World Double

[quote=emjaydee]What about using Mirror instead of dual/double? [/quote] I wouldn't recommend this, it is not mirrored, it is rotated.

World Double, Mirror Hawaii and Parallel Caribbean... May be! Edit: Ah wait, Hawaii also is not mirrored but rotated.

@Hoodlum This is wrong: [img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/TunisiaCut_00_zpscnco30my.png[/img] This is right: [img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/TunisiaCut_01_zpsqojukccz.png[/img]

Whoops @Hood, I have just re-read the whole thread and discovered that you had already understood what I meant about Tunisia, sorry I had missed it in your post. By the way the image is to clarify the reason why I ask to adjust Tunisia as part of North Africa: it's in order to have a better placed connection line between North Africa and Southern Europe.

You could also just put the connection line dissecting Corsica & Sardinia as it stands.

Yes Aero, maybe. But my suggestion is just to draw it as it is in all Risk board. And about [url=http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&act=view&id=764&board=43&page=4#post-33945]Vexer's proposal[/url], I think it's ultra cool but it doesn't fit very well with this map. Why I say that. First of all notice this map has a different cartographic projection, it's the Mercatore's cylindrical projection. I hate Mercatore's really because the dimension of the continents is completely wrong, but beeing cylindrical is particularly suitable for the way the two worlds has been joined here thanks to Clarke's proposal. This means if you want Vexer's colour scheme then his job should be restarted from zero to match the new shape of the land. Plus, Mercatore is typical of Hasbro Risk board, but the gameplay we are defining here is a total novelty even if it takes the territories of World Classic exactly as they are. And I am sure it's a novelty because I think nobody have never made a joining like this using real boards: because it's too complex, it would require to cut the map using the scissors. It's something you can only do with computer boards. Since in this case I like the paper background style because it means a mix of old and new: I see this map like a modern concept camouflaged with a traditional dress! But maybe Vexer's job can be useful for a World Classic remake (the first half I think is nicer) but really it doesn't look like it needs to be remade. Or even better, I would really love it for my [url=http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=610&lastpost=1#post-33598]World Modified_2[/url] proposal if it's going to be realized. But I think it's better to finish this one and wait a couple of month before starting producing another world map.

In any case before we go on with the graphic job I would like to discuss the following subjects with the community: [list type=decimal] [li][b] New Zealand territories - Yes/No[/b][/li] Hoodlum and myself are in favour of this addition. Really it seems we already have a majority as Psymon is the only which stated a clear disagreement. But I would like to know what everybody think. Should be discussed in parallel with the West-to-East connection between the Australias [size=10](in this case really we should say East-to-East connection)[/size]. I can see only 2 good options: New Zealand in, with the connection in place, or, New Zealand out, with no connection between Aussies. [li][b] Title - "World Double" / "World Dual"[/b][/li] My preference is for World Double as it was the intended title from the beginning. Vexer suggested to use the words Double and Dual to distinguish double maps with twin connectivity from double maps without twin connectivity. I would prefer this one to be Double and Hawaii to be Dual if it is possible. What do you all think? [li][b] Capital Placements[/b][/li] It is not so urgent to already define the capitals, but taking a look at them right now, may be useful for defining possible gameplay adjustments. In this specific case can be good to decide if the map is better with NZ's (or without). I already have proposals and I am going to show them very soon. Just need to load the images on Photobucket and then I will post them.[/list]

At least Vexer, Matty and Aero have stated in posts #21 to #23 their agreement for a 84 territory map. Vexer incided again in post #56. In any case I don't know if the rest of the people (besides us 6) have an opinion or changed it in the meantime.

Ha wait I counted Aero as not opposed to the NZ addition because of this sentence: [quote=aeronautic (post #33)]There is no reason why we can't involve NZ[/quote] Basically you are right Psymon. But I would say posts #22 and #23 seem like general ideas rather than specific thoughts. For me too the basic idea was to don't add any territory but then I changed my mind. It's true that in post #56 Vexer expressed a clear disagreement to NZ addition and the Aus-to-Aus connection. I tend to miss Vexer's posts lately (Sorry General! My apologizes). In post #23 Matty considered like obvious that the Australia's must be connected each other. Since my question is: what we are supposed to do with New Zealand? I mean it's on the map, should we ignore it and turn a connection line from Australia to Australia_2, or remove the connection at all? That connection it's a consistent gameplay improvement for me, it also helped me to find out good capitals (not shown yet sorry). I mean, it doesn't make a great difference for me to have New Zealand or not. But then I realized the map is better looking and better playable with it. Since why not?

I think I agree with Bishop as to titles. Dual I think is a better appellation for a map where the twin territories can attack each other. While Double just means you got twice the territories. Whether you keep NZ and the connection or not... It's hard to say. The connection really doesn't add anything, it doesn't get you anywhere faster and it makes a 10 territory/4 border super region possible by holding both Australia's. I think it would be fair to keep the Australia/Australia connection and get rid of NZ, as that would make Australia and SA equally connected. Four territories/three border. I do think it makes the region more attractive by having NZ. But I can see where people would want a World Double to be exactly the same as World Classic. Only thing is, you're already adding new connection lines and changing the game that way, so... it's really not a huge corruption to put in NZ. Either way would be good.

[quote=naathim]Only thing is, you're already adding new connection lines and changing the game that way, so... it's really not a huge corruption to put in NZ. [/quote] That is the point, because if we want a map respecting the original gameplay of World Classic I would make it completely different. But then if we get a better gameplay than the original, why to stick with the 84 territories commitment.

Since if I can resume the pull on New Zealand addition: FAVOURABLE: Hoodlum The_Bishop NOT OPPOSED: aeronautic naathim NOT FAVOURABLE: Matty OPPOSED: Vexer Psymon Stark And here the map for reference: [spoiler=New Zealand Off][img]http://oi59.tinypic.com/11qsnwp.jpg[/img][/spoiler][spoiler=New Zealand On][img]http://oi57.tinypic.com/349b7rt.jpg[/img][/spoiler] Bonuses are not well defined yet, Africa need to be raised from +3 to +4. In case of New Zealand On, Australia should be raised from +2 to +3. That's another reason why I like the second version because I don't want the map to stay without middle bonus regions (+3). This meets the standard World Classic gameplay if you want to see it in this way.

