Got to say i am very interested in H. voted for K in round 1 as i was interested in that intersection of 4 kingdoms and it is still quite interesting but.. the terrain at that intersection is not great.

But H...

the inland sea was always interesting but what is truly good about it is the ratio of lands and the way they blend together so naturally.

Posted By mandrake1980 at 11:42 PM - Tue Nov 06 2018

Got to say i am very interested in H. voted for K in round 1 as i was interested in that intersection of 4 kingdoms and it is still quite interesting but.. the terrain at that intersection is not great.

But H...

the inland sea was always interesting but what is truly good about it is the ratio of lands and the way they blend together so naturally.

H stalls any and all trade between the Northern and Southern half of the continents.

Trade will either flow through the long axis of the Desert. A lake, that may or may not be traversible at launch. Or series of ridgelines on the Eastern part of the map that leave basically one valley that puts K3 in control of almost all trade between two halfs of the continent.

Not worth it for an oversized lake imho.

My thoughts at this time.

I think I'm liking Map I more and more each time I look at it.

It seems to me to be the most balanced in it's ability to give each kingdom some useful and unique "things."

And I see the other maps as each having particular "things" that somehow put one, two, or more kingdoms at a disadvantage in such things as biome/land sizes, how the individual biomes connect, and the ability to traverse the entire continent.

I keep thinking that Map I may be the most equitable of all the maps.

Which makes me wonder if this vote may come down to the various kingdoms deciding if they want to attempt to make things semi-equal at the beginning. Or if they want to use their initial influences to put the other less influential kingdoms at a disadvantage.

What is the best for them?

Or what is the best for the overall game?

And are these two views mutually at odds with each other?

I just hope that the individuals in those particular positions chose to take the long view over the short, because I personally would like to see the game give the most equity for the largest number of players over the longest time period.

Posted By kajoreh at 08:36 AM - Wed Nov 07 2018

My thoughts at this time.

I think I'm liking Map I more and more each time I look at it.

It seems to me to be the most balanced in it's ability to give each kingdom some useful and unique "things."

And I see the other maps as each having particular "things" that somehow put one, two, or more kingdoms at a disadvantage in such things as biome/land sizes, how the individual biomes connect, and the ability to traverse the entire continent.

I keep thinking that Map I may be the most equitable of all the maps.

Which makes me wonder if this vote may come down to the various kingdoms deciding if they want to attempt to make things semi-equal at the beginning. Or if they want to use their initial influences to put the other less influential kingdoms at a disadvantage.

What is the best for them?

Or what is the best for the overall game?

And are these two views mutually at odds with each other?

I just hope that the individuals in those particular positions chose to take the long view over the short, because I personally would like to see the game give the most equity for the largest number of players over the longest time period.

Are you serious? Don't you see the MASSIVE advantage K1 gets on I? That brudvir biome is huge, giving them a ton of resources, and almost completely protected from any sort of land based invasion by their Hrothi mountains. The only easy way to attack that kingdom would be by boat. Unless you want to try and either scale those mountains, or fight your way through the Hrothi tunnels.

All that leaves the tribe that most closely resembles Vikings the ability to send out raiders by boat to terrorize the other kingdoms, without much fear of being conquered in retaliation.

Meanwhile, K5 gets stuck with an enormous border to try to defend, and it's so skinny that there is a real concern of it getting chopped in half.

Any place that is good "for trade", like where three kingdoms meet, is also good for raiders. especially if you have an agreement with one of those kingdoms, so you both can be free to raid the third one.

Both "K" and "H" have some really cool features.

"K's" 4-point kingdom convergence is awesome.

And the inland ocean on "H" could also be fun.

But I have to agree with Kajoreh, that ultimately "I" appears the most balanced and fair to all.

Which is probably why it was NA-W's highest voted map in round 1. I haven't decided what I'll vote for yet, but I suspect it will be "I".

Posted By kajoreh at 06:36 AM - Wed Nov 07 2018

My thoughts at this time.

I think I'm liking Map I more and more each time I look at it.

It seems to me to be the most balanced in it's ability to give each kingdom some useful and unique "things."

And I see the other maps as each having particular "things" that somehow put one, two, or more kingdoms at a disadvantage in such things as biome/land sizes, how the individual biomes connect, and the ability to traverse the entire continent.

I keep thinking that Map I may be the most equitable of all the maps.

Which makes me wonder if this vote may come down to the various kingdoms deciding if they want to attempt to make things semi-equal at the beginning. Or if they want to use their initial influences to put the other less influential kingdoms at a disadvantage.

What is the best for them?

Or what is the best for the overall game?

And are these two views mutually at odds with each other?

I just hope that the individuals in those particular positions chose to take the long view over the short, because I personally would like to see the game give the most equity for the largest number of players over the longest time period.

You are are exactly right on this -- as is OP. Map I is the most equitable map (in terms of kingdom distribution and likely trade networks (sea and land)) and the most politically interesting map, leading to greater opportunities for kingdoms to ally or form coalitions, rather than having forced border tensions as the only border interaction.

Posted By Kyre at 08:53 AM - Wed Nov 07 2018

Are you serious? Don't you see the MASSIVE advantage K1 gets on I? That brudvir biome is huge, giving them a ton of resources, and almost completely protected from any sort of land based invasion by their Hrothi mountains. The only easy way to attack that kingdom would be by boat. Unless you want to try and either scale those mountains, or fight your way through the Hrothi tunnels.

All that leaves the tribe that most closely resembles Vikings the ability to send out raiders by boat to terrorize the other kingdoms, without much fear of being conquered in retaliation.

