Nordic Countries

[Shepherd]

I've toyed with a few projects in this forum, and they've all been a bit too involved. Let's slow it down and work on something more straightforward.

I'm thinking about doing a map of the Nordic Countries, which refers to Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroes, and the islands of Svalbard. It's Scandinavia plus. Technically those aren't all countries - Svalbard is part of Norway, for example - but doing just "Scandinavia" is problematic in that it doesn't include the territories of the countries featured.

The trouble with this map is that the area involves a lot of water, not much land. So before we do much of anything we need to come up with a perspective. My first foray involved a straightforward view, but scrunching everything together...

But that sucks. The main land that we want to feature - Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland - is less than a third of the map, and that's after I've taken great liberties with their size and location. So I started playing around in Google Earth, and I came up with the perspective below. I've quickly colored in and labeled the lands that will be featured in the map.

It will still require some tweaking because, in my opinion, there's still too much water , but at least the key land has been brought to the forefront of the map. And Greenland - which is geographically huge but political less significant than, say, Norway - is put in its place, so to speak.

I think it will make for a decent map. I'm not thinking huge, maybe 32-42 regions. The only border that presents a problem is Norway-Sweden, as it's long and present no impassables, unless there are mountains or rivers there. I haven't researched it.

I'd appreciate any feedback, especially from those with some knowledge of the region.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

you don't HAVE to have impassables between Sweden and Norway; just make holding them worth more. Or, make each country 2 different commands, N. and S. I like the second view... Nothing wrong with a few single country/command worth a +1, split Iceland into 2 and keep the faroes and Svalbard as singles.

Now, to digress;
I do like the idea of having more 'simple' maps. I think the site would be improved with more maps, and making some with no 'special' rules is probably the fastest way to make that happen. The Phillippines map, this one, Manhattan, and perhaps others could probably be put out reasonable quickly if they have no special conditions. On another note, maybe put that Mid-east map out without the special victory condition until that bug can be solved(?) If it is ever solved than the victory condition can be added as an option(?)

One of the main things that separates this site from the others is the quality of the maps; I know it is a juggling act between putting out maps and making sure that they 'measure up'. But, some nicely done but simple maps would be a nice addition. Some people (Inca) like the large maps, others like the small, fast game. Having a few more to go along with the mini map would satisfy those who are perhaps tired of that one. The middle east map would perhaps quench the thirst of those who like large maps.

 

[Shepherd]

let's please keep the conversation here to the map at hand. We have a thread for more general map discussion.

I agree, there's nothing wrong with a long border between two regions. What concerns me specifically is the shape of the two commands, especially Norway. We'll want to draw the regions in such a way that there is at least one or two regions in Norway that aren't borders, or else it will just be killing fields.

I quickly knocked out some regions with the help of Wikipedia. I think this works remarkably well. 33 regions. Faroes and Svalbard give +1 bonuses if held along with Denmark and Norway, respectively. It will probably require more sea routes - the single connections make the top half of the map way too linear.

 

[KungFuDuet]

Could you add a link between south iceland and Kujalleq?

 

[Dreadnought]

Love this idea! feels like home. I can probably help with info. If you want more regions check out links bellow. There are mountains between sweden and Norway and ferry line between Umeå and Vasa if u need another connection between Finland and sweden also ferry line to Bornholm from Sweden.

Link to swedish regions: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveriges_län

Link to Finish regions: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlands_län (maybe older regions from 1960 are better?)

Link to Danish regions: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danmarks_regioner (i would suggest making Bornholm one region instead of part of Hovedstaden)

Link to Norwegian regions: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norges_fylken

Link to Icelandic regions: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islands_regioner

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I'm curious about giving the Faroes a +1 if Denmark held when there's not a connection between them. A link between them and KFD's link would help with decreasing the linearity, wouldn't they?

 

[Shepherd]

I'm curious about giving the Faroes a +1 if Denmark held when there's not a connection between them. A link between them and KFD's link would help with decreasing the linearity, wouldn't they?

Yeah, I'd thought about that... a command should be linked somehow. Basically this map needs additional sea routes, as I said. Here's a start...

 

[KungFuDuet]

I found a really small island just east of Greenland called the Jan Mayen. adding it in may be able to further reduce the linearity of the western part of the map

interesting history too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Mayen#19th_and_20th_century

 

[FLAGG]

Wow! Another cool idea! You map makers on this site are so creative!

Suggestion might be to pull Greenland in closer. If the ocean is not depicted as big as it should be.......so What? The idea will still be there, AND it would let you make all the land areas (especially Greenland) a little bigger with less blue Ocean in the middle......

Just a thought! Idea is great!

Flagg

 

[Chilly]

I found a really small island just east of Greenland called the Jan Mayen. adding it in may be able to further reduce the linearity of the western part of the map

interesting history too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Mayen#19th_and_20th_century

Cool Kungfu. Perhaps make this island not part of any command and connect to Faroes, NE Iceland, Semersooq, Svalbard, and somewhere in Norway?

Given the ban on any permanent settlement on the island, it would be cool to set the decaying feature on this square, but never drop it below 1. At least that way you don't run into any of the worries about people being eliminated by that feature, but it helps to keep the route open.

Of course, you did say you were trying to put out another vanilla map (at least regarding game mechanics).

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Another option vis-a-vis the Faroes and Svalbard could be to make them stand-alone +1's, always starting the game as neutrals. Another sea route that could help with decreasing the linearity of the map would be to connect those two with a sea route. Or from Iceland to Svalbard. Either of those would provide a route from the W to the E of the map.

Starting to look like another great map; love your work, Shep.

 

[Shepherd]

OK, let's see if I can efficiently address all of the comments...

Jan Mayen: while the location presents some interesting game play possibilities, I'm not sure I'm sold on the significance of the island. No permanent population, no sea port, and just a gravel airstrip for flying in supplies to the 18 people that run the meteorological station. It's smaller than the Faroes, with 50,000 people, and barely a blip on the map compared to Svalbard. I think we can fix the linearity without throwing in an island even most Norwegians have probably never heard of.

Make the islands start neutral and give them each +1s: I would be willing to discuss other bonus possibilities, but starting them neutral would just provide additional defense for some lucky sap who gets a good start in the top half of the map. The fewer neutrals a small map has to start with the better. As it is, a 3p game will start with 0 neutrals, and a 4p game with just 1. A map with 31 starts and 2 neutrals means 3p games start with 3, and 4p games start with 5.

Moving Greenland: this would be a good move. The current layout is a realistic one, but for the sake of making the map easier to follow some liberties will be taken with the geography.

Let's couple the current bonuses and see what happens:
• Iceland + Greenland, 7 regions, 2 border regions, +3
• Denmark with Faroes: 5 regions, 3 border regions, +3
• Norway with Svalbard: 6 regions, 5 border regions, +4

I think those are pretty well in line with Finland, which is 6/2/+3/ Yes, Ice+Green is one more region for the same bonus, but you pick up the bonus in pieces.

I have two related issues with the current design of the map: (1) it's too easy to hold Norway and work out, and (2) the focus of the play should be on the mainland since that's the most strategically significant land. To combat the first problem, adding another sea route from Kaalaalisut, Greenland to Nord, Norway, wouldn't add borders but it would make it impossible to just build one territory at a time from a Greenland start.

Adding value to the mainland is trickier. One idea would be to give a bonus of some type for holding the big capital cities: Stockholm, Copenhagen, Oslo, and Helsinki. They don't border so they'd present a hell of a challenge to hold all four, but it's worth toying around with. Maybe +2 for holding any three capitals? I'm pretty sure we could code that with our current system.

 

[miquel]

Something special could be considered for Åland as well? It is autonomous, demilitarised and Swedish-speaking region of Finland. Also Svalbard has military restrictions so maybe Åland and Svalbard could have some special function (ideas?) related to military restrictions?

 

[Chilly]

Adding value to the mainland is trickier. One idea would be to give a bonus of some type for holding the big capital cities: Stockholm, Copenhagen, Oslo, and Helsinki. They don't border so they'd present a hell of a challenge to hold all four, but it's worth toying around with. Maybe +2 for holding any three capitals? I'm pretty sure we could code that with our current system.

How about:
+1 for holding two capitals
+2 for three
+3 for four

This enables two different people to get the +1 bonus.

 

[Shepherd]

How about:
+1 for holding two capitals
+2 for three
+3 for four

This enables two different people to get the +1 bonus.

I like that formula as well, but our current game engine does not allow for it. We've got a couple maps that are waiting on what I've been calling "flexible commands" - hold # of group A, B, C, D, etc. Technically the same problem would occur with a three out of four command, but there's a simple work-around that doesn't work for 2 out of 4.

We could push for this rule to be used on this map, but it would slow production.

 

[Incandenza]

I'm not sure we need to bend over backwards to strengthen the mainland, especially with the addition of capitals. I think a spine of mountains separating most of norway from most of sweden, along with separating sweden into northern and southern bonuses, will help alleviate the advantage in starting out at sea.

While this isn't strictly gameplay, the concept could spur some gameplay tweaks, so figured I'd throw it out there: instead of a modern map, what if this was in fact a circa-11th century Viking map? It would obv necessitate, at the very least, some terit renaming (and either quite a bit of research or the aid of a student of the period), but I think that would give the map quite a bit more flavor.

 

[Dreadnought]

A possibilty I think is interesting is having different regions corresponding to historical borders or even better bonus regions for holding territories that where acctually fought for. Trust me there are plenty, check picture for some of them. In olden times the arch enemy of Sweden was Denmark and vica versa, Norway and other regions changed hands over and over between the two countries. Nowdays thankfully Sweden is a much more peaceful country and has not been at war since 1814. Soon time for the 200 year celebration of peace!

 

[Shepherd]

vikings are cool, but we'd be looking at a completely different map. Vikings made pretty significant homes for themselves in england and ireland. I think this would work well, but somebody with more knowledge (and/or time to research it) would need to lend a hand.

Since we don't have any maps of the contemporary region, I'd rather stay away from going back in time a bit and presenting borders that aren't more recognizable. I think we should either go 2012 or make it really historic (like Vikings).

 

[Shepherd]

No major updates here, just wanted to keep the thread alive. Miquel suggested a supplemental bonus for Aland, which makes sense. And Inc. suggested impassables up the spine - Scandinavian Mountains now give Sweden and Norway some relief.

 

[FLAGG]

I still would not show so much Ocean. I would take liberties in geography and pull greenland closer to the rest of the map.........Otherwise - looking GREAT!

Flagg