Nations Boundries. Realism vs. Gameplay

I've always believed that realism should take a back seat to gameplay in games which mirror the real world. The system used to divide nations into regions, whilst certainly realistic is inhibits good gameplay. I have a few ideas for boundry and income changes to improve the quality of the game whilst hopefully not impacting on realism.

Divide India into North and South.

India as I'm sure everyone is aware is the most expensive, most populated and richest single nation on the Afterwind planet. However in comparison to divided nations such as China it's in game income is incredibly small to it's real world one. Also it's cost and power are such that it is the obvious choice in a 50k world game. It's low city income mean that in order to get recent income from India you have to conquer all of it's cities - a task that takes an incredible amount of time and energy given it's size and population. Basically India in it's current state is broken: Too poor compared to reality, Too powerful if picked as a starting nation and too much hassle to get good money from.
I propose a division of North and South so North roughly includes all the cities in the Ganges basin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna_basins.jpg
For aesthetics it should include Ludhiana and Ahmedabad in the North even though they are not in the basin.
The South would be the rest of India with it's capital in Mumbai.

So we have two smaller nations, which are still the two most populous zones in game in terms of city sizes. This change is beneficial for chosing India on different starting funds and to get the full country bonuses sooner - a boost for both India starts and India conquerors. However it's income does not accurately reflect the real world. To this end I propose North India should recieve an income boost to make it roughly equal to China South East. South India should recieve a boost to make it roughly equal to China South. Whilst this is not 100% accurate, India should not be too wealthy as to make it completely overpowered, if these income changes were applied in the game today India would have an income boost from 1486 per turn to 1907 per turn. Divided in two it means the nation as a whole can be boosted without single components being too overpowered. It would of course mean that India defends with neutral infantry.

Europeanise the US

America in it's current state is an uninteresting battleground. There are too few nations and too much power located in these regions. In order to make it interesting it must be balkanised into smaller components. The 50 state solution is far too much, I'm proposing an increase in US regions from 8 to 10 (not including Hawaii or Alaska ofc).
It is fairly common knowledge that if California was a country it's GDP would be 8th in the world or roughly equivelent to Italy. It stands to reason that this is a nation that could easily survive on its own. I propose Pacific be carved into California and Pacific, Pacific being the states of Oregon and Washington. Spokane could be added to Pacific roughly making it equal to US: South.

The other area is the East Coast. I propose making Atlantic and North East into three nations: North East, East and Atlantic.

Atlantic would include the area from Miami to Atlanta. No other changes. East would include Washington, Charlotte, Philadelphia and Raleigh as a new city. North East would include New York, Boston and Pittsburgh and possibly Cleveland if the borders could be moved as new cities.

These changes are to make the US more interesting to play in but keep overall incomes around the same without going so far as to give each state it's own nation. There's many relavent cities in the US so it's ripe for carving up into smaller pieces.

Unite Australia

Australia in its current form is dogshit. No question about it. It has income and population but not in the areas it needs to project power into South East Asia. Basically if someone beats them to Indonesia they're out. Now there's not a lot that can be done about this without warping the boundries of reality too far so what I propose is this: Unite Austrlia into one nation so that time isn't wasted at the start of the game just trying to get all the pieces together. With a united Australia a player can go for Indonesia from turn one instead of turn 4 which is the time it takes to unite it all. This would give it a massive boost compared to what is has right now. Of course it's income would need to decrease as a united Australia as roughly the same income as Japan. I would also add an extra city to the West or the North. I'm clutching at straws here but Port Hedland or Dampler look like the only choices but yeah, it's a barren wasteland but the region does need some loving.

That's about it. I have some more but these are the major ones.

Great idea's Barry, i have to say i agree on all. I've heard the India suggestion from more players, your suggestion makes it more concrete and i completely agree on it.
About Australia: Adding cities up north and unite east and west (so you have 2 countries) would also do it imo. Unite it as a whole and boost funds will be too strong compared to Indonesia.

Futhermore: I agree on all points, and can't wait until its implemented

I agree on the India part, and perhaps instead of uniting all of Australia, just splitting it into two parts would work?

Yeah two countries would be fine. It's mostly to adress the inability to expand in the early game. If we have an East and a West Australia then both sides can expand north straight away (even though there aren't many big cities in the north). It's still a net improvement.

Agreed on all parts. It might have been mentioned befrore but it still is a very reasonable suggestion.

Additionally I would split USA mountain and midwest into some lower income areas.

I definitely agree with the India and US parts. I am not completely sold on uniting all of Australia though. The two regions idea I think would be a better solution to the problem though.

I agree on most except the US, I was thinking more of 12 than 10. Very good thread though, though i do think India would be better If we cut India at the far northeastern border of West Bengal and Bihal, and call anything East of that cut "India: Assam", but that probably doesn't make much sense lol, just my rambling. Anyways, very good.

If Australia is combined into one, Canberra must be added and set as it's capital.

I was thinking about /VIC/TAS/NSW/QL and SA/NT/WA split

could add both portheadland. albany and broome to West Australia to make it seen less barren.

Alice springs could be added to Northen territory, might add a reason to travel through mainland Australia lol

Canberra is already in the game, Arbitrator. But it's not in it's own region.

All that would need to be changed would be to make it the capital of the new united Australia.


Also, if I may suggest, I think a fully united Australia may be a bit much (Another Japan-equivelant place is too much). Perhaps split it North/South or East/West?

I don't see the problem with a united Australia if we change australian income to fix the real life income of the country. After all Australia income should be less than countