Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

This is the place for games which are currently being created and developed, and where the designer is listening to feedback from other players. The game is not ready to play, and the designers are not looking for sign-ups - indeed, they may have no intention of GMing the game themselves when it is finished. But your input is welcome!

Moderator: Morg

Forum rules
Despite repeated requests, designers are still regularly posting maps of several hundred Kb size. All maps should be under 80Kb and preferable 50-60 maximum. Unless you have prior permission, any larger map will be removed without warning.

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 26 Jul 2017, 19:59

joe92 wrote:
RedSun wrote:So do rivers start and end when the black bits of the territories cover the ends of the rivers?

Yes.

And for full clarification: LRH, URH and Mai have an end point at the intersection of Als/Bad/Ruh. UHR and Rho join at the intersection of Als/Lyo/Sui. Mai and UDb join at the intersection of Aus/Cze/Mun. And, UDb and LDb join at the intersection of Hun/Rum/Ser.


Is it necessary to have the rivers as their own spaces? Would it make sense to just treat their bordering provinces as a special canal type instead (one that can't inherently build fleets unless it is also coastal)?
Lead Volunteer Developer & Forum Admin

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2442
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1471
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 26 Jul 2017, 21:03

If I understand your rules correctly, this is the adjacency diagram for having the rivers as their own water spaces:

Image

And this is what it might look like if you treat the bordering regions as a special type of canal instead:

Image
Lead Volunteer Developer & Forum Admin

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2442
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1471
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 26 Jul 2017, 21:08

Alternatively, there's a sort of "middle way" complexity-wise that would connect all regions adjacent to the river segment.
Lead Volunteer Developer & Forum Admin

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2442
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1471
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

Postby RedSun » 26 Jul 2017, 21:09

Do you have a map which shows the starting units of each country?
Groups:
The Holy State of Asteria in CYOC
RedSun
 
Posts: 2089
Joined: 10 Jun 2017, 00:21
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1156)
All-game rating: (1173)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

Postby joe92 » 26 Jul 2017, 22:14

nopunin10did wrote:Is it necessary to have the rivers as their own spaces? Would it make sense to just treat their bordering provinces as a special canal type instead (one that can't inherently build fleets unless it is also coastal)?

I believe it is, yes. It adds a new dynamic to the game. It makes the stalemate lines harder to create in Europe since there are more movement options to consider, as the adjacency map you created shows (thanks for creating that btw, it does help visualise the movement), and by the fact that a stalemate line can be avoided entirely by passing a fleet through the river. You could even use the rivers to convoy an army behind a stalemate line. If the fleets can only travel in the territories that the armies can as well then this benefit is no longer available; it instead just creates additional territories that armies and fleets can occupy. Which isn't bad per se, but the whole river movement dynamic is no longer there.

While I appreciate that visually the rivers have some improvement to be made, I don't wish to drop them just for the sake of making it visually perfect.

RedSun wrote:Do you have a map which shows the starting units of each country?

I'll get one up shortly when I post a recruitment thread. I was going to wait a bit longer but I'll get one up tomorrow or Friday as this thread is getting quite a bit of attention. In the meantime, the starting units are listed in the OP if that helps?
Designer: Emergence, Modern Extended
GM'ing: Nothing

Platinum Classicist

Taking a break
User avatar
joe92
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: 02 Feb 2013, 00:26
Location: Leeds, GB
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1106
All-game rating: 1721
Timezone: GMT

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

Postby RedSun » 26 Jul 2017, 22:38

Oh yeah that helps :)
Groups:
The Holy State of Asteria in CYOC
RedSun
 
Posts: 2089
Joined: 10 Jun 2017, 00:21
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1156)
All-game rating: (1173)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 27 Jul 2017, 01:59

joe92 wrote:While I appreciate that visually the rivers have some improvement to be made, I don't wish to drop them just for the sake of making it visually perfect.


Understood. My frustration isn't just the visualization, though that is part of it. It's the co-location of multiple fleets, potentially, in such narrow corridors. By eliminating the rivers as nodes, it cuts co-location from 3 to 2. A fleet each could be in Austria and Slovakia, for instance, but not a third one in the Danube itself.

I have some thoughts on how you could potentially handle this, but it depends on how willing you are to push beyond the vanilla rules.

Either way, it really is a great map. You've put a lot of thought into it.
Lead Volunteer Developer & Forum Admin

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2442
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1471
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

Postby RedSun » 27 Jul 2017, 02:12

Just an idea: You could have it so fleets can't move to the land (the land bordered by just a canal not also by a seaspace) themselves but rather can support armies onto it. The only problem is you could block rivers easily which maybe then you could have armies support fleets up or down river but can't enter it.
Groups:
The Holy State of Asteria in CYOC
RedSun
 
Posts: 2089
Joined: 10 Jun 2017, 00:21
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1156)
All-game rating: (1173)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 27 Jul 2017, 02:29

What about giving the rivers a different shade of blue than the ocean, as well as some texture?

Something kinda like this:

Image
Lead Volunteer Developer & Forum Admin

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2442
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1471
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

Postby joe92 » 27 Jul 2017, 17:13

nopunin10did wrote:Understood. My frustration isn't just the visualization, though that is part of it. It's the co-location of multiple fleets, potentially, in such narrow corridors. By eliminating the rivers as nodes, it cuts co-location from 3 to 2. A fleet each could be in Austria and Slovakia, for instance, but not a third one in the Danube itself.

The co-location isn't much of an issue. If you look at Spring 2030 of the last game, Germany was well into pushing fleets through the rivers. Even with fleets in Rhone and Upper Rhine the demarcation between nodes is easy enough to see. The new hap has been enlarged further since that game and most of the enlargement is within Europe itself. Putting several fleets in the river systems with surrounding units as well doesn't really cloud things up too much. Here's an extreme example with units in the rivers and all surrounding territories:

High density unit visualisation.png
High density unit visualisation.png (13.53 KiB) Viewed 1556 times


RedSun wrote:Just an idea: You could have it so fleets can't move to the land (the land bordered by just a canal not also by a seaspace) themselves but rather can support armies onto it. The only problem is you could block rivers easily which maybe then you could have armies support fleets up or down river but can't enter it.

I had the same thought path as your post. The main problem with that is how easy it would be to blockade the rivers and make them essentially useless.

nopunin10did wrote:What about giving the rivers a different shade of blue than the ocean, as well as some texture?

Yeah, that's a decent idea. That particular blue is a bit too contrasting but I've updated the map with a new shade of blue for the rivers.
Designer: Emergence, Modern Extended
GM'ing: Nothing

Platinum Classicist

Taking a break
User avatar
joe92
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: 02 Feb 2013, 00:26
Location: Leeds, GB
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1106
All-game rating: 1721
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to PbF Variant Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests