Fractured China - [Quenched]

by **Victor Sullivan** on Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:35 pm

isaiah40 wrote:
Victor Sullivan wrote:What are you doing with the grey and white territories?

Did you read the legend?

Oh, I guess I was a little confused by the term, city.

by **isaiah40** on Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:06 pm

That's okay, that's why I have the colors of the bonuses under the bonus values. Maybe I should figure something out about that.

by **Industrial Helix** on Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:24 pm

Victor Sullivan wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:
Victor Sullivan wrote:What are you doing with the grey and white territories?

Did you read the legend?

Oh, I guess I was a little confused by the term, city.

I was confused for a bit as well. Maybe it could be labeled like a region instead of the ambiguous name "cities" Something like "Confederation of Autonomous Cities"

by **isaiah40** on Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:28 pm

Industrial Helix wrote:I was confused for a bit as well. Maybe it could be labeled like a region instead of the ambiguous name "cities" Something like "Confederation of Autonomous Cities"

I'll come up with something that will be short and to the point and that will fit in the legend.

Other than these couple of points for now, what do you think of the grunge feeling? Too much, not enough? Let me know!

by **isaiah40** on Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:26 pm

I have the large and small here. The small I put the "888" so we all can see that they will fit in the smallest territories.

Click image to enlarge.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:05 pm

So the white territories do nothing? Thats kinda lame, no offense...

by **isaiah40** on Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:27 am

Victor Sullivan wrote:So the white territories do nothing? That's kinda lame, no offense...

So what is so lame about having neutral countries that you have to go around? As far as I can tell, Nepal and Bhutan are rather peaceful countries, whereas Tibet would rather be out from underneath the control of Beijing.

by **AndyDufresne** on Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:53 pm

isaiah40 wrote:
Victor Sullivan wrote:So the white territories do nothing? That's kinda lame, no offense...

So what is so lame about having neutral countries that you have to go around? As far as I can tell, Nepal and Bhutan are rather peaceful countries, whereas Tibet would rather be out from underneath the control of Beijing.

I'm fine with it. Think of it this way, they are autonomous mountainous peaceful regions for the most part. Maybe the invading armies of various sides decided that it wasn't worth it to expend their troops trying to conquer a region they know they could just surround and overwhelm if a real issue came.

--Andy

by **isaiah40** on Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:26 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:
Victor Sullivan wrote:So the white territories do nothing? That's kinda lame, no offense...

So what is so lame about having neutral countries that you have to go around? As far as I can tell, Nepal and Bhutan are rather peaceful countries, whereas Tibet would rather be out from underneath the control of Beijing.

I'm fine with it. Think of it this way, they are autonomous mountainous peaceful regions for the most part. Maybe the invading armies of various sides decided that it wasn't worth it to expend their troops trying to conquer a region they know they could just surround and overwhelm if a real issue came.

--Andy

Well put Andy!. Besides having a neutral country you have to go around means you will have to think about taking out someone by splitting your troops and taking a chance on not making it.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Sat Jan 08, 2011 7:44 pm

isaiah40 wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:
Victor Sullivan wrote:So the white territories do nothing? That's kinda lame, no offense...

So what is so lame about having neutral countries that you have to go around? As far as I can tell, Nepal and Bhutan are rather peaceful countries, whereas Tibet would rather be out from underneath the control of Beijing.

I'm fine with it. Think of it this way, they are autonomous mountainous peaceful regions for the most part. Maybe the invading armies of various sides decided that it wasn't worth it to expend their troops trying to conquer a region they know they could just surround and overwhelm if a real issue came.

--Andy

Well put Andy!. Besides having a neutral country you have to go around means you will have to think about taking out someone by splitting your troops and taking a chance on not making it.

All you get from holding the white territories is something to go towards the standard territory bonus and maybe it would help to guard a bonus area, but the strategic benefits of conquering that territory is miniscule at best. There needs to be more... Why did you decide to not include them as bonus areas anyways?

by **isaiah40** on Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:13 pm

Victor Sullivan wrote:All you get from holding the white territories is something to go towards the standard territory bonus and maybe it would help to guard a bonus area, but the strategic benefits of conquering that territory is miniscule at best. There needs to be more... Why did you decide to not include them as bonus areas anyways?

Well if look, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Thailand have no effect on guarding any bonus. Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan are confined within the Indian bonus so whoever holds India would also hold these three. Myanmar is a killer neutral so in effect it helps to guard BOTH India and Indo-China. Thailand is down in the corner and of no consequence to anyone who holds it.

When you say there needs to be more, please expand and explain what you mean!

by **Victor Sullivan** on Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:15 pm

isaiah40 wrote:Well if look, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Thailand have no effect on guarding any bonus. Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan are confined within the Indian bonus so whoever holds India would also hold these three. Myanmar is a killer neutral so in effect it helps to guard BOTH India and Indo-China. Thailand is down in the corner and of no consequence to anyone who holds it.

When you say there needs to be more, please expand and explain what you mean!

Okay... So why have the white territories at all? And I dont understand why Myanmar would be a killer neutral at all, aside from the extra gameplay feature. My suggestion would be to drop Myanmars killer neutral aspect and the Jharkhand/Myanmar attack route, then make all the white territories an interesting bonus area, like The Burman Alliance, or something, with a +6 bonus.

by **isaiah40** on Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:46 pm

Victor Sullivan wrote:Okay... So why have the white territories at all? And I dont understand why Myanmar would be a killer neutral at all, aside from the extra gameplay feature. My suggestion would be to drop Myanmars killer neutral aspect and the Jharkhand/Myanmar attack route, then make all the white territories an interesting bonus area, like The Burman Alliance, or something, with a +6 bonus.

