Wisconsin Map Revealed!

by **happysadfun** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:52 am

The words are a bit small, but it works. I'll make the words bigger on draft 2.

by **happysadfun** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:53 am

haven't thought one bit about bonuses yet though

by **Red Army** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:55 am

Ok, this needs a LOT of work...

As of right now I am not giving it a second glance.

by **happysadfun** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:55 am

i also think the north woods should be split into nw and ne. opinions?

by **OwlLawyer** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:11 am

Never made a map myself, but that looks like a buttload of countries.

by **onbekende** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:18 am

Is indeed kind of big

by **OwlLawyer** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:25 am

Red Army wrote:Ok, this needs a LOT of work...

As of right now I am not giving it a second glance.

How is that a helpful comment... if you know it needs so much work, maybe you can suggest to the author what can be done. The dismissive comment above doesn't help anyone.

by **happysadfun** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:30 am

there's 72 counties in wisconsin... i think. i could work on an inner city milwaukee map... and THANK YOU owllawyer

by **happysadfun** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:32 am

to answer those of you who put the third answer in on the poll, lake winnebago is a large lake right in between calumet and winnebago counties. if i put it in it could effectively serve as an uncrossable border

by **Phobia** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:33 am

whew...you need to merge 30 of those counties...its simply too big

i like the idea of the river blocking half of light blue though with only one bridge

by **happysadfun** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:39 am

about the county merger, i thought of that too. especially many ppl are thinking of the southeast. but all the big cities are there. Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee all have more than 85,000 people, Waukesha is close behind, as is Sheboygan, and one city for it just wouldn't do it justice. You see my dilemma :?:

And the bigger counties in the north have like five hundred people living in them. ok maybe not that little but you get my drift.

by **OwlLawyer** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:40 am

You have to remember, it's not about accurately reflecting a real map, it's about game play. When you have to choose one over the other, you choose better game play.

I mean a map can be as accurate as possible, but if no one plays it, who cares?

by **happysadfun** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:44 am

to help the biggest cities in wisconsin, in order, are:
Milwaukee 600,000
Madison 250,000 (in Dane)
Green Bay 100,000 (in Brown)
Kenosha 100,000
Racine 90,000
Waukesha 80,000 (kind of a suburb though)
etc. and most are in the se

by **onbekende** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:45 am

happysadfun wrote:to answer those of you who put the third answer in on the poll, lake winnebago is a large lake right in between calumet and winnebago counties. if i put it in it could effectively serve as an uncrossable border

And were lies Calumet and Winnedago

by **happysadfun** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:47 am

maybe i should make "spheres of influence" rather than counties. like i'll have a milwaukee area, a kenosha area, a racine area, an antigo area, etc that would span more than one county

by **happysadfun** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:48 am

calumet and winnebago are just north of the red. they are in the yellow, if u can make out the words

by **hotgun** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:26 am

What on earth... why is this getting so much good feedback and helpful!... where were these people when me and cybertech were making the MN map... this is a state 2!, why is this getting better feedback than ours did... no one wanted ours so we didn't finish making it after all the work we did!

by **happysadfun** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:46 pm

oh that was you who did the minnesota map? that map was cool. i voted for it

by **Marvaddin** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:09 pm

Yeah, this map is much worse than MN's. At least, as it is now.
Wisconsin, what a appeal, huh?? I still prefer Arkansas map...

But there are more terrible things:
1) names are not readable
2) colours are ridiculous
3) # of countries is too high
4) continents with up to 23 countries, no one with less than 11 (how many years until someone holds a continent in a flat rate or no cards game?)
5) the borders are mostly perfect lines, this is terrible
6) 4 borders corners

In fact, Im not favourable to this map, but if you will really do it, it will costs tons and tons of work. Please dont do a new Indochina map, a CC map version to players that use EGA (16 colours) monitor.

by **happysadfun** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:57 pm

ok. i'm just scrapping the idea for now.

by **wcaclimbing** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:22 pm

wow... way too many countries. at least combine some of the countries and block some of the borders between continents or this will be like trying to control russia on the classic map x1000

by **sully800** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:51 pm

I agree that this map isn't very good right now...but why is every so set on having roughly 42 countries? I know its classic and its what you're used to...but why not change that?

I have played games with 100-125 countries and I love that! It adds a completely new feel to the game and minimalizes the importance of luck (since you can be defeated in one area but still have men elsewhere).

It seems to me like most maps people create are replicas of the classic map just with different shapes and names. Why not have a map with 100 countries? You may not like it but I know some people definitely would. It turns into a game you really care about and get devoted to. Why not have continents that are absurdly hard to hold? It may take a long time, but getting one would be a great accomplishment and change the game a lot.

I'm sick of all the replica maps. It's good to be different.

by **AndyDufresne** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:20 pm

For one as of right now, the options for a 100 country game aren't that appealing. Imagine everyone starting with 5-6 men, and you are the last to play... We are increasing in size steadily, the amount of countries. The North America map, whenever it gets finished, has more than the usual. It will be one of the first to test the more than standard countries. Obviously tests should be done before hand, before creating a great map, and then having it be unplayable.

--Andy

by **reverend_kyle** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 5:13 pm

Countries are FAR to blocky.

by **sully800** on Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:13 pm

I agree 100 would be a little high...but perhpas 84 countries for a huge map. That would mean in a six player game no one recieves more than 4 armies from the start, but gives a slight incentive for going first to gain that extra man. Many people don't like to take the first turn because they would rather have a few ones on the board to attack 6v1 instead of 6v3. So that extra starting bonus would be pretty nice. And its also coincidentally double the number of countries from the standard map which is pretty nice. Give a good perspective on the size that map would be. Anyway, its just a thought because I like playing larger maps and I see nothing wrong with edging outside the norm a bit.

Wisconsin Map Revealed!

Should Lake Winnebago be put in for an uncrossable border between Calumet and Winnebago?

Wisconsin Map Revealed!

Who is online