Massachusetts

This is why I said "Teamers", they will pick 3 player games and have an advantage for 1 or both of them. Remember that these are forbidden amounts for many reasons and this site is not yet rid of cheats. However, I have stated to go ahead with it and we'll monitor it. It might actually help to expose some players, but I'm more inclined to believe it will help to hide them behind the advantage.

Well I personally don't think I'd play a deathmatch on it with more than 3-4 people. Two results. It'd be too hard to get a region, and people would just start building stacks and turning cards and it'd turn into a caps game pretty much. Or nobody gets a region til you're turning in cards for 15-20 bonus. Then you'll either see a more traditional dm gameplay, heavy stalemating, or rushing to kill for cards. This is I think, primarily caps map or a 2p deathmatch set up. Although it also makes for a good SLOW game of Risk, because nothings really going to happen until you start seeing large turn in bonuses for cards. And there's lots of people who like that long term style of play. For gameplay I'd suggest eliminating the Washington/Hamptons connection and changing it to Hamptons/Dukes. Which would make the Southeast Mass. region a +3. But I think it would help with movements for >5 caps.

When there are many small regions, everybody gets a bonus, nobody need to fight, everybody grow, nobody can gain anything from killing, the game stalemates; unless beginner mistakes or childish diplomacy. When somebody gets regions and somebody don't, the game is much more interesting for me. The "region" players grow faster but probably they have also spent more; and the "non-region" players can usually set them-self better for kills. That's a war with different weapons, and when it is the right moment to shoot you need to shoot, you cannot wait another turn. Especially the players not holding regions tend to be a bit impatient and sometimes they miscalculate "the right moment"; but the players holding regions sometimes are too confident and not ready. I don't think it's a stalemating map. Italia map in comparison is much more stalemating than this one. But also Virtuosity said it's an immediate win for the players holding the purple region, since I don't know, one of you is wrong... Hopefully both! :P But still I think you all have made good observations but I am not sure they are an improvement. I mean there's the risk to solve a deficiency creating a new one. In any case, okay, I will try to work on the suggested themes. Well, most of all, I am waiting for Clarke's response. [spoiler=Southern New England Draft -- for reference][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/new-england-05_zpssvjpr146.png[/img][/spoiler]

What about filling in the area where the words "NEW ENGLAND" appear with a 2 territory vermont region and a 3 territory new hampshire region line in my previous post?

Probably most of ppl here will like something like this: [spoiler=B draft][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/new-england-B_zpscnntkuez.png[/img][/spoiler] Or even this, following Clarke's suggestion: [spoiler=C draft][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/new-england-C3_zpstgt6j6m3.png[/img][/spoiler] @Virtuosity - Yes two small regions next to each other it is generally not so good, it looks a bit like it's unbalanced, but not such a great gameplay problem though. Introducing Long Island as a region, then the remaining part of South.N.Y. is totally undefendable and eliminating New York City from there is something that force me to create a small New Jersey region for realisticism and then I'm inclined to turn all the map in a small regions based board. Most of these regions are hard to defend but still conquerable being small. Wanna just say we have dozens of map like this... but thousands of people still prefer to play World Classic. @Naathim - I think it corresponds much more to what you asked for. I avoided the The Hamptons--Dukes connection lines, it could be good for gameplay reasons but it looked too much unrealistic for me. @Clarke - A portion of Vermont and New Hampshire can be good for several reason, but I think not a great gameplay improvement and I don't know how to make this cut to look nice honestly. But maybe it's my incapability. The west enlarging to the Hudson Valley (New York State) seems mandatory to me.

theme thoughts. for this map..King Philips war. http://www.bradwynne.com/_Media/ne_england_indian_tribes_c.gif http://www.warpaths2peacepipes.com/the-indian-wars/king-philips-war.htm http://www.warpaths2peacepipes.com/the-indian-wars/king-philips-war.htm

Sounds like an interesting theme. This story is no different to Australia or New Zealand. It was awful what the settlers did to the natives, but our ancestors were the new Romans that travelled further and had modern tools and weapons.

Mh... I am still working on the A version. Keeping B as a different possibility in case people ask for it. Wanna show a possible graphical arrangement I am working on. [spoiler=new-england-06][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/new-england-06_zpsezih83ao.png[/img][/spoiler] Still needs to be adjusted, territory dividers are not very visible in some area and the mini-map is not updated sorry. Now Hoodlum's proposal sounds like a completely different map. The theme may be cool but I cannot see exact territories in that map and the states boundaries there, they are just for reference but they refer to nowadays not to "tribe era"... I mean it's hard to make a map of that era and it requires much more information. My version is based on real counties and states as they are today, Southern New England it's already a theme by itself, it's the heart of America, even if presented in a modern dress its name already refers to his old history. If this map has permission to go on then please change the name thread to Southern New England. And if Hoodlum wants to change it to the "tribes of southern new england" then I think he should define his design better. My design for this map was [url=http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&act=view&id=2014&board=43&page=3#post-32982]pretty well detailed[/url], I would be sad to throw it in the trashcan, but in any case I will accept what the majority thinks.

[spoiler=new-england-07][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/new-england-07_zps3uj23ud1.png[/img][/spoiler] A bit more sober like this.

The King Philip's War theme proposed by Hoodlum is nice. Making some more researches looks like the most important battles were in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. But I don't know, I think if I have to do a map of Native Amarican Tribes I would prefer to include a larger area than only King Philip's war theater. And also, game maps based on real wars tend to be weird, you never got a decent representation. For example should I use the English colonists' towns as territories or the American tribes, or should I mix either, and then how to define the regions? Plus in the real conflict there were 2 parties, here you are supposed to have 5 or 6 players, it cannot produce a game remotely similar to that war. In any case I moved my Southern New England idea to [url=http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=2176]another thread[/url], keeping this one free to elaborate new ideas.

Which ever thread it is on, I would like to say, I agree you can't ever make a Risk map intended for multiplayers from a real war map without making it a 2 player game, what we need are maps that take on the theme or feel of a conflict area or intended conflict area. Maybe even the look of a conflict map.