Large Europe

[OneEyed]

sorry guys, but this map goes a little out of any accuracy.
there are commands based on what? history? geography? nationalities? they are based on nothing real. the half of map is east europe. the turkey, balkan and italy are mixed to south europe? while iberia is independent command?
what about slovakia, czech republic, hungary, denmark, austria, switzerland, corsica, denmark, albania, corsica, sardina, they are not part of europe? or any part of europe?

Personally I'd like to see some larger commands - while it's nice to have small commands to allow players to get off to a decent start, some big regions also provide buffers and make for interesting battle grounds. I'm nervous that in a map with so many quick bonuses, the player who gets lucky in the first round or two could parlay that luck into a pretty sizable advantage.

this is good and logic idea. but how is map made now this idea gone. there are a lot of small "lucky" bonuses.

OneEyed

PS: please, when we made map of europe, we could observe some historic, geographics, politics division in europe.

 

[thenoahw]

The map is based on a region map I was directed to earlier iN the thread. The commands are based on modern political borders. The largest nations (by land) are all divided into territories. Then the groups of nations are divided into regions based on that map I was sent to. However, those 13 nations were too small to break up into territories, it wouldn't have made sense. So, rather than take those 13 nations and just make them a part of another country, they don't belong to any nation command. They do however belong to the region command. For example, if you hold all the territories of Iceland, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the UK then you get bonuses for that (that's what my second map shows) but you don't get an additional command bonus for all of Northern Europe until you hold Denmark. I didn't want to give it to Germany or Norway because it didn't fit, so it is part of no nation command, only a region command
Iberia is its own command because in the beginning Iberia was part of Southern Europe. But I had a problem with most of southern Europe's land being east of Italy and them Spain off to the side. It wasn't connected by land and it was isolated. So I made the whole peninsula it's own region command with two nations inside of it. That also has the benefit of there being one region that is easy to get.
As far as nations go, Iceland and Caucasus are the Australia of this map, as far as regions go, it's Iberia

 

[OneEyed]

The map is based on a region map I was directed to earlier iN the thread.

but the question is: on which dividing is based that map posted by you?

The commands are based on modern political borders.

well then former Yugoslavia is totaly out of this. also Corsica belongs to France, Crete to Greece and so on. so map does not follow any political borders.

The largest nations (by land) are all divided into territories. Then the groups of nations are divided into regions based on that map I was sent to. However, those 13 nations were too small to break up into territories, it wouldn't have made sense. So, rather than take those 13 nations and just make them a part of another country, they don't belong to any nation command. They do however belong to the region command.

if you spoke about this map:

I can not see any region commands. there are only small (nation?) commands. and these are also set up without any real base.

if you spoke about this map:

then it is also wrong. you added south part of Russia to Caucasus, east part of Ukraine to Central Europe.

so about what map you spoke?

For example, if you hold all the territories of Iceland, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the UK then you get bonuses for that (that's what my second map shows) but you don't get an additional command bonus for all of Northern Europe until you hold Denmark. I didn't want to give it to Germany or Norway because it didn't fit, so it is part of no nation command, only a region command

looks that here you spoke about this map:

so green regions belongs to North Europe. Baltics countries never belongs to Northern Europe. and why Iceland has +1 and Denmark no bonus? Denmark is much more important country as Iceland.
according "modern political borders" Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania do not belongs to Eastern Europe.
Turkey is part of South Europe? Turkey is not part of Europe, so when it is on map it must be independent region command.

Iberia is its own command because in the beginning Iberia was part of Southern Europe. But I had a problem with most of southern Europe's land being east of Italy and them Spain off to the side. It wasn't connected by land and it was isolated. So I made the whole peninsula it's own region command with two nations inside of it. That also has the benefit of there being one region that is easy to get.
As far as nations go, Iceland and Caucasus are the Australia of this map, as far as regions go, it's Iberia

if you added Turkey to Southern Europe and Iberia not, this is out of all dividing.
you can make several sea connections between Italy and Iberia, so I can not see any problem that Iberia has no land border with the rest of Southern Europe.

OneEyed

 

[thenoahw]

but the question is: on which dividing is based that map posted by you?

This map that you directed me to in post #5

well then former Yugoslavia is totaly out of this.

I know, I did not plan on this being the final name for the region. It was a temporary name until someone suggested something better

also Corsica belongs to France, Crete to Greece and so on. so map does not follow any political borders.

