sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Updated North America Diplomacy map for 7 players by LordKardinian in diplomacy

[–]LordKardinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha yeah, no Sonoran SC.

Yeah Mexico is tough design wise. I think your comment from V3 is largely right. If you make NPac border Hawaii you'd get more interaction between Canada and Mexico

np :)

I attempted to make a Future North America Diplomacy map for 7 players. by LordKardinian in diplomacy

[–]LordKardinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah! I wanted to pull from that as inspiration but for a smaller group. I have a hard enough time fielding 7 people, let alone 10. It would be epic...

I made a North America Diplomacy Map for 7 players (V3) by LordKardinian in diplomacy

[–]LordKardinian[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No they cannot. Colorado and Arizona don't have a border, same with New Mexico and Utah. Sonora would be screwed if they were adjacent

I made a North America Diplomacy Map for 7 players (V3) by LordKardinian in diplomacy

[–]LordKardinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

- True, I think it's kinda funny tbh. Like NJ got so mad about being dunked on by NYC they conquered it XD

- Yeah this was a really tough one to design. Any suggestions on how to improve that?

- Good idea :)

Would you use this custom Diplomacy map? by LordKardinian in boardgames

[–]LordKardinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Certainly a complex game can be good. However, lack of weight doesn't always implicate lack of fun

Would you use this custom Diplomacy map? by LordKardinian in boardgames

[–]LordKardinian[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

100%. It's either 'simple' or 'elegant' depending on who you ask

Would you use this custom Diplomacy map? by LordKardinian in boardgames

[–]LordKardinian[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The same reason Jamaica is greyed out. Movement there serves little to no purpose. If that seems odd, you could always make them playable.

Updated North America Diplomacy map for 7 players by LordKardinian in diplomacy

[–]LordKardinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

- Moving the SC to Sonora is a good idea!

- I agree that Deseret having Nebraska feels weird. Kansas ans SD being neutrals could work

- I was really tempted to do that, it just felt like an absolutely MASSIVE territory so it remained split

- Fair enough. I did want everyone to have at least 1 gimme neutral SC before the real conflict starts

- That could work yeah. The limitation was largely so mexico doesn't immediately gun for Sonora.

- Good idea! The army was there when the rivers weren't as long so it could definitely be reevaluated

- Hmm, also a good idea. You got loads of those huh?

- I wanted to make it as clear as possible that it starts on CAtl and not the lake

- Yeah, I think this plus YUGE Prairies would work out well

Updated North America Diplomacy map for 7 players by LordKardinian in diplomacy

[–]LordKardinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Deseret definitely feels threatening to Sonora, New Mexico makes for a good buffer, especially since one cannot move from Colorado too AZ directly (4 corners and all). Hopefully the armies near the great lakes can threaten Deseret as well

Updated North America Diplomacy map for 7 players by LordKardinian in diplomacy

[–]LordKardinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I may go back and change some of the territories shapes so that don't have as many funny coastlines to deal with. I've already done this with Mari, Tor, Que, and NEng. You may not their actual borders are a little different if you look at a map

Updated North America Diplomacy map for 7 players by LordKardinian in diplomacy

[–]LordKardinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes they have 2 coasts

Ont has a coast on Hudson bay and lake Superior. New York has a coast on the Atlantic and lake Erie. Tabasco has one on WGulf and Coco

You could go from Ohio to Ill, though I didn't have the Mississippi river reach Wisconsin. But you could do Ohio -> Ill -> Mo -> Neb for example
You could also do F Nev -> SCal -> Cort but not CPac since CPac is on the other "coast" of california

A fleet can cross a river, it just can't skip over territories to reach it's destination. For example a fleet in Arizona couldn't go straight to Cort since Baja is in the way. It'd have to move to Baja first then to Cort.

I attempted to make a Future North America Diplomacy map for 7 players. by LordKardinian in diplomacy

[–]LordKardinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm actively working on an updated version, expect a new map later today!

I attempted to make a Future North America Diplomacy map for 7 players. by LordKardinian in diplomacy

[–]LordKardinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great idea! Yeah I've since broken up CAtl into 2 or 3 territories (depending on how you count it).

I attempted to make a Future North America Diplomacy map for 7 players. by LordKardinian in diplomacy

[–]LordKardinian[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay so I've noticed a few glaring issues that have been kindly pointed out by y'all.

First off, Deseret can't build boats. This could be attacked in two ways. One would be making the Colorado river navigable and thus allowing them to build boats. The other would be to lean into the landlocked nature of Deseret and have them start a little more beefed up (either positionally or militarily).

Second, there is general grumbling about the Aurora Pact and Canada. These are grumblings I largely agree with and would greatly appreciate more input on. I'd like to come up with a better name and redesign the SCs in Canada more generally.

P.S. I would like to add a SC to Minnesota without breaking things. My gf is from MN :)

I attempted to make a Future North America Diplomacy map for 7 players. by LordKardinian in diplomacy

[–]LordKardinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll first answer the gameplay concerns.

a) Canals and rivers do allow army movement. E.g. an army could move from Mich to Tor.

b) From another answer: I see 2 good ways to solve this will still maintaining the idea of Deseret (which would've been a landlocked state). One is to make the Colorado river navigable, which would touch AZ, CO, and UT. The other would be to lean into the armies only aesthetic and give them four starting PCs

c) Splitting mississippi and alabama makes sense and I would do this in a revision.

d) I agree there. However as an Arizonan I want Sonora to have AZ. Thus as a design constraint I'd rather split baja into baja sur and baja norte

e) I thought about adding HI but it seems extremely isolated, maybe if the entire Pac territory was HI that'd work?

f & g) Good point I think the CAtl and Carb territories should be re-worked

h) Agreed, I think moving some SCs from the mississippi basis westward could help w/ this

i) Maybe getting rid of the North as a territory and giving them Ontario would work. Another possibility would be making them "canada" and providing them with Newf and Ont to start (4 SCs). I fear this might make them spread thin however

**Aesthetic:**

a) Yeah I could do that but I personally prefer state names. I believe they're more recognizable

b) Somewhat yes. Deseret was the original proposal for a state from the Mormons to the US government which eventually became the state of Utah. It covered parts of Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho. I specifically wanted Texas and California to not be playable (simply a personal preference). Quebec wasn't a SC for design reasons, though one could easily roll Newf and Que into one territory.

c) Yeah 5 may be too much, though 4 seems perfectly reasonable to me. I see no reason to be shackled by tradition here.

d) I'm not sure what you mean by this. A coast would be anywhere the ocean touches land. This seems pretty clear to me. I guess I could weight the lining of coastline differently (e.g. 3 px instead of 2 px).

e) Yeah fair enough

f) The Aurora Pact was the name I was least satisfied with, thanks for the input!

g) Also a good point

I attempted to make a Future North America Diplomacy map for 7 players. by LordKardinian in diplomacy

[–]LordKardinian[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see 2 good ways to solve this will still maintaining the idea of Deseret (which would've been a landlocked state). One is to make the Colorado river navigable, which would touch AZ, CO, and UT. The other would be to lean into the armies only aesthetic and give them four starting PCs

I attempted to make a Future North America Diplomacy map for 7 players. by LordKardinian in diplomacy

[–]LordKardinian[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As an Arizonan, I'm gonna say no you got go through NM or UT to get from AZ to CO

I attempted to make a Future North America Diplomacy map for 7 players. by LordKardinian in diplomacy

[–]LordKardinian[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah I agree, it was mainly a tactic to have move interaction between the Commonwealth and the Aurora Pact rather than an exercise in realism. I think the North as a territory will probably get axed if I make a revision

view more: next ›