Page 6 of 7

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

PostPosted: 26 Jul 2017, 19:59
by NoPunIn10Did
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)?

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

PostPosted: 26 Jul 2017, 21:03
by NoPunIn10Did
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

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

PostPosted: 26 Jul 2017, 21:08
by NoPunIn10Did
Alternatively, there's a sort of "middle way" complexity-wise that would connect all regions adjacent to the river segment.

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

PostPosted: 26 Jul 2017, 21:09
by RedSun
Do you have a map which shows the starting units of each country?

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

PostPosted: 26 Jul 2017, 22:14
by joe92
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?

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

PostPosted: 26 Jul 2017, 22:38
by RedSun
Oh yeah that helps :)

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

PostPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 01:59
by NoPunIn10Did
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.

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

PostPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 02:12
by RedSun
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.

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

PostPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 02:29
by NoPunIn10Did
What about giving the rivers a different shade of blue than the ocean, as well as some texture?

Something kinda like this:

Image

Re: Modern Extended Diplomacy - Design Thread

PostPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 17:13
by joe92
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 3003 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.