Northwest Passage [Quenched]

[shakeycat]

Thanks Ender, I'll forward to the husband!

Here's where I'm at today. Nothing much has changed. I need to make the top right legends flow, maybe they need a solid box for all of them? It's a bit haphazard. Coloured the 88's to reflect what would be neutral in the initial drop, to make it easier to think about. Anybody see any problems with this brick of ice across the middle of the map?

For the white/route army circles, neutral 2 is more appealing to me, but if there's going to be a build-a-bonus of +1 for 1, perhaps neutral 3 is better. I still haven't really thought about it or counted it out. Maybe neutral 2 with a lesser build a bonus. Maybe no build a bonus.

[bigimg]http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/nwp/nwpassjuly29.jpg[/bigimg]

[MarshalNey]

I just realized that you posted a map update! Is this topic active again? Should it be moved?

Anybody see any problems with this brick of ice across the middle of the map?

No, I like the idea of making the explorer routes neutral and 'discovering' them. You should definitely keep it. And the build-a-bonus would give the neutrals added reason for being taken.

However, it does change a few things for the land bonuses. With a fair number of the seas neutral, some land bonuses will be easier to keep initially, and others (like Greenland) will be harder to take. It's not a problem really, I only bring it up because the restricted movement in the beginning will accentuate the effect of dropping a small bonus.

Has the possibility of dropping the Elsmere Isl. or NW Territories bonuses been considered? Should a neutral be placed on one of the regions in each?

For the white/route army circles, neutral 2 is more appealing to me, but if there's going to be a build-a-bonus of +1 for 1, perhaps neutral 3 is better. I still haven't really thought about it or counted it out. Maybe neutral 2 with a lesser build a bonus. Maybe no build a bonus.

I'd vote all neutral 2s for the explorer circles. Then, perhaps +1 for every 2?

Under that scheme, the expeditions if all held would be worth the following:
Henry Hudson +2 (1 + 1), 2 regions
Franklin +10 (5 + 5), 10 regions
Parry +6 (3 + 3), 6 regions
McClure +4 (2 + 2), 4 regions

What I like is that it effectively doubles the value of the expeditions, yielding +1 per region if a whole expedition is held, but only +1 per 2 if you don't. Doubling I think is a good, straightforward incentive to hold an expedition.

If the bonus were +1 per 1 region held, then holding an expedition would count for much less, only a 50% increase rather than 100%. The incentive wouldn't be as strong.

[Evil DIMwit]

Yes, it is certainly appropriate to move this map back.

The build-a-bonus didn't work out, but maybe you can put another land bonus or two around some of the western islands, so as to not disadvantage players who drop a large presence there and nowhere else.

[iancanton]

I'd vote all neutral 2s for the explorer circles. Then, perhaps +1 for every 2?

Under that scheme, the expeditions if all held would be worth the following:
Henry Hudson +2 (1 + 1), 2 regions
Franklin +10 (5 + 5), 10 regions
Parry +6 (3 + 3), 6 regions
McClure +4 (2 + 2), 4 regions

i like that.

maybe you can put another land bonus or two around some of the western islands, so as to not disadvantage players who drop a large presence there and nowhere else.

i'm not sure that any more land bonuses are needed. there's not that much disadvantage for someone who starts with a few of the western islands, since they can do a concerted attack on the arctic ocean, which has direct access to two regions on the mcclure route.

ian.

[shakeycat]

[bigimg]http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/nwp/aug8.jpg[/bigimg]

Once again, no big changes, just posting to confirm where we're at. The only thing I changed here was adding the "Other notable Expeditions:" and "Earn +1 for every 2 Expedition territories held", it should probably say +1 troops. Hopefully the double use of the word Expedition makes it clear which territories we mean, and I'm assuming it's obvious that yellow is included.

I've noted on the front page that Neutrals will start with 2. Should probably make the army circles reflect this instead.

MarsalNey, good work: I agree that the doubling of bonus for holding the whole route is good from a gameplay standpoint. The build-a-bonus makes complete sense, as icebreaking and moving from this strait into that gulf would certainly be a mark of success, one step closer to the Northwest Passage. What seems funny is that the bonus should double upon holding a complete expedition route, which, other than Amundsen, is really just a partial route. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but I like a good story, and other than historic value, it seems kind of pointless that one would want to own the route of a failed passing.

