North Atlantic - Viking Age

Nope. Didn't miss them. It's just that the Capitals List is still a fluid thing at the moment and I'm working on that, with help from @@Hoodlum [b][i][u]Did[/u][/i][/b] incorporate Normande in the 5 player list for the current set-up, just forgot to mention it in changes list. Didn't change to Ingria though as it would have meant one capital as a border territory when all the rest were non-borders. Will be running some more Capitals tests shortly. Things are still likely to change.

[b]UPDATE[/b] So, after much thought about the accuracy of the Ireland <> Vinland route, I started playing about with @@Virtuosity98's suggestion of bringing in some islands to the east of Greenland. This required some juggling to create space and to make geographical sense, so it was easier to redraw the whole thing. The islands definitely opened things up - but also created a problem - [b]too many link lines spread across the map[/b] - total clutter! More thinking needed. Eventually came up with a plan (see below) - result: cleaner map, less Easty-Westy more balanced map, more open game-play [i](I think so, anyway)[/i] Currently working through game-play and structural testing [b](so no final graphics yet)[/b]. Most of the legal links and about half of the illegal ones (there are a lot!) have been tested so far: [spoiler=Testing Checklist][img]http://www.pixnstuff.tr-tech.co.uk/maplearn/test.png[/img][/spoiler] [url=http://www.pixnstuff.tr-tech.co.uk/maplearn/test.png]100% View[/url] The map now has 44 territories and 7 regions - [i]adding the Islands moved the map into banned territory count, so had to divide up some of the existing territories[/i] [spoiler=Current Map][img]http://www.pixnstuff.tr-tech.co.uk/maplearn/ex8.jpg[/img][/spoiler] [url=http://www.pixnstuff.tr-tech.co.uk/maplearn/ex8.jpg]100% View[/url]

Just a note to help you with connections. If you wish to connect two territories and they have to cross other connection lines, you have done the correct thing and used a 'same colour' Port graphic symbol on the territories, which signifies that they are connected. We always try to keep this as intuitive as possible and don't mix two different colour port symbols on the same territory, as over complication will lead to confusion. For example, all the black ports are achievable by connection lines and should be removed. Also quite importantly, when we add a coloured port symbol to a map key, it signifies that all territories with that colour port symbol can attack each other. This may or may not be what you intend for your connections above. e.g. (Nungavik to Issland) The "Impassable" is also redundant, as water is always assumed to be impassable unless indicated otherwise. I suggest that where you want only one territory to connect to another territory, but not many territories, use a connection line.

I don't think I explained the last update very well. My mistake. Let me try to clarify. When I first added the islands, there were so many connecting lines on the map that it just looked a complete mess. Really confusing. The idea of the ships was (i) to reduce clutter, and (ii) to remove the need for everything to flow through Issland. Having the three different coloured groups refers nicely back to the original reference map, and other research supplied by @@Virtuosity98, with the gradual spread from east to west represented by the three different coloured voyages. Going through each of your points in turn; [u]Mixing different coloured ports on the same territory[/u] Not sure how to get around this one, and I totally understand your point about confusion. What if I moved the blue ships at Issland and Faroen to the north of those islands (similar to the set-up at Tellemark) so the blue voyage is more of a separate circle? In the same vain, if I moved the red ship at Groenland to the west coast of that territory, and away from the black ship. That way, you would have three distinct voyages - blue to the north, black to the south, and red to the west. [u]Black ports are achievable by connection lines[/u] As things stand, there is logistical difference between connecting lines (which are all confined to their own regions) and voyages/ports (which are inter-regional). By replacing the black ships with more connecting lines this convention is broken and I'm concerned that the map will become cluttered again. [u]Did I mean for all ships of the same colour to be able to attack each other?[/u] Yes. It opens up the game-play and reduces the need for everything to go through Issland - removing a major bottle-neck. It seems to play well in the testing we've done so far. [u]Redundant Impassable[/u] Glad you've mentioned that - I don't particularly like it (even though there is a historical/navigational accuracy to it). The only reason I added it was to avoid people asking "Why can't I move from Salluit to Helluland?" I'll take it off the map. Hope that all makes more sense.

Further note on mixing ports. I've shortened the black voyage - removed Groenland. This increases the separation of the three voyages, but will impact game-play. We'll see how it plays.