Ehm sorry I meant *poll* not pull, a vote for New Zealand, aka Hoodlum's Land! [i][size=14]So here my capital ideas:[/size][/i] [b]2 Cap's[/b] = Middle_East, Middle_East_2. Perfectly equal!! Triple attack lane, the main path is 5 hops through Africas, the secondary paths are 6 hops through South_America and South_America_2. Unfortunately either one will start first with 9 troop reinforcement, not so fair, better for same-time games. [b]3 Caps's[/b] = China_2, Congo, W._US_2. Just a normal triangular shape with the capitals 5 hops distant. They belong to different size regions but there is a compensation based on the number of adjacientes similar to Solar System 3 cap's i.e. the capital in the smallest region has less adjacientes, the one in the largest has more. [b]4 Cap's[/b] = E._US, China, E._US_2, China_2. Quadrilateral shape with the four capitals in the four largest regions. Distances are 6 hops to the neighbours (on the edges) and 8/9 hops to the opposite (on the diagonals). All the placements for low numbers of players can stay as they are also in the New Zealand Off version. [spoiler=2, 3, 4 players][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/WDcaps234_zpstdqxm74d.png[/img][/spoiler] [b]5 Cap's[/b] = E._US, Congo, Mongolia, China_2, W._US_2. Same scheme as for 4 players, just added one in the middle and adjusted two of them to make Congo equally distant from all the others. Distances to neighbours are vary from 5 to 7. What is cool when you study the capital placement is that you discover special details on the shape of the maps. This one got a double center because Congo (and Congo_2 as well) is equally distant from both Americas and Australias and only 1 hop different from "his own" Eastern Asia and "the other" Eastern Asia. Since I putted one capital on Congo for any placements where I need one cap in the middle, i.e. for every uneven number of players. [b]6 Cap's[/b] = W._US, N._Europe, Papua_New_Guinea, W._US_2, N._Europe_2, Papua_New_Guinea_2. Exagonal/circular shape, distance to neighbours set at 5 or 6 hops. When the number of players is even then I always prefer to have symmetrical placements: it's something that ensure to always have at least one other capital with perfectly identical condition to your own. This placement for 6 players is not possible in the New Zealand Off version. In that case Papua-N.W. would have 2 exits only, even if you add a connection line E.Australia to E.Australia_2 it doesn't work because they would be only 3 hops distant: much closer than the others. A different solution is possible for New Zealand Off but I would need to set cap's in Perus and I wanted to avoid small regions and especially cap's controlling all borders of their regions. [spoiler=5, 6 players][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/WDcaps56_zpsqvxzron5.png[/img][/spoiler] [b]7 Cap's[/b] = W._US, Scandinavia, Papua_New_Guinea, W._US_2, N._Europe_2, Papua_New_Guinea_2, Congo. Same scheme as 6, just added Congo and moved N.Europe to Scandinavia. Every one have at least 2 opponent cap's 4 or 5 hops distant. I would have the same problems as 6 players in case of NZ-Off version, even worse because I couldn't find a decent alternative idea. [spoiler=7 players][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/WDcaps7_zpstdalltrc.png[/img][/spoiler] [b]8 Cap's[/b] = Ontario, N._Europe, Mongolia, Peru_2, Ontario_2, N._Europe_2, Mongolia_2, Peru. Sort of bi-triangular shape with two in the middle. Every one with at least 3 opponents at 4 or 5 hops. Things are balanced out thanks to the Alaska--Kamchatka connections that avoid cap's in the corners to be too much apart. In this case I didn't bother Perus controlling their regions from the center because with 8 players in the game you cannot win by bonuses, you must be crazy to lock yourself in, for only gaining a +2 bonus. I like so much this placement but if you don't then other versions are possible. It is gladly not effected by the NZ-Off option. [spoiler=8 players][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/WDcaps8_zps3isx1uw1.png[/img][/spoiler] [b]9 Cap's[/b] = E._US, Scandinavia, Mongolia, Papua_New_Guinea, W._US_2, Great_Britain_2, China_2, E._Australia_2, Congo. Circular with one in the middle. Every one with at least 3 opponents at 4 or 5 hops. All cap's are different, I love that. This also wouldn't work with New Zealand off, in that case we should probably work to something only 3 hops distant, using more of the small regions in the center. [spoiler=9 players][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/WDcaps9_zpsfbbznvnb.png[/img][/spoiler] Most important for me are 8 and 9 cap's because are the most suitable for this map size. But also 5, 6 and 7 should be kept into account. As for Vexer's suggestion I can see a general improvement on the capital placements with adding some connections more. If the connection in exam is Aussy to Aussy then for my opinion and my study it results better with the New Zealand addition. Then it's up to you.

I am less opposed to new zealand being a territory but it should only become one if necessary for balancing bonuses or finding the best caps otherwise it's best to stick with what people know. I can see an argument that because of the new connection lines africa becomes harder to hold so either the africa bonus should go up or australia should become harder to take by adding a territory. I am vehemently opposed to an australia to australia connection because of the super region it creates. Noobs often go for australia and have ruined many games by fighting over it even in the end game when bonuses don't matter. There would be less fights over australia if there were two of them that aren't connected. I want to be able to take one australia without fearing that some noob is going to take it from me right before the end of the game. Then there is the other side of it, the super region. If a player is able to take australia quickly then they won't have any trouble taking the second australia and then we haven't improved anything at all.

Aeronautic and I discussed the dual vs double nomenclature and we agree that dual is better for maps where twin territories can attack each other. Caribbean double will be renamed Caribbean dual. Hawaii double will be Hawaii dual and we will go with World Double.