SFR Yugoslavia [Quenched]

[theBastard]

natty you are bullet-headed

lets look at bonuses, ways of attacks, borders.
- Serbia has 5 borders to secure and 8 regions. bonus +5
- Bosnia has 4 borders to secure and 7 regions. bonus +6

so why you can reduce Serbia to +4?

Doboj has realy too much access. you mentioned escalating games, but this is only one set up.

[koontz1973]

natty you are bullet-headed

lets look at bonuses, ways of attacks, borders.
- Serbia has 5 borders to secure and 8 regions. bonus +5
- Bosnia has 4 borders to secure and 7 regions. bonus +6

so why you can reduce Serbia to +4?

Doboj has realy too much access. you mentioned escalating games, but this is only one set up.

Bosnia has 5 borders.

I might reduce Serbia to 4 though.

If you reduce Serbia to 4, then I would suggest taking Bosnia down 1 and Croatia 1 or 2 as well.

[natty dread]

Thebastard, you have to look at the bigger picture. You can't just say "ok this has x borders so it must have y bonus". Bonus calculators are all fine and good, but they are not infallible... in addition to considering each bonus individually, you have to consider combinations of them, impacts of outside territories on bonuses, locations, expansion potentials... all kinds of things.

Serbia, for example, is not a really good bonus when you consider it alone. It's not a very good starting bonus, it has lots of ground to conquer and many borders to defend. However, and this is the big but: when you start from Kosovo or Macedonia, conquer both, then expand yourself to Serbia... you have a very, very strong position which is easily defendable - Kosovo and Macedonia are at the edge of the map so the amount of borders you have to defend decreases drastically.

When you hold Kosovo, Macedonia + Serbia, you can defend the whole group with only 4 borders. Add Pljevlja to it, and you can defend it with 3 borders. That's a huge bonus with very strong defense. So the map rewards you well if you manage to secure all that land. Nobody will probably want to start from Serbia, it's hard to defend by it's own, but if you start from the south, it's an excellent place to expand to, which makes it a strong mid-late game bonus.

So, +5 is enough for Serbia, and +4 might suffice - even with +4, the Kosovo-Macedonia-Serbia combination would still bring you +9, or +14 counting the territory bonus. That's a lot for only 4 borders.

Now, consider Bosnia: it's in the middle of the map, everyone wants a piece of it and everyone can access it easily. It's hard to hold. So it gets a +6 bonus - it's not a good place to start, but when one player manages to get hold of Serbia/Kosovo/Macedonia (if he also secures Montenegro or Vojvodina, you're pretty much screwed...) you'd better be able to respond to that firepower. Your logical start on the other side of the map is Slovenia... It doesn't have the dynamic expansion potential of the small areas in the southeast, but it's great in the beginning - isolated, hard to reach, easy to conquer, easy to defend.

So, it's a bit harder to expand out from Slovenia... immediately, it only has Zagreb. The ports are an option too but they're not as easy... However, if you manage to add Croatia and Bosnia to your bonus, you'll have 5 borders to defend - and they'll give you a whoppin' 26 troops, more than enough to combat the +14 that your opponent gets from the south. Even if you just conquer Croatia, you'll be getting 16 troops, and if you add Titograd to that, you'll be getting 20. Again with 5 borders to defend.

So, it's harder to achieve, but the reward is proportionally greater. That's what it's all about: rewards being proportional to the effort you expend.

Lastly, Doboj: yes, it can reach several areas, but holding it alone won't really block anyone from reaching an area. You can reach Vojvodina from Serbia or Croatia, you can reach Slavonia from Vojvodina or Zagreb, and you can reach Titovo from various routes.

The only thing that sets Doboj apart is it having several bridges to it... but what are bridges anyway? They're just normal borders... in the raw gameplay model, there's no distinction between a bridge and a regular border. The bridges are just "exceptions" to the river impassables. And each of those bridges in Doboj have a clear purpose: the Titovo bridge is there to offer a route to Serbia, so you don't have to go all the way through Vojvodina if you're coming from the north. The Syrmia bridge offers a connection between Bosnia & Vojvodina - these areas are connected in reality, so it makes sense for them to be connected, and Vojvodina should have the 3 borders to justify it's bonus. The Slavonia bridge offers a way from the north to Doboj and again to Serbia. I'm a big believer in free movement - like the gameplay guidelines say: impassables should be there to enhance the gameplay, not constrict it needlessly.

Let's put the question the other way around: can you tell me why it's a bad thing for Doboj to access many areas? I can't see why it would be bad. It's not like anyone's going to win any games by stacking all his troops on Doboj.

All in all, I think, currently everything is pretty much balanced. I don't think Serbia really needs to be reduced either - it's good to have it as a feasible bonus by itself, even though it's not a very good stand-alone bonus, it should still be feasible to start there if someone has "called dibs" on Macedonia & Kosovo...

[theBastard]

it is realy good that you will not reduce Serbia. it was about what I spoke yes, now map looks balanced.

just I still think that bridge from Slavonia to Doboj would be moved to Slavonia to Banja Luka. or Slavonia to Karlovac.
player who will start in Doboj will have big advantage.

[natty dread]

What kind of advantage do you think you can have by starting at Doboj?

How would stacking your troops in Doboj help you win the game? I don't see it as an advantage at all. I think you're just being stubborn about this

[theBastard]

I think you're just being stubborn about this

as you are about not change bridges
it is just my opinion. but I am ok with your decision.

[natty dread]

Ok, then the bridge stays.