Meanwhile, K5 gets stuck with an enormous border to try to defend, and it's so skinny that there is a real concern of it getting chopped in half.

Any place that is good "for trade", like where three kingdoms meet, is also good for raiders. especially if you have an agreement with one of those kingdoms, so you both can be free to raid the third one.

K1 on Map I looks to be quite traversable. The mountains don't completely block off that kingdom from the west side of K3. Travel by foot is completely possible.

As for K5 being too skinny and easily split up, K5 could just as easily split up or take K6. Having that contiguous coastline is a plus in my book. K3 has just as much border to defend. I don't think there's a perfect map for every kingdom out there, but Map I will make things interesting and give every kingdom a fighting chance. For overall playability, Map I has to be one of my top 2 choices for NA-W.

Posted By mandrake1980 at 11:42 PM - Tue Nov 06 2018

Got to say i am very interested in H. voted for K in round 1 as i was interested in that intersection of 4 kingdoms and it is still quite interesting but.. the terrain at that intersection is not great.

But H...

the inland sea was always interesting but what is truly good about it is the ratio of lands and the way they blend together so naturally.

Posted By Torque at 09:20 AM - Wed Nov 07 2018

Both "K" and "H" have some really cool features.

"K's" 4-point kingdom convergence is awesome.

And the inland ocean on "H" could also be fun.

But I have to agree with Kajoreh, that ultimately "I" appears the most balanced and fair to all.

Which is probably why it was NA-W's highest voted map in round 1. I haven't decided what I'll vote for yet, but I suspect it will be "I".

H is interesting and the salt lake/sea is a neat feature. But it's an unnecessary one from my point of view. It's the one map where every biome already has direct ocean access. A big lake in the middle of K would have been something to see!

Posted By Teland at 12:45 PM - Wed Nov 07 2018

K1 on Map I looks to be quite traversable. The mountains don't completely block of that kingdom from the west side of K3. Travel by foot is completely possible.

As for K5 being too skinny and easily split up, K5 could just as easily split up or take K6. Having that contiguous coastline is a plus in my book. K3 has just as much border to defend. I don't think there's a perfect map for every kingdom out there, but Map I will make things interesting and give every kingdom a fighting chance. For overall playability, Map I has to be one of my top 2 choices for NA-W.

West side? what are you looking at? the Plateau looking spot? There is still a large mountain just north of that, and likely some smaller ones around it. Even if there was a path through to the Brudvir biome in that area, that sort of thing is what you would call a chokepoint, or if you prefer: a kill box. You don't send an attacking army through there, for the same reason that you don't attack through the mines: they get turned into mincemeat.

K5 could absolutely not split K6 "just as easily". K6 is much more centralized, and able to pull troops from multiple duchies together quickly, whereas K5 is a long noodle that would make pooling defenses difficult. K3 is also more centralized.

Map I favors K1, and the northern kingdoms, HEAVILY. The southern half is horrible.

Kyre, I think you're making some assumptions that may or may not be true.

Personally, I don't think a large Brudvir biome is a benefit to them. It says right in their tribe description that resources are scarce in the Taiga, leading to them having small scattered settlements. They also will rely heavily on trade because they have lumber, and are good craftsmen, but will lack access to nearly all other valuable trade goods. This isn't an RTS game, where a large area control gives you inherent benefits. A large Brudvir biome simply means they will all be more spread out and further from everyone else.

Also, being isolated by the Horothi mountains works against them as much as for them. It will be harder to trade, and the Brudvir will probably never stage an attack against anyone, as they'll never get siege equipment over those mountains.

So could they resort to coastal raiding? Sure, it's possible. But that might also burn bridges for their much needed trading. Meaning it probably wouldn't be sanctioned by the Kingdom, it would just be isolated bands of raiders. And if that's what happens, that sounds amazing to me. If southern kingdoms live with the fear of Brudvir coastal raids, that will lead them to build navel forces to patrol their waters, and coastal defenses to protect their harbors.

Lastly, I'm still not sure why you think "I" somehow FAVORS northern kingdoms. The Brudvir are isolated by mountain ranges on all maps, except for G, which is severely unfair to half the tribes and kingdoms. And on every other map besides "I", the southern kingdoms have more landmass than the north. So doesn't that mean that every map EXCEPT "I" favors the southern kingdoms?

I'm tempted to argue that I is the only map that gives the Brudvir the mere ability to compete with anyone else, and that's simply because the quantity of the resources is likely to be more (but they will not necessarily be diverse resources).

I mean oh no guys we're giving them so much remote and inhospitable land! Just think of all the farms they won't be able to build!

Map I is clearly the best option hands down.

The Brudvir are the only tribe for which it has been specifically stated that their population density will be significantly lower than every other tribe. It is fitting and appropriate that their biome be the largest just to put their population on par with everyone else.

While it is true that the mountain range will make invading Kingdom 1 hard, it is a double edged sword, it will tend to isolate them from the rest of the world, at least by land.

I would doubt that a moutain range would be impassable throughout its length given the projected scale.

Map H is the most unique with the central lake. Creates some significant strategic challenges and opportunites for warefare and trade. It also appears there may be a connecting sound or river on the eastern edge of the lake; which, if navigatble, adds another dimension to the movement of troops and goods by sea. Given thses factors map H would be the most desirable compared to the other maps available.

Brudvir having the lowest population density will be because they will have a larger territory to occupy and develop/defend. This could mean that, on average, their population centers will have fewer folks then other regions as there are more locations within the territory upon which the population will gather. This could lead to population centers developing at a slower rate as there are fewer folk contributing. In addition, defensive strength of fortified resouce centers and populations centers is lower then similar sites in other regions.