I need map suggestions! From: Creep <undersin@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0000 Hello all, I am having mental block trying to come up with ideas for a world map for a modern world conquest game. It would be a cross of Supremacy/Risk/Diplomacy but on a larger player scale. I would like to incorporate this idea into a PBEM game so I would say a player minimum would be 20. This is where the dilemma focuses its itch. If I have 20 or more players, how do I create a map that allows for divisional (with companies as support), squadron, and fleet interaction without losing the details of movement and possibly terrain effects? My intent is to have alittle more detail than just 1 div. of tanks/2 div. of infantry vs. 2 div. of partisans where the tanks/inf always win b/c of shear strength. With 20 or more players, I don't want too much detail such as tactical combat orders, but terrain and supply should at least play some part, don't you think? I have some ideas that I ask for your comments and suggestions: a) The almighty hex style map, but I personally think this is too zoomed for good use. With 20+ players, this seems to be a giant hex map that I don't think I would be able to design with proper justice. As GM, I also think the combat orders might take way too long. b) The Supremacy style area map which seems to be the other end of the spectrum from the hexes. This seems to zoomed out to be efficient. I also think with 20+ players that there would be too few areas to make the game strategic, but this I offer for your rebuttal. c) The city to city map. This would be a map of cities connected by travel routes like a connect the dot map where units travel only on these travel lines. I have considered this map by detailing the cities with varying terrains via axes of the city. Ex: To enter Los Angeles from any travel line would mean mountains to the North, desert to the East, seacoast to the West, grasslands? to the South. I hope this explains my intent enough. d) I heard of one guy's game where everybody uses an atlas book and measures there unit travel by ruler. This seems idealistic but the slowness of players designing there orders let alone the compiling of orders for me seems to mock me even as I type it. e) Country to country map. Something doesn't seem to jive with this one. I feel like it insults the military strategic intent of the game. Too broad I guess. I could break these countries down into areas of themselves but does this seem oppurtune for playability? I feel like the map might be god awful large and I don't know how to get it to the players. And, unless the map is the size of my living room floor, how would I keep track of units and their moves on it? What do you think? I can't think of any more styles, but yours are welcome. I appreciate any comments and suggestions you have to offer. Creep undersin@hotmail.com Referenced By Up