When I made Simple World there was a bit of discussion in the review about whether "yet another" world board should be allowed to pass review.   In my opinion having 10 (or 20, or 100) world boards doesn't hurt the site at all as long as they are of good quality.   I'm curious whether there is a consensus on whether more world maps should be allowed.

The primary reason I ask, is because of this reddit thread I saw a few weeks ago:

http://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/16zn51/album_creating_a_better_risk_board_my_friends_and/

These guys have put a lot of time and energy and have spent years play testing a custom world map of their own.  I bet they would love to design on wargear, and I was thinking of writing the author of that reddit post to invite them (and help if necessary) to translate their board to wargear.

But, I don't want to go through all that, get them excited about wargear, etc. and then in the end have them told: "We don't need another world map".

I don't believe that there is a consensus that we don't need another world map.  Rather, there is more of a consensus that we don't need another vanilla world map with standard Risk-like borders and/or using the standard Risk mechanisms for play.

As far as I'm concerned, there's certainly room for an exploration of different types of map projections, which is at least part of the subject of the thread.

I believe in a "natural selection" for maps in general.  If a map is popular and gets played, why does it matter if it's another World Map?  At some point the best maps will get played a lot and the worst ones won't...there should probably be a process for Retiring boards that aren't being played.

6 of the top 7 played boards are all World boards...that's gotta say something right there.  

The sort by popularity function already effectively accomplishes this. A board that never gets played will be so far down the list that, if popularity is the default, no one will ever see it.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

6 of the top 7 played boards are all World boards...that's gotta say something right there.  

This is what I noticed recently too.  People like playing regular Risk.  While I still hope we don't see a huge number of the exact same Risk board (which to a degree happened on TOS and resulted in difficulty in finding a board IMO), it really does seem that there continues to be room for the basic style Risk.  

So as long as graphics continue to be original and there is something that makes the board original (preferably related to graphics too), then I would be in favor of continuing to add this type of board.  Again, remaining in moderation so as to not create an ugly or confusing Boards page or not knowing what to play.

That said, after I noticed the top played boards I started on a basic style Risk board in which my plan was to add multiple Scenarios to that board that I had the freedom to tweak and add other graphical versions to as I wanted.  That's been on the back burner for about a month but I have the basic one created.

In short, Invite them to WG!

>In short, Invite them to WG!

Ok, I will.  Thanks for all the feedback. 

Looks like a fun map to me!

I guess I will be the one dissenter. Take your Invention map Ozy. I really like the regular scenario and I'm trying the Barbarians for the first time now. Considering I've never won a game on the map and that I've had unbelievably bad luck, I still enjoy playing the map, which really speaks volumes in regards to it's fun quotient. Recently, however, I joined a public game thinking it was a barbarian game and found to my chagrin that it was just a regular risk game using your map 'simple' scenario. I must admit my first thought was - "oh, a simple map; If I had wanted to play that, I would have joined a WG warfare game". Actually, as I type this out now, I've changed my mind. I guess I would rather play your 'simple' scenario than WGWF, lol.