North Atlantic - Viking Age

I personally dont like the port system on this map but there have been good developments as well, keep up the good work.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm keen to understand why people don't like the ports/ships (from a game-play perspective). Are they restricting game-play in some way? Are they making the map too easy to move around?

Sometimes you want to protect a player in a way so that no one can kill him (except you yourself of course). Sometimes you want to hold a strategic path so that you control two different sections of the map. With ports, things like this are usually not really possible. For example on [url=http://www.pixnstuff.tr-tech.co.uk/maplearn/ex9.jpg]this version[/url], if I own Issland I can reach every territory on the map in at most 4 hops. By far most territories I can reach in 1 or 2 hops. So the strategy here is: 1. Own 'Issland'. 2. Place all your troops there. 3. Be able to kill anyone anywhere. Feels a bit like a boring game. Not to say that there are no exceptions where ports make a map better, but usually it's a sign that the map is either overconnected or maybe not suitable for a risk game.

Yes Bearskin, "too easy to move around" is the problem, hyper-connectivity kills the game-play. The best negative example of this is the Pizza map (ehm,, it is called Saturn but to me it reminds pizza slices, so I call it Pizza). Well, all the slices are connected in the center, so that all regions are bordering to each other (even the outer one), basically every territory is the same, there isn't any territorial strategy, you can build your army whatever you want, and won't be wrong. Now I am not saying your map is like a Pizza map, of course it is not, I'm just highlighting you on the problem some of us have with port based game-plays. I rarely play Korea-Japan and New Zealand because they are all ports connected. Texas also but in that case, such a large map with 6 ports, I find it accettable. Yours is different because: 1st there aren't many small regions which is positive in my opinion, 2nd there are maany ports but at least they are divided in 3 colours which reduce the effect (still i think they should be less though), 3rd you menaged to create a small region in the middle that chokes the hyper-connectivity of the map, this makes a great strategic point also, well, all good. Now the doubt is = only one player can achieve to occupy that strategic region in the center, how the fight will be for that? How the others will try to counterbalance? I don't know honestly, and I'm glad we are testing it. :) You already can see an effect of having so many ports: fog of war games are almost equal to "sunny" games. I can easily understand what is going on in the few territories I cannot see. Not a big deal, just saying... Well, let's play another couple of rounds then probably we'll have more lighted thoughts.

I really like some port maps (Westeros & Essos, Korea Japan, Westeros, Battle of the Elements, Texas)

Well, it's a matter of personal taste, nothing really right or wrong. I don't consider Battle of Elements a "port map" for just having 2 crossing connections. The effect of ports changes esponentionally with the number of ports of same colours. 2 is nothing, 3 it's okay, 4 it begins, 5 is much, 6 is very much, 7 really too much for me! Can be seen as a mathematic formula (not esponential for real, but combinatory): 2 ports ...equal to... 1 connection; 3 ports ...equal to... 3 connections; 4 ports ...equal to... 6 connections; 5 ports ...equal to... 10 connections; 6 ports ...equal to... 15 connections; 7 ports ...equal to... 21 connections; 8 ports ...equal to... 28 connections; 9 ports ...equal to... 36 connections; and so on... But if you split ports in 2 or 3 colours than things are lighter, for ex. Westeros and Essos, 4 in one side, 5 in the others, it's okay for me, it is not like having 9 ports of same colours! Which I wouldn't like. And this is also true: [quote=Matty]Sometimes you want to protect a player in a way so that no one can kill him (except you yourself of course). Sometimes you want to hold a strategic path so that you control two different sections of the map. With ports, things like this are usually not really possible..[/quote] Maybe if you don't play much increasing card games then things can be different, and probably "protecting someone" doesn't occur often with capped cards.

Hi all I know you have problems with the port system on this map so here are some reasons why we came up with it. When designing the map we tried to think like Vikings and studied how they became so feared. They were a very aggressive and war dominated nation. Being a major sea fairing they would turn up and raid any port anywhere anytime, so hence we have all the ports. The different colours represent the different time when they went on major offences or discoveries. They were also one of the first nation to be able to traverse the oceans so that is why Issland (Iceland) was very important to them and of course to our map. We set this up so it could be attacked from almost anywhere. Although if you look you can see almost all regions including the Eylands can be defended by supporting three territories. So I am at bit confused when you say you cant fortify or protect weaker players. Having played this map (and I know I'm no expert) I find this map similar to all your other maps, in regards to the fact that you gain territories and cards so you can amass enough troops to go on to defeat your opposing players. This map just does it in a slightly different way.

Too easy wins for me in the test games... I would like to set a new one, please Hood, preferably "sunny". Still I am conviced that ports must be reduced (and some see connection lines added), above all among the red ones, but I have to admit that the "Issland centered" game-play is quite interesting.

An example of what I mean by having connection lines instead of 2 ports which keeps the game-play less connected is, on Isthmus of Panama, the San Miguel island.

Yes I see what you (and others) are saying. Over the last couple of weeks, I've run 17 different setups on the domination map editor (1 port per region, 2 ports, no ports) and none of them achieve the game-play I wanted. Planning to run some Capitals test-games to see how they play and then I'll assess whether its worth moving forward with this map.