So anyway, how about that gameplay stamp... that would be nice

[Obrens]

I have a few suggestions about region names. Titovo and Gorski are only adjectives. They don't make sense without the noun. It's Titovo Užice. Before and after SFRY it's name is simply Užice. Gorski Kotar. Correct is Banja Luka, not Banja-Luka. Those are not two cities, it is a name for one city where Banja is an adjective and Luka is a noun. It is Baranja, not Baranya. In all other regions you spelled our nj as nj, only here you spelled it ny.

[natty dread]

I've tried to use english spellings of the regions where possible, to stay consistent... However, I can change to Baranja, if it makes more sense thematically.

So to sum:

Titovo -> Titovo Užice
Banja-Luka -> Banja Luka
Baranya -> Baranja

Also, Primorje-Gorski Kotar is a bit too lengthy... maybe I could change it to Istria?

[TaCktiX]

After looking at this map for a grand-total of 5 minutes and asking some pointed questions of the CA's who HAVE followed this...



Now go nitpick some graphics into shape.

[Obrens]

I think Istria would be just fine.

[natty dread]

Thanks Tacktix! Very much!

Let's get the graphix in shape now.

I'll do the territory name changes in a while.

[natty dread]

All right, next version. I changed the names, and did some graphical bling on the map that I think makes it look more better. Adds some grist to it.

[bigimg]http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/3817/yugo14.png[/bigimg]

And, and alternate version with a weird glow effect on the capitals - I tought it looked sort of cool, but I'm not sure if it works overall:

[bigimg]http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/7954/yugo14a.png[/bigimg]

[isaiah40]

No glow on the stars, looks cool and all, but I don't think it really fits in with what you have.

[koontz1973]

Lose the glow. Has anyone seen concrete glow before apart from in Chernobyl.

[natty dread]

Ok, here's something I tried with the legend - I made it smaller and moved it a bit so the sea route shows better... I still don't know what to do with the legend, if anyone has any ideas I'm all ears...

Also mountains tweaked somewhat - giving them a more stone-y feel...

More grit on the map.

[bigimg]http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/6209/yugo15.png[/bigimg]

[koontz1973]

Ok, here's something I tried with the legend - I made it smaller and moved it a bit so the sea route shows better... I still don't know what to do with the legend, if anyone has any ideas I'm all ears...

With the poster, an idea for you. Rip the corner off or have it peeling off so all the sea route shows completely.

[natty dread]

I tried that in an earlier version... I could try it again but it's hard to get it to look natural.

[gimil]

Hi natty,

The mountains look much better than the concentric ones you had earlier, they fit the feel of the map. I have another few issues I want to address, but they shouldn't be to much work.

Firstly, the texture on the title doesn't work for me. I feel that it makes the title blend in with the background to much. With the crisp font you have used I think you would be better off having a smother texture like the mini map in the corner. This will let it pop like a title should.

My second point is on textures again. the sea and dead land have what seems to be a heavier texture than the game play area. I think these draw attention away from the gameplay area, feels like there is to much going on. If those textures (sea and dead land) were to have their intensity reduced I think this will help the final aspects of your map fall nicely into place.

After those I would say you map is forge ready, minus any nitpicking I might like to do.

[natty dread]

Thanks for the feedback gimil.

Firstly, the texture on the title doesn't work for me. I feel that it makes the title blend in with the background to much. With the crisp font you have used I think you would be better off having a smother texture like the mini map in the corner. This will let it pop like a title should.

I can tone down the texture on the title a bit.

My second point is on textures again. the sea and dead land have what seems to be a heavier texture than the game play area. I think these draw attention away from the gameplay area, feels like there is to much going on. If those textures (sea and dead land) were to have their intensity reduced I think this will help the final aspects of your map fall nicely into place.

That's because I've toned down the texture on the playable area a bit.

Anyway... it seems to me that to lots of people the heavy textures, the grittyness, is what really attracts them to this map, graphically. They're part of the theme, the map should feel like a block of concrete, or maybe a concrete wall with a map painted on it... and I wouldn't want to take away from it any more than is necessary.

So... I could try smoothing out the sea somewhat, as it can be considered a part of the playable area... but I think I'll leave the gray non-playable areas alone, as they're paramount in creating the right kind of mood for the map. Gritty, dirty, concrete wall type mood.

[natty dread]

So...... how's this?

[bigimg]http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6209/yugo15.png[/bigimg]

[gimil]

That all looks good, I am still annoyed with the texture but I can live with it since you make good point about the theme of the map . One more thing, would you consider adding a drop shadow to the stars and anchor? This I feel would help put them in consistency with the title that has a nice drop shadow.

[natty dread]

They already have a dark outer glow. I'm not sure a drop shadow would serve the purpose there - I don't want the anchors & capitals to look like they're detached from the map, as that - again - wouldn't fit the map thematically...

I could increase the intensity of the outer glow, let's see if that works...

[gimil]

They already have a dark outer glow. I'm not sure a drop shadow would serve the purpose there - I don't want the anchors & capitals to look like they're detached from the map, as that - again - wouldn't fit the map thematically...

I could increase the intensity of the outer glow, let's see if that works...

Hmmm.....I am going to be a pain in the ass at least probe you to try and and let me see . I don't think a drop shadow (replacing the outer glow) is going to take away your theme.

If you don't mind I would really like to at least see what it will look like

[natty dread]

Ok then - two versions, glow vs. dropshadow:

glow
[bigimg]http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/6209/yugo15.png[/bigimg]

drop
[bigimg]http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5251/yugo15a.png[/bigimg]