I took some of the small separated islands such as the ones you mentioned away from the larger nations for two reasons. 1) to keep the nations small and more importantly 2) so that every region had a few small, single territories that were not part of a nation command. I wanted there to be more to the regions than just the several nations that were inside of them. It was purely out of convenience, a minor detail ignored for gameplay.

if you spoke about this map:

I can not see any region commands. there are only small (nation?) commands. and these are also set up without any real base.

The regions are the color groups. please refer to the spreadsheet I posted in post #37. the nations (plus the 14 non-nation territories) make up the region bonuses.

if you spoke about this map:

then it is also wrong. you added south part of Russia to Caucasus, east part of Ukraine to Central Europe.

so about what map you spoke?

This map is dead! ignore this map please. It was only a quick concept map to get my general idea across early in the thread. I never intended this to be used once I posted the next map you quoted.

looks that here you spoke about this map:

so green regions belongs to North Europe. Baltics countries never belongs to Northern Europe.

Again, going by the map you directed me too in which the UN groups the baltic states with northern Europe

and why Iceland has +1 and Denmark no bonus? Denmark is much more important country as Iceland.

Think about Classic Massive, USA is worth 4 and Canada has a plus 5. USA is much more important than Canada. It is not based on worth. It is based on territories. Iceland is comprised of three territories and therefore it makes sense that it gets a nation bonus. But, Denmark is too small to be divided. It HAS to be one territory so it doesn't make sense for there to be a nation bonus for Denmark because it would be only a 1 territory command.

according "modern political borders" Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania do not belongs to Eastern Europe.

Again, going by the map previously stated

Turkey is part of South Europe? Turkey is not part of Europe, so when it is on map it must be independent region command.

The UN map key states "Countries of Western Asia with partial territory in Southern Europe: Turkey" And I thought it just made sense to put Turkey in the map because of the proximity.

if you added Turkey to Southern Europe and Iberia not, this is out of all dividing. you can make several sea connections between Italy and Iberia, so I can not see any problem that Iberia has no land border with the rest of Southern Europe.

I don't feel like it is out of all dividing. And as I said in post #42, The Iberian peninsula is isolated and it is nice to have a region that isn't 20-something territories. And about the sea connections: I acknowledge that, I do not argue that point. A smaller region bonus means that it makes Iberia just as appealing of a place to start on the map as Iceland-Ireland and the Caucasus.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings.

 

[OneEyed]

ok,
the source which I posted was as example. it is nice to do more research.
about small islands which are not included to national command, from gameplay option it could be fine, but from geographic/historic/politic option not. so if this would be Large map of current Europe this could be accurate as possible.
the main and historic regions of Europe could be Western, Central, Estern, Southern, Northern, Balkans, Russia. the dividing according UN does not follow anything of history, geography, politics, culture...
also when I correct understand Shepherd, the small bonuse which could be easy and quickly held are not the best.

OneEyed

 

[OneEyed]

this is example, that more research is needed. this is wrote about map dividing according UN:
"According to the UN Statistics Division, the assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations."

OneEyed

 

[thenoahw]

the source which I posted was as example. it is nice to do more research.

I know and I did but I felt that the one I used worked.

about small islands which are not included to national command, from gameplay option it could be fine, but from geographic/historic/politic option not. so if this would be Large map of current Europe this could be accurate as possible.

I understand what you mean, I just want to hear some others weigh in on this to see what they think about me taking places like Crete and Corsica away from their real parent nations.

the main and historic regions of Europe could be Western, Central, Estern, Southern, Northern, Balkans, Russia. the dividing according UN does not follow anything of history, geography, politics, culture...

I know this and I am looking into this but I haven't changed it up until now because no one seemed to have a problem with the regions map I chose to use.

also when I correct understand Shepherd, the small bonuse which could be easy and quickly held are not the best.

He has weighed in on this one and so I propose this:
Keep *some* of the nation bonuses so that the smallest commands to be had were fewer than 20-something territories, and then just take off the majority of the nation +1 +2 bonuses.

Thoughts on that?

"According to the UN Statistics Division, the assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations."

That is all mine is thus far. convenience

 

[Cardinalsrule]

My take on all this is, concentrate on the graphics and the gameplay, thenoahw. The 'historical accuracy', etc., is secondary and not really all that consequential, IMO. How the map plays is most important.

 

[OneEyed]

My take on all this is, concentrate on the graphics and the gameplay, thenoahw. The 'historical accuracy', etc., is secondary and not really all that consequential, IMO. How the map plays is most important.

so history or geography is not important? then Mexico could be on any map the 51st state of USA. who cares...
gameplay is important, but why not have accurate map if accuracy does not break gameplay?
also to this time I had feeling that maps here are made accurate as possible. from your post I have feeling that I am again in Conquer club.

