Massachusetts

From Soup to Nuts by the Book
  • 56 posts
  • Page 1 of 4
Clarke wrote:
Okay after talking to Fendi I decided to try to make a new map from scratch following the advice of Vexer in his post "Example First Post". Vexer's advice is to have game play evaluated BEFORE you put any real effort into graphics and the look of the map.

So attached to this post you will find 2 things: 1) The original map I started with from a website called d-maps (also recommended by Vexer). I put this so you can see what Massachusetts really looks like. 2) My initial rough draft with no graphics work put in. There is no mini-map yet because I am open to suggestions for region bonuses. For the sake of discussion, lets say all region bonuses are +2 for now.

Although anyone may comment, right now I will only be making changes based on comments made by actual cartographers and only gameplay comments will be considered at this point. I want to iron out the game play BEFORE we move on to design, graphics, etc...

Okay here is the original map of the state of Massachusetts showing the actual county outlines:

Spoiler (click to show)

Now here is my rough layout showing regions and territories and connections:
Spoiler (click to show)

I used numbers for the sake of discussion purposes. Eventually the territory names will be replaced with actual words, not numbers.

So there you have it. Cartographers, please comment on if you think there is merit moving forward with this map, what you think needs to be done about the game play, what you think the region bonuses should be, etc...
PsymonStark wrote:
Very well. Let me tell you that chunks of land (like this one, specially the west part) are usually difficult to turn into a good map. There are 35 territories, and 30 of them border other regions. And 3 of the 5 other ones are in the same region, which is an Oceania-like region... In one of the most connected maps, Balkans, there are 14/44 no bordering territories, that is a 32%, here we have a 14%. Almost every territory has to be defended, so regions are not attractive. You can add a few rivers to the map (I've done some research and saw that Massachusetts has a bunch of them) to reduce connectivity, or merge some regions, like Essex & Middlesex & Suffolk, for example. Then you would maybe need too add a few connections, from 34 to 27 or 31 to avoid a 1 border region, and from 35 to 33 and 34 to improve connectivity inside the region.

As they are, every region is worth 2, except Worcester that is worth 3, and Bristol and Essex that are worth 1.

In a while I will try and make an outline for this map for you guys to give your opinions.
Living proof that everyone can be a brilliant great good decent cartographer.
PsymonStark wrote:
Quickest draft ever (and poorest quality ever too) (click to show)

The connectivity of this outline is more balanced (reduced on the western part, increased on the eastern part).

What do you think, Clarke? (and others). This map has 10/35 not bordering territories, ~30%.

EDIT: I'm not sure about the most eastern river. It divides the map in two with a 2 border barrier (17/18). I guess 16-25 connection is good.
Living proof that everyone can be a brilliant great good decent cartographer.
emjaydee wrote:
I'm just amused by the fact that, excluding Nantucket, Dukes and Franklin, every one is a British place name.
PsymonStark wrote:
Yes, I took a look, there is another Middlesex in the state next to it :P
Living proof that everyone can be a brilliant great good decent cartographer.
emjaydee wrote:
As for gameplay regions 32-35 would be this maps Oz. It's the easiest and probably only realistic defensible region. As Psymon says, this probably needs an extra connection or 2.
In fact, if you get 26+29 the whole south-east corner can be held from here.
Clarke wrote:
Is there an optimum % of territories that do not border other regions aka do not need to be defensed to hold a region bonus?
PsymonStark wrote:
No, but it seems there is a range. If a map has too difficult regions players are not interested. The other limit is with too easy regions (Dante Inferno or old Brethren) make games tend to stalemate. Probably the lower limit is about 30% and the upper limit would be Caribbean style maps (~60%) but this is not exact at all.
Living proof that everyone can be a brilliant great good decent cartographer.
Clarke wrote:
Here are two updates based on Psymon's feedback. Both of these maps now fall between 55% and 65% of defendable territories which is right in the heart of the D12 norm. The first has less regions and less territories, the second more of both. After looking them over, please give feedback.

Spoiler (click to show)

Spoiler (click to show)
PsymonStark wrote:
The second one won't fit circles and labels in many territories. There is a problem with both and is that you can defend the Barnstable region with only one territory.

I think the first one is better, but haven't counted the territories. Remember that there is a forbidden range.

Edit, counted them... 49? 45-51 is forbidden. You should remove a few territories because adding some more can be hard.
Living proof that everyone can be a brilliant great good decent cartographer.
Clarke wrote:
Caribbean Double has 46
South Africa Districts has 47
Europe has 48

So is the 45-51 a hard and fast rule or a guide line?
Clarke wrote:
Just checked all the maps, 9 regions can be defended by 1 territory including the classic map which is based on the original RISK game board. It can be fixed via making the region only +1 bonus. But if it is a deal breaker, I can add a connection line.
Clarke wrote:
Now there are 52 territories and I drew an extra connecting line for the Barnstable region.

Spoiler (click to show)