World Double

Cbt711, there's a [u]new proposal in place[/u]. Matty doesn't seem to be opposed. Virtuosity and Psymon didn't comment yet.
From all the others the comments seems quite positive (Hammer, Aeronautic, Huskers and Hoodlum).

Then if there is some reasons why you don't like my new proposal, you have also to possibly explain why.
Anyway I think it is definitive, unless someone have some very convincing arguments.

I like it, but maybe make N. America 4 instead of 5 with just 3 borders. (4.2 rounded down instead of up)

My only comment was I thought that was settled as virtuosity and matty and psymon also thought. (see psymon quoting Virtuosity as I did, and Matty reiterating what he had previously thought)That is all.

No Vendetta, I just thought that part was already settled, so didn't expect another version to come out. That's all.

Well, this is reasonable.

So maybe N. America at +4 and Asia at +6, respecting the formula?

Yes. The difference between here and World Classic is starting bonus will be much greater, people could get N. America with a decent drop early, and +5 with 3 borders could really hurt gameplay. But we could easily try both bonusses in beta and play it out. You know I love your work! If you don't you should now

I think it's a good proposal, but then I am no expert on game-play set-up.

I prefer to hear the opinions of those that do study game-play, but at the same time, I bear in mind Bishops expertise in this field. I know he won't make anything that suits him personally, it will always be for the good of the community and the game.

The 'new' proposal (it's been a few weeks, is it really new? lol) has a number of things to recommend it. It is much closer to original world classic gameplay, which when the gameplay was being developed, was an important concern to a lot of people who were chiming in. Borders are basically the exact same, except one extra for Africa and Australia. Which World Modified has that extra Australia border too, so it's not THAT big of a deal. It's also a fairly simple connection pattern (if there were a way, I think it'd be cool to disconnect E. Africa and Middle East, but that WOULD be a major impact on movement). There's no grasping at potential connections just to make things work. Things seem very natural and fluid. And the new proposal really doesn't limit movement or connectivity. For the most part travel across either laterally or vertically is kept at about the same number of steps.

My biggest problem with the new proposal is I do think both South America's will be taken and blocked. And that will severely limit movement because there's not much of a viable way to go around them. Especially since Mexico is stacked half the time instead of Venezuela. With the current connections I think it'll be easier to move around SA, plus the Australia/SA connections would hopefully mean those regions are constantly in flux as people try to expand. Of course, the worry there is new players (and me) will basically suicide themselves trying to take both regions, potentially ruining someone else's game. I also enjoy the creativity of the current map. It's more fun, more dynamic, more interesting. Ooooh, Brazil and North Africa aren't connected, you shameless innovators!! Whatever will we do!! And Argentina is connected to the Middle EAST?! The Risk grandma's are clutching their pearls!! I don't think there's ANYTHING wrong with shaking out the dust from old World Classic and playing with the connections a bit.

If we're going to go round again. I'd say the smartest thing to do would be to move forward with Bishop's new proposal. He's got a lot of faith in it and he knows his stuff. The thing I would recommend though, is that the connection be changed from Mexico/NZ to W. US/NZ. I'd like to keep the two NZ's connected, because that just seems more in keeping with the Double theme (plus I like how it looks lol), but I think Bishop has some reservations about a 6 border, 6 bonus superregion there with a strong potential to overtake both the SA's as well (one of the downfalls of too much connectivity).

Well, thanks Naathim for commenting. I got a bit confused initially by you calling "new" the last version (proposed 2 weeks ago), and "current" the previous one (from 2 months ago). Anyway I get your point. If the biggest problem with the new version is people blocking the map by holding small regions in the middle, well, I would say that is quite the same in all proposed versions. It's simply a peculiarity of this map, potentially it could result in a even more interesting gameplay where you have to ensure your troops to be able to hit in both parts of the board. Unless you want to consider something like this: my diagonalized version.

I have nothing against innovations, that is also the reason why we make new maps (!), but here things are different: this map is supposed to be World Classic like. So I do prefer to have standard connections with innovative gameplay, instead of having standard gameplay with innovative connections. If you want another very large map with a standard gameplay then better to start another one from scratch, this one requires to preserve the World Classic setup. I believe it is just the best strategy to get it appreciated by the most.

NZ's connection can be discussed though, as well as all bonuses. And also the other change proposed by Naathim moving Mexico(=C.America)/W.Australia(*notNZ) to W.US/NZ, but I would prefer to keep it as it is having a more "normally" shaped Australian region and keeping N. America with 3 borders only.

>> For Reference <<

I'm happy with either gameplay. Since the reasoning behind the New Proposal is to keep it more recognisably like World Classic, I'm happy with the proposal. The only disadvantage is that it limits access between the worlds, but this is only slightly inhibited (it would be difficult with the old connections anyway).

I share naathim,s concern about the SA,s becoming a super choke point,with a good drop this could happen opening move,with only 2 ways in to hold it..same reason I made my first comments on the connections.. I'm not sure how this would affect the points per region but what about....moving the connect from Mexico to W,OZ to W USA to E OZ an adding a connection from W OZ to Argentina, . making the SA,s harder to hold ,also adds more movement options from upper to lower...The original map has good flow left to right..u could also keep the 2 NZ,s connected an bring that same flow to the center as it is in the upper an lower.

 BTW..love how you guys/gals allow the community to be involved in these discussions... Very cool. !..not only that but I'm learning things about the map(s) I did not know before..kudos to that.

Some remarks on the new proposal:
- Hmmm, so in the original map europe should be +4 as well? To me +5 seemed like a good bonus though.
- What would happen if you connect the two new zealands together and link new zealand to Central America(CBT back then seemed to suggest connecting to the USA, though I'm not sure why USA would be better than Central America). Then remove the other aussie-asia connection.
- This way the SA and Aussie regions really are VERY similar.

- Removing the SA-Asia connection really limits movement.


Maybe not about the new proposal, but... Why is New Zealand there? Does it add something to the map? Nothing against it, just wondering.

@Hammer -- Well, it's hard to contentate everybody now. I think 3 border SA's it would be a good solution for allowing more mobility in the middle, but someones are seriously opposed to that. The other changes you suggested about Australia would seriously compromise the defensibility if all implemented. Better to keep the connection between Australia and N. America in W.Oz or NZ (not in E.Oz!), and in the other side C.America or W.US, something like this: Original retouched Basically it's the original design just retouched by one connection more. But everybody can have a reason for one version or the other, then I think it is better to keep my last proposal, being the most genuine on respecting the World Classic scheme, if not else it's an easier way to find an agreement. Then in beta test phase we will see, if it doesn't work we'll adjust it or try a different one.

@Matty -- I agree with keeping the original +5 bonuses for N. America and Europe. I'm not sure to understand exactly the rest, if you add NZ--C.America and remove Siam--Indonesia then you can hold both Australia's having only 2 entries to defend!! Anyway I don't consider removing the connection between Asia and Australia, would result to be weird. NZ has already been discussed months ago, actually it is there, I cannot delete it; not giving it a territory seemed unfair though. In many proposed versions NZ has an important role, in my last one it seems nothing useful but finally is the only deadend in the map, so could result to be very useful to save someone in the endgame.

Because NZ is part of the world!

Not really

Europe + 5 made sense, 4 borders. N. America + 5 with 3 borders has never really been balanced, but it's usually so big with +3 bonus early, no one could ever really get it until later in the game.

I guess I'm the only one that would like to balance the map and gameplay, in spite of classics' down falls instead of repeating them. I bow out. All hail world classic.

Most of people play World Classic because they like it. If you balance the gameplay probably they wouldn't play it anymore.