OneEyed

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I didn't say that they weren't important, just that gameplay and graphics needs to be a priority. If that part isn't ironed out, this map wouldn't get published anyway. Adding/subtracting a few terts or changing a few names will be easy after that.

 

[thenoahw]

I appreciate that, Cardinal. I'm still going to try and make this really accurate though.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I appreciate that, Cardinal. I'm still going to try and make this really accurate though.

Keep going, Noah. You're doing a good job, I see this being a great addition to MajCom's maps. Focus on the gameplay mechanics first, everything else will follow.

 

[thenoahw]

 

[thenoahw]

What are the thoughts of using this for regions?
I would still like to include Turkey and the Caucasus States in the map even though they are officially in Asia. Their close proximity to Europe makes them inevitably tied into a continental conflict.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I actually like the map you posted as a thumbnail in post #37.

 

[thenoahw]

I like it too but Shepherd said that too many small, quick commands could lead to one player getting a pretty sizable advantage really early in the game. And I agreed with him on that point. However, I feel like the small commands might slow the game down because more armies will be coming out sooner in the game so there wont be as many fast breaks.
Do you think that the map in #37 would work on a full scale map? and the other option, should we maybe take out the command bonuses for some of the smallest nation commands, the +1s and maybe some +2s?

 

[OneEyed]

this is good map. there are all base regions of Europe. and each region command could has some national commands and small states as addition. Balears belongs to Spain.
do you still think about capitals?

OneEyed

 

[thenoahw]

Whether we use the region map I have made already or the more accurate one with more, smaller regions, I want each region to have 1 or 2 capitals. I want those to have an Autodeploy +1 for sure but I cannot decide if I want to give them any kind of bombarding abilities or not. The capital-to-capital attcking that we were talking about earlier really doesn't make sense the way Shep put it. But I see two paths we could go with capitals:
1) capitals can bombard terts in its nations borders (to make it easier for the owner of the capital to secure the whole nation) or
2) allow them to make bombing runs on the nearest capitals once the nation is unified. That would not allow them to occupy the capital but if the target capital gets to 0 it would become a neutral 3.
Either option would still have the autodeploy +1 on a regular basis. Thoughts from the gurus?

 

[OneEyed]

I didn't say that they weren't important, just that gameplay and graphics needs to be a priority. If that part isn't ironed out, this map wouldn't get published anyway. Adding/subtracting a few terts or changing a few names will be easy after that.

gameplay and graphics are based on area and theme of map. at the first there must be clear about which area map will be, then how is that area divided.
then you can think about gameplay and graphics and make any changes (split small regions, divide large regions) which are needed for gameplay.

OneEyed

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I like it too but Shepherd said that too many small, quick commands could lead to one player getting a pretty sizable advantage really early in the game. And I agreed with him on that point. However, I feel like the small commands might slow the game down because more armies will be coming out sooner in the game so there wont be as many fast breaks.
Do you think that the map in #37 would work on a full scale map? and the other option, should we maybe take out the command bonuses for some of the smallest nation commands, the +1s and maybe some +2s?

A mix of small and larger commands would be best, IMO. A few smaller commands, a couple of large ones. You see that on many of the other maps. I do think the map on #37 would work, just combine a few of the smaller commands into a larger one.

Whether we use the region map I have made already or the more accurate one with more, smaller regions, I want each region to have 1 or 2 capitals. I want those to have an Autodeploy +1 for sure but I cannot decide if I want to give them any kind of bombarding abilities or not. The capital-to-capital attcking that we were talking about earlier really doesn't make sense the way Shep put it. But I see two paths we could go with capitals:
1) capitals can bombard terts in its nations borders (to make it easier for the owner of the capital to secure the whole nation) or
2) allow them to make bombing runs on the nearest capitals once the nation is unified. That would not allow them to occupy the capital but if the target capital gets to 0 it would become a neutral 3.
Either option would still have the autodeploy +1 on a regular basis. Thoughts from the gurus?

How you use the capitals to bombard is really up to the map makers (you and the Cartographers, probably mostly Shep), I'm not opposed to allowing them to bombard other capitals, the way that airports can bombard 'drop zones' in the Africa map. Or, you could only bombard within your command, to turn attackers into neuts or ding the existing neuts down to 1, the way you can on 12domains. You could also bombard on your borders as you suggested to help defend the command. All of these options are doable under the current coding conditions. I don't think that allowing them to bombard once the entire command is held (not before) is currently doable with the code. I would advocate for 1 capital per command to keep the gameplay even. Autodeploy of +1 is a good idea, IMO.