[quote=Bearskin]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] Caps should be spread as far as possible in an equal manner - with emphasis on as possible. When there's only so few territories and so many players, then they'll be more closely located. So then it's more an issue to not have any 2 caps closer to each other than other caps - at least, that's how I feel about it. I noticed it again here: https://dominating12.com/game/1029364 - go for the north east corner; Rus & Ingria (cap of yellow and blue) are separated with just 1 territory, whereas it could be changed to 2 (more fair with respect to the spread of the other caps), by switching cap location from Rus to Finnmark This is also what I tried to convey with post: https://dominating12.com/forums/3/map-creation/3341/caution-learner-map-maker/post/59149#post-59149 In a similar fashion, the cap on the far north west (beothuk) is too far away - 3. It should be moved to Nunavut (it becomes a 2) I believe the others are fine - for the current setup of connections... (I'm not sure what I think of the ports.... gut feeling says it's too many... but I can see you want them, to create more borders for game-play which isn't setup with caps - when regions can/should atually have some influence on how people play) I'll be happy to see more feedback concerning the ports - what everyone else thinks (and if they don't like it - suggestions towards improving).

Feedback from @@Axobongo [spoiler]Axobongo said: 05 Jul 2020, 02:40 am i agree, gameplay works. Here are my thoughts on the visual presentation for Bearskin. is from some notes i took as i played and critiqued my bugs in the look of it. North atlantic. Its width and feel, along with its theme, is very Sea oriented, more than any map, this is the raider by sea map. Therefore, i think its important to encapsulate a real sea feeling..And in that i think the grey sea should be replaced with a dark blue. i love the font, but not the name North Atlantic so much, and ought to be shrunk enough to enlarge the sub title of Viking Voyages Love the ouroboros dragon bracelet around the titles, it led me to imagine if it were among an image that is montage of viking era art & weave patterns (like booty on a table of viking artifacts) . And if that image were slipped under [double imposed] all the ocean areas in the same white-out washed look the bracelet has now.. giving the dark sea a texture of subtle white designs that double as giving the sea some mist, foam and ice. ?? anyways, that was just an artistic curiosity i thought i'd mention. i guess its obvious: the ships and all words need to be punched up in contrasting tones, and sea names enlarged. the pink region ought not be pink,, i really really think.. The look of mouse drawn edges needs to be fixed,, UK has stairs. suggestion: more fjords. any mountains or woods or rivers or icy/snowy bits added would be an elating jubilation and of course , a lighter blue tone to a white shore line ( y'know, gradating from about 5/8ths out from shoreline) would be sheer ecstasy, impressionistically speaking. *this also might help the ships contrast and read more comfortably. **About the name.. North Atlantic Viking age north atlantic Viking Voyages -dates/eras Personally, i would really shrink the words 'north atlantic' and greatly enlarge the words viking voyages, to fit in the dragon circle.[/spoiler]

Many thanks to all who took the time to give me feedback on this map, as well as everyone who took part in the test games. I've decided to shelve the idea for the time being. [i]I will probably come back to it at a later date[/i]

[spoiler=Current map version for reference][img]http://www.pixnstuff.tr-tech.co.uk/maplearn/ex9.jpg[/img][/spoiler] @@Alex - Yes some capitals needed some adjustments but I think they are already done, not sure though. Unfortunately it is not a simple matter of equal distances as thought by the most. There a several parameters to keep into account. But yes, probably the spacing is one of the most important, and also most noticeable. @@Axo via Hood - Nice interesting comment, suggesting some good artistic ideas. Of course Alventio and Bearskin can have different ideas but I think you offered several good inspirations. I agree with the sea names being too little /hard to read, and what you say about port/ship icons is also probably right. Not sure about the title, maybe one of these: [i]-- Northern Atlantic (Viking Age); -- North Atlantic Vikings' Voyages; -- Northern Atlantic Vikings; -- North Atlantic - Vikings.[/i] And also I would [u]change the title of this forum thread accordingly[/u], in order to make people aware of what it is about, so propelling the interest and the feedbacking. If the (map) subtitle stays then yes, I agree it should be quite a bit bigger. Not sure "Sea" and "Voyages" need the uppercase in a subtitle/description. [b]About game-play[/b] - This vast multitude of ports that made many people turn up their noses (including my eminence) actually works pretty well. From the tests it results to be pretty dynamic and funny to play, especially in capitals mode. And I had already admitted in a previous post that even the Issland centered game-play is interesting and not at all bad or trivial. At least this is what we have experienced during the test games. @@Bearskin - Sorry if I delayed so much to give my feedback but I had to find the time for commenting this as there were many important things going on at the same time. I had just read it quickly and had missed the fact that you decided to temporary shelve the idea. Can be a wise decision sometimes to pause the job and restart it when you are in the mood. We are not in a rush in the end.

I agree that the current title is cumbersome. I favour [b]North Atlantic - Viking Age[/b] but I can't change the title of the forum thread [i](tried)[/i], perhaps an Admin can change that. @@Axobongo and @@The_Bishop thanks again for your comments, which I will take into consideration if/when I decide to continue with development of this map.