[spoiler=Suggested Changes][img]http://www.pixnstuff.tr-tech.co.uk/maplearn/ex9.jpg[/img][/spoiler] [url=http://www.pixnstuff.tr-tech.co.uk/maplearn/ex9.jpg]100% View[/url]

I don't normally get involved much with game-play, but if I see something that looks potentially damaging to the later development of the map, I point it out. I have misgivings because: 1) We have never had 3 different colour ports on one territory and I'm not sure how aesthetic it will look in the graphics refinement stages or how confusing it will be to an average player. 2) I don't think it matters whether or not connection lines are confined to regions or cross map, they should be used if required and ports should replace them if connection lines cross. 3) The ports appear to connect the map too much, which will become more apparent when you try to find Capital positions. e.g Nunguvik is just 3 steps away from Breton. 4) Issland is much more connected now than in the last update. It had 4 connections and now it has 16. It's no longer a bottleneck, but it has the most access to the whole map as well as being 1 of only 3 ways to cross the map to the west. As I keep saying, I am no game-play expert, so I think we need to wait for some feedback from the guys with the knowledge on game-play.

I'm trying to learn here, so further explanation of your first three points, with reasons, would be really useful. 1) [i]"We have never had 3 different colour ports on one territory"[/i] Is there a solid reason why it can't be done, other than its never been done before? 2) [i]Connecting lines should always be used[/i] Why? I can find examples on other maps (Korea-Japan, Central America, Panama Isthmus, to name a few) where connecting lines could/should have been used to join two territories, but ports were used instead - mainly to keep the non-playing area clear of distractions which is what I'm trying to do here. 3) [i]Capitals positions[/i] I've already worked out a preliminary caps list with steps of 3, 4 and 5 between capitals - yet to be tested, so we'll see. My confusion with this comment comes from looking at other maps. For example, I'm currently playing a 9 player World Classic capitals game where [u]all[/u] capitals are within [u]only 2 steps[/u] of another capital (or two or three).

[quote]1) "We have never had 3 different colour ports on one territory" Is there a solid reason why it can't be done, other than its never been done before?[/quote] The rest of the statement was my reasoning: [i]I'm not sure how aesthetic it will look in the graphics refinement stages or how confusing it will be to an average player.[/i] [quote]2) Connecting lines should always be used[/quote] I didn't say that, please re-read. [quote]3) Capitals positions I've already worked out a preliminary caps list with steps of 3, 4 and 5 between capitals - yet to be tested, so we'll see.[/quote] I haven't tested it, but it looked unable to separate more than 2 Caps. I'll bow to your better judgement. I have no problem with what you have suggested, only that I think that the map is now too connected. That is yet for the game-play guys to discuss with you. As I said, I am no game-play expert. The graphics stage can be tough going, so I'd like you to have the set up done so that you don't have to alter graphics to suit major changes.

I'm enjoying the gameplay (through testing) with the new ports and all the changes made as we go have been an improvement. The ports are intuitive enough coming from an experienced d12 player/map maker though. having tried to make a viking map myself i found it tough with the research/timeline of the viking age so that is another reason i like the ports system.

I am not a fan of the water color, and the labels are hard to read. It seems strange that there are those connecting lines to that one island...not sure if anything can be done about that. Other than that I do like the ports. I think there might be too many of them (like on the left), but I think they work well, especially if they stand out and only the one has multiple on either side.

Graphics are yet to be refined, so all feedback is currently for game-play and for graphic objects and positioning, if they affect game-play.

Any updates on this map?

Not at the moment. Waiting to do some more testing.

@Bearskin, Interesting historical theme and geographical cut. I think the game-play would be better having much much much less ports. The way it is now half of the territories of the map are connected to "Issland": it should be called "Iceland against the Rest of the World"... Just joking, but seriously I think 3 ports in total in the southern part of the map would be okay, at most 4. @aeronautic, 2 ports of 2 different colours on a same territory would be a bit special but I thought it could be done. 3 ports really seems excessive though! Anyway as I have just said this map in my opinion would need few ports of just one colour. ** Also I cannot understand the prohibition for a map to have 45 territories, while 60 and 75 are allowed and they are even worse for encountering the multiples of 3 problem. 108 is the worst number for a very large map and we got it... And we already have one map of 46 and one of 48, then how can 45 be forbidden? I thought this thing would fall over time, but apparently it's still in place. Well, it is not to me to change that. But as a player and cartographer I can say: "Yes I would really like a map of 45 territories, with game-play being possibly different from Caribbean Dual". I think this last point must be discussed in [url=https://dominating12.com/forums/3/map-creation/3220/requesting-a-36-territories-map?page=3]another thread[/url] if it is not strictly related with this North Atlantic map.