As for neutrals on Ellesmere and/or Northwest Territories: we've considered this. I've marked in Alert and Yellowknife as neutral. Earlier on, I suggested Illusiat, but it seems Disko is now the neutral for Greenland. Alert will be neutral 2: this okay?

I've noticed that half of Nunavut and all of Northwest Territories is landlocked by neutrals from expeditions. To make it a little harder to seal off the NWT bonus, I've made Yellowknife neutral, and I think this should be a neutral 3. This looks like the easy bonus of this map, the Australia that everyone goes for first.

I'm not sure which would be better (read: more difficult) though: to have those 7 territories available for the drop, or have 6 available and 1 neutral? It seems a large area to sweep, but whoever has the majority of the drop could probably pick that bonus up easily. Anyone coming from a distance would actually have to fight off quite a few neutral armies to reach the 7 territory pocket. Even though it's a one-way entrance, a second player can invade from islands around Hudson. Plus, the neutral 2's are not only easy to knock over, but give the attacker +troops.

Added a slight shadow to the coloured army-circle-rings, since some weren't popping enough on the blue.

Evil DIMwit, I can see your concern: it's a large area with few bonuses to grab, locked in by some ice. Seems the options here, as Ian said, are mostly around McClure. One could also use Bathurst to break into the greater area of the map, or jam the Ellesmere bonus quite successfully. Hopefully the sheer number of territories will make it hard to be cornered in this bonus-less area early in the game.

[ender516]

If you want to be sure that "it's obvious that yellow is included", then change the legend to read "Expedition Route of Roald Amundsen". I think your double use of "Expedition" is apt, and a triple use should be even more to the point.

[benga]

Don't let this map die!
Need it for tournament!

[Bruceswar]

Few quick questions.

1: How much is the yellow path worth if you hold it all?
2: Could the colors of the territory bonuses be a bit more different color wise? They all seem a bit too close.
3. What bonus does a place like Victoria Island belong to?

[natty dread]

This is a graphics crit, but you should have more contrast between the impassables and playable areas.

The contrast is fine in the lower map where the playable areas are dark, but in the upper (mainly the islands) they kinda blend together too much.

[Evil DIMwit]

+1 for every 2 expedition territories, is that within each expedition, or for every expedition territory combined? If you hold just Hudson Strait and Davis Strait, do you get +1? Or if you hold M'Clure Strait, Amundsen Gulf, and Coronation Gulf?

[iancanton]

in route 66, the road regions must be connected. for consistency with the storyline, there's some sense here in making it +1 for every 2 circles within each expedition, but +1 for every 2 circles anywhere will also work. how can we word it to remove doubt?

ian.

[shakeycat]

Ender: Duh. Thank you. Silly me.
Benga: All in time.
Bruceswar:
1. Doesn't matter. Hold Yellow and win. Made it clearer but sounds funny.
2. Moved a few around and adjusted to make blues bluer, reds redder, etc. Hopefully a little more clear. Still need to colourblind check things.
3. No bonus for the islands.

Natty_dread: You're right. I've changed the colour a bit for now, but I think it clashes. At least it doesn't blend with the ice. I'll keep tweaking.

iancanton and Evil DIMwit: Changed "every" to "any", now reads: "Earn +1 for any 2 Expedition territories held"
I'm fine with the territories not connecting. I figure any progress is good progress.

[bigimg]http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/nwp/aug20.jpg[/bigimg]

It's certainly more colourful. Will continue to tweak.

[natty dread]

I actually like those colours. I like earthy tones... but yeah, they are clashing with the theme a bit so keep on tweaking

[ender516]

I think I would have said "Earn +1 for each 2 Expedition territories" which clearly implies +2 for 4, +3 for 6, ...

This is really coming along well!

[Bruceswar]

Ender: Duh. Thank you. Silly me.
Benga: All in time.
Bruceswar:
1. Doesn't matter. Hold Yellow and win. Made it clearer but sounds funny.
2. Moved a few around and adjusted to make blues bluer, reds redder, etc. Hopefully a little more clear. Still need to colourblind check things.
3. No bonus for the islands.
.

1. You should put that yellow is the objective. Putting the font in yellow is not enough for most people to understand, since most people have no idea of this route.

2. Lets see what the color blind test says.

3. The middle of the map, which is basically all the islands so have a bonus. A large one at that, because if someone manages to take it all, then well they have really got something going. Having no bonus makes no sense to me.

[ender516]

If there is further need to emphasize or clarify the objective, then putting the word "Objective:" in yellow as well might help.

[natty dread]

legend typo: Impassibles --> Impassables

[MarshalNey]

"Impassable" as an adjective can also be spelled "Impassible" (in fact that's the way I spell it).

As a noun, it's pretty much made-uppish. So, I guess you could claim that 'impassible' is a mispelling, but counter-claims would be equally valid imo.

[shakeycat]

Natty: good catch. Guess I can't just take "impossible" and change a letter. The definitions as I read them are: impassable = unpassable, impassible = impassive.

I will address other things when I access my most recent proof on my laptop. Currently addressing Bruceswar's 3rd question.


Here's another idea of how I can break up the map, with 10 bonus regions instead of the initial 5:

[bigimg]http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/nwp/aug26a.jpg[/bigimg]

And a more detailed version here: http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/nwp/aug26.jpg

Because they involve islands, the bonuses are still fractured and will probably not be easy. But there is an additional easy bonus, the Sverdrup Islands, making 4 easy bonuses we can rush for in the start (Hudson, NWT, McClure [Green west-most Expedition], Sverdrup). Kivalliq also looks fairly easy, and it sort of adds onto the Hudson bonus. The Repulse Bay outpost, just above the ice line, stops it from being too easy.

Similarly, the Islands of the Northwest Territories piggybacks on the McClure Expedition bonus.

Some expedition territories (Banks Island, Melville Island, King William Island, Devon Island, Disko Bay) are also present in the island bonuses.

Would have to make Amund Ringnes (Sverdrup) neutral to start, to prevent dropping with that bonus.

Thoughts?

[porkenbeans]

"Impassable" as an adjective can also be spelled "Impassible" (in fact that's the way I spell it).

As a noun, it's pretty much made-uppish. So, I guess you could claim that 'impassible' is a mispelling, but counter-claims would be equally valid imo.

Or another way, just plain Impasse.

[natty dread]

I like the idea of more bonus areas, but it also means lots more trouble finding good colours for the bonuses...


ps. "impasse" sounds kinda snobbish...

[MarshalNey]

Merriam-Webster lists 'impassible' as a variant of 'impassable'... nevertheless it seems that the latter is the more common method of spelling.

Anyway, skakeycat I see the value of putting some value into the currently 'unincorporated' islands, so maybe the additional bonus regions could be useful.

However, I'm fairly happy with the gameplay as it stands, as is Evil D I believe. I was going to talk to Ian about stickying this thread soon. That's not to discourage the current discussion; I'm just letting you know that you don't need to keep changing things for their own sake, only if you want to and think it's a good idea.

If you wanted to add more bonus regions (and I think this could benefit the map's gameplay), I wonder if 10 is too many. I worry that so many bonus regions will detract from the current importance and focus on the Expeditions.

Perhaps fewer and larger bonus areas... maybe 8? I don't know anything at all about the region and the natural distictions there.

[shakeycat]

Marshal:

Thank you for telling me where the foundry fellows stand. I'd like to explore this direction a little and see if it leads anywhere. If it's a dead end, I'm happy going back to where we were a week ago.

10 bonuses is just where I came to. I can probably make a logical 8 bonus map, but there would be 8-9 territories in some bonuses.

The original bonuses were designed as "big land area broken up = bonus", with no thought to include the islands. Then it was, "oh shit, what do I do with all these islands". And it seemed to work, so I kept it.

Anyway, here's what it would look like semi-pretty:

[bigimg]http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/nwp/aug27.jpg[/bigimg]

But still with ugly bits like the legend, which is having a hard time handling this idea, and missing all other changes that are still on my list.

10 bonus: http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/nwp/aug27.jpg
5 bonus: http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/nwp/aug20.jpg

The 10 is certainly busier and takes some focus off the passages.

Now I sleep

[Joodoo]

I feel like this map could have Auto-Deploy somewhere.
Perhaps in the captials (Yellowknife and Iqaluit)?

[Evil DIMwit]

I feel like this map could have Auto-Deploy somewhere.
Perhaps in the captials (Yellowknife and Iqaluit)?

Why complicate things more than necessary?