http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/529/Board

Ignore that the graphics are basically a placeholder at this point. Does this concept seem fun, or just annoying?

You mean where every state, province, territory, etc. is its own territory? I would never want to play it personally, but I typically don't like excessively large world maps.

could get difficult in some places (NW africa). but otherwise, meh. nothing other than a big board at this point.

i was assuming that it was just the 'countries' (i got that by looking at Spain, you have 1 spot instead of many).

Don't make it 2000x2000 just to make it 2000x2000, too big/unnecessarily big is annoying IMO. Perhaps "Pangaea-ize" it or something.
That said, I never had that much fun on Sev's Earth map (even though it was a pretty good map) just because they are marathon games, which I'm personally not a big fan of.

Yertle wrote: Don't make it 2000x2000 just to make it 2000x2000, too big/unnecessarily big is annoying IMO. Perhaps "Pangaea-ize" it or something.
That said, I never had that much fun on Sev's Earth map (even though it was a pretty good map) just because they are marathon games, which I'm personally not a big fan of.

Well, the idea was to make it 2000 just because I could. What follows is including as many territories as possible so as not to have 2000x2000 wasted pixels.

I also don't care for giant marathon games, but it seems a lot of people do. And working on making maps that aren't really my thing has helped me learn new concepts in both play and mapmaking, that will be applicable to future projects that I do for me.

Part of making a (quick, simple) map which absolutely requires scrolling for 99.9% of people is to gauge the reaction to forced scrolling. I started dusting off some Helmsdeep stuff last weekend, and am considering how big, how many 'territories', how detailed, etc, I would want to make it for this site. Would people just be annoyed at having a 2000x2000p map with several hundreds of territories? All just thoughts at this point, but yes, subjecting you to a 2000x2000p World map would basically just be pulling an MKULTRA on you. Well, not anymore, because now you know it's an experiment.

I know I personally avoid some maps based upon their actual size dimensions. For example, that is one of the reasons I don't play Koprulu Yamato more, good map, not really a lot of continents or long gameplay, but the size of the map is a turn off to me. It looks excellent, just seems unnecessarily big.
Just my feedback and I may be (probably :P) the only one that is that affected by map size :P

Yertle wrote: I know I personally avoid some maps based upon their actual size dimensions. For example, that is one of the reasons I don't play Koprulu Yamato more, good map, not really a lot of continents or long gameplay, but the size of the map is a turn off to me. It looks excellent, just seems unnecessarily big.
Just my feedback and I may be (probably :P) the only one that is that affected by map size :P

nah. I also tend to avoid maps which require scrolling. Particularly if it requires just a little bit of scrolling and could have been prevented by scaling the map down 5% or less. Which is why I asked for an opinion on something much larger. Where its really more like 4 or 5 maps all smashed into one and there may be totally different wars going on in one quadrant than in another.

Though, my guess is that most action would still take place in the 'top left' and then someone would pull off "unexpected" sleeper wins by working on the far right side of the map where no one wants to be bothered to look.

(all that said, I still will not make maps that cater to you people still using 800x600 CRT monitors. I consider the 1280 POS my boss provided me to be the barest of minimums in this day and age. If I can see it, you can.)

I have a similar aversion to overly large maps, though it's hardly a conscious thing -- I just tend to avoid taking turns on anything that requires scrolling because it's more complicated and brain-power intensive to review the state of the game if I have to scroll around and mentally stitch together all the different areas of the map rather than just have it all displayed at once in front of me. It also makes a difference whether or not I have to scroll in only one direction (e.g. just up and down), or if I have to scroll in both directions - I'm much less likely to join games that involve a map of the latter variety.

This is the single only reason I've never played Gauntlet. I feel that I'm missing out, but I refuse to scroll.

asm wrote: This is the single only reason I've never played Gauntlet. I feel that I'm missing out, but I refuse to scroll.

A smaller version of Gauntlet wouldn't have allowed me to make the walls look like they do and I wanted the almost 3d effect.  I don't have a problem scrolling.  I don't love it, but it won't stop me from playing a map.

Agree with Risky. I do find it annoying at times but honestly the way Gauntlet is set up with the 4 separate areas it's less of an issue than it would be on other maps.

I think that, if you're going to require scrolling, require scrolling. If you're making me scroll down to see an extra 15 pixels, I'm going to get rather peeved. If I'm scrolling down to see the other half of the board (Gauntlet being a fine example), though, that makes the extra effort worthwhile.

That said, one thing that Gauntlet does get right, IMO, is that, when you scroll, it's to see another "sector" of the map. You can still get a holistic feel for the board because the top and bottom portions are distinct. With the EPIC board, however, it's going to be mighty difficult getting a holistic feel for the entire board. Koprulu has similar problems, but you usually start off playing only one part of the board anyway, so it's somewhat less of an issue.

I tend to agree with Oatworm.

Up and down scrolling is fine by me. if a board is done right then side scrolling is fine as well but if the board isn't designed for the side scroll then it may be a disaster.

Lately i have been working on more of the marathon style of map that is suitable for 16 players. It can be a pain in the ass when there are complaints about side scrolling but when you shrink a map that same person complains the the territories are to small. some times you just gotta do what you want, which is why I'm making a 2000 X 2000 with around 750 territories (if all goes according to plan)