solution would be to reduce the ports to 3 (Pangasinian, Antique, and Sibuguey Bay on the China side; Isabela, Leyte, and Davao on the Pacific side), or possibly even ditch the sea terits and just have two ports per side, where, say, Zambales and Sibuguey Bay attack each other and Camarines and Davao attack each other. Just trying to have everything on the table.

I still like the 4 ports idea - personally I think it frees the board up.

Here's another thing I'd like to chuck at the wall and see if it sticks: what if we reduced the number of terits? 48 or 50, either are bad for 4p games since everyone starts with 12 terits. But instead if you went with 46 or even 42 terits, that's a bit closer to a magic number for medium-sized maps. Off the top of my head, Negros and Mindoro could each be one terit.

Wids suggested ages ago that with 50 regions (or 48) would be a cleaner number for 24 player games. I guess I actually like the map with more regions haha

As far as connections, one thing that sticks out to me after studying the map some more is that you could probably lose one of the Leyte connections. Maybe the Cebu one.

I have kept it, as Leyte is the border region of a bonus with 2 outer regions + 2 inner regions. losing it would make the map a little closer back to linear, and killing that link = making central-west easier to defend, which I don't really want that

For starters, I can live with two sea regions. The symmetry of it is nice, though I'm less sold on the auto-deploys. They already have significant strategic value.

Auto-deploy eliminated.

To date this hasn't been billed as a WWII map of the fighting in/around the Philippines, and if it were designed as such it would probably be much different looking; we'd be researching where battles took place, which areas are strategically important, where amphibious landings were made, and what the regions were called 60 years ago. Instead we have a 2012 political map of the Philippines, and I think we should be consistent with that. My suggestion would be to simply call the seas by the names of the seas: South China Sea and Pacific Ocean. No shipping lanes, no battlefronts (which should be on land anyway). Keep it simple and true to the theme of the map.

Names Changed.

Some of the new island to island connections seem unnecessary, and don't change the overall shape of the map like the sea routes do. The new one from Negros to Sindangan means all regions in that command are borders, which is already the case in a lot of other commands - I'd say give that player one place to hide. Same with Ori Mindoro to Antique - now the biggest command on the map (7 regions) has to be held in 5 places.

I shall post in the next post what I have actually changed - or else it would be too messy. But yes I deleted Negros to Sindangan, and Ori Mindoro to Antique.

Also, the connection from Zambales to Batangas seems unnecessary now that we have the ports and seas. And it's just weird that there is a sea connection that crosses another sea connection - the implied route from Manila (Laguna) to the Sea. Logically if A can attack C, and B can attack D, everybody should be able to attack everybody, right?

Deleted.

• The river between Linao and Bukidnon has the important function of making Bukidnon NOT a border region, but this could also be done by simply moving the border a bit so Cotobato runs to the sea. Take some liberties with the border, lose the river.

Done - in the same matter I have changed the set up around that command, Bukidnon now isn't bordering Davao, which meant I could delete a portion of the mountains there.

• Losing the river along Pangasinan just eliminates one impassable between regions that are already border regions anyway; this river doesn't protect any command.

Deleted

• The Papanga-Quezon range also doesn't provide any defense, as both regions are already border regions.

Deleted, but this one I had to Emphasize that place is where four commands meet, so we will need to have a way of splitting them so that diagonals do not border.

• Impassables within commands (that don't provide natural borders on the edge of a command, but limit travel within) will just be frustrating play features. The Bukidnon-Lanao mountain range makes that command harder to hold, not easier, by limiting travel within. I'd say kill that range and drop it to +2.

Done and deleted

• Lose the mountains that aren't impassasbles; I know it looks nice to have some extra flourishes, but you just don't have the space on this particular map.

deleted

Please check this and the 5th Edition which I am going to post in the next post (please don't kill me Moderators - I need to keep things easier to see)

 

[KungFuDuet]

5th Edition

So here I am again.

Map Stats:
# Regions: 50
# Commands: 12 (2 sea regions are not a part of any command)

Changes from 4th Edition -> 5th Edition:
- Mountains not contributing to gameplay erased
- realized there are two Bukidnons. One corrected to Sultan Kudarat
- "Cotabato"-"Sultan Kudarat" Border manipulated
- "Sarangani"-"Sultan Kudarat"-"Davao" Borders manipulated
- "Singandan Bay"-"Negros Oriental" link erased
- "Oriental Mindoro"-"Antique" link erased
- "Pampanga"-"Quezon" Ranges erased, border established
- "Zambales"-"Batangas" link erased
- "Bukidnon"-"Lanao" border established
- "Pampanga"-"Pangasinan" border established, river erased
- "Northern Mindanao" bonus +3 -> +2
- "Sea + port" bonuses cancelled
- Eastern Visayas has 2 borders instead of 3 borders

Map Blank:

Map Bonus:

Map Names:

Map with Sample Troop Containers:

Map with Sample Troop Containers and Names:

Cool Sunglasses - I think this is getting better and better!

 

[KungFuDuet]

BTW, I still have no idea what style I would like (and yes this a bump on the previous posts)

 

[FLAGG]

When does this map go online! It is looking really cool. Do we play test it first?

Flagg

 

[WidowMakers]

At this point I say we try to get rid of all the mountains.
The ones by Ilocos do nothing since they are in the same command.
And the others in the south do not make any region untouchable from another command.
It will just make the map look cleaner and better use the space.

Also as i have been looking over this, the impassable river is sort of laughable.
I mean we haev SEA connections across the pacific ocean but troops cant cross a river?

I dont have solutions to this yet but is there a way to reconfigure teh regions to eliminate ALL impassables and make teh map still work?

 

[Shepherd]

Also as i have been looking over this, the impassable river is sort of laughable.

Ha! Yeah, it's kind of funny to say that anybody on this map doesn't have access to a boat. And while the same could be said (though less so) on any map with rivers and island hopping, a stronger case can be made that the Mississippi or Amazon are impassable than the Cagayan, which I think I could walk across if the picture below is typical. That river isn't stopping any army for very long.

Two of the rivers have already been removed, so it's just a matter of figuring out how to rework the northern borders so the two commands up there aren't a complete free-for-all... we want each region to have at least one non-border region.

Oh - how about this: just make that northern part one big command. That makes a hell of a lot more sense. An eight (or seven if you want to lose one, since you still have a region to give before it's back to 48, right?) region command up in the corner with just two borders to hold would be a very attractive start. I'd say combine two regions, make it a 7 region, 2 border, +4.
edit: I forgot the sea port, which would give it three borders. Still a +4 in my mind, especially if the bonuses drop universally.

And I still strongly think that all of the 3 region commands should be no more than +2, regardless of the borders.