Okay, if I do it then I think that the bonus should be reduced as if someone holds India, Indo-China and those neutral countries they would be looking +13 with only access through 6 territories. I think that is a little excessive. Maybe a +3 for the neutral countries at the most. I believ that a +10 with only 6 ways in is more inline.

What do others think??

by **Victor Sullivan** on Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:54 pm

isaiah40 wrote:
Victor Sullivan wrote:Okay... So why have the white territories at all? And I dont understand why Myanmar would be a killer neutral at all, aside from the extra gameplay feature. My suggestion would be to drop Myanmars killer neutral aspect and the Jharkhand/Myanmar attack route, then make all the white territories an interesting bonus area, like The Burman Alliance, or something, with a +6 bonus.

Okay, if I do it then I think that the bonus should be reduced as if someone holds India, Indo-China and those neutral countries they would be looking +13 with only access through 6 territories. I think that is a little excessive. Maybe a +3 for the neutral countries at the most. I believ that a +10 with only 6 ways in is more inline.

What do others think??

I was thinking with 5 stand alone territories that cant be effectively reinforced, it seemed like a good tentative value. And if someone holds India and Indochina, they pretty much already win anyways, so I dont see an issue there...

by **isaiah40** on Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:59 pm

Fair enough. I'll see what others think of the idea and then we'll proceed from there, fair enough?

by **Victor Sullivan** on Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:07 pm

isaiah40 wrote:Fair enough. I'll see what others think of the idea and then we'll proceed from there, fair enough?

Fare enuff.

by **jefjef** on Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:26 am

You could make Nepal part of the India bonus and put Assam with the other neutrals and have another bonus region. I didn't check what the tert count is at but you could redraw/absorb one or some of em into other terts if it doesn't throw ya off.

You could also give Nepal a chunk of India. No reason India can't/shouldn't be fractured too.

But yes do something with those stray neutral regions.

by **isaiah40** on Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:56 pm

Okay so how is this?

Click image to enlarge.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:03 pm

Looks fine, though I would call the bonus area Burma. One of my pet peeves, you could say, is having a territory with the same name as the continent. You should probably get rid of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Thailand from the Impassables section.

by **isaiah40** on Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:06 pm

Victor Sullivan wrote:Looks fine, though I would call the bonus area Burma. One of my pet peeves, you could say, is having a territory with the same name as the continent. You should probably get rid of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Thailand from the Impassables section.

I'll change the name later. And yes those will be removed. I just posted this for everyone to see and comment.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:08 pm

THERE IS NO NEUTRALITY IN 2045!

by **24Keyser** on Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:44 pm

isaiah40 wrote:Okay so how is this?

Click image to enlarge.

i like the new myanmar bonus area

and the Korea+3 only says Korea 3 xP

by **The Bison King** on Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:49 pm

ooooh! I rather like that!

by **isaiah40** on Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:31 pm

Any other game play comments and/or suggestions? If not can we get this thing game... ah I can wait awhile~!

by **Industrial Helix** on Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:22 pm

I think you should call Myanmar "Imperial Myanmar" to imply Myanmar took over those territories rather than looking like you couldn't find a better name for the white region.

I think Xizang ought to be called Tibet as that is what it is most commonly known as. And there should be mountains in the areas where there are arrows to show there is not a regular border there. Also, reduce its value to 2 or 1 as it also borders chongqing and is easily defensible. Personally, given Tibet's unwarlike nature, I think it ought to be 1. The idea that player can base in Tibet and conquer Asia is unsettling...

Reduce Han to 5 I think... very easily defensible. Plus it has Beijing next to it. I know that area should be rich in resources, but I think at +6 and exclusive access to Beijing, this might be excessive.

Manchuria ought to be more like +3 or 4.

Little known Carto fact... Russia shares a border with North Korea. Primorsky ought to have a coastal strip touching North Korea. Personally, I think this is integral. Korea has always been a giant crossroads between the Far Eastern powers: Japan, China and Russia.

Shouldn't Bayangor in Mongolia be Ulaan Baatar?

Other than that, I think this map is near ready for Graphics... I'm sure a couple issues will arise but I'm hoping this one is close.

Speaking of Graphics, two things really bother me on this otherwise attractive map:

1) The jungle lines... could you thinking them up in a few areas to make them look more like jungles rather than strings of trees? Check out Baltic Crusades, middle Ages or Austro-Hungarian Empire to get an idea of what I mean.
2) Absence of Japan. It's fine and dandy to have it nonplayable, but looking at Korea and not seeing Kyushu there is jarring.

Fractured China - [Quenched]

Re: Fractured China V.1g With ... Well come and take a look

Re: Fractured China V.1g With ... Well come and take a look

Re: Fractured China V.1g With ... Well come and take a look

Re: Fractured China V.1g With ... Well come and take a look

Re: Fractured China V.1g With ... Well come and take a look

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1h Small map includes 888's

Re: Fractured China V.1i - Game Play discussion!

Re: Fractured China V.1i - Game Play discussion!

Re: Fractured China V.1i - Game Play discussion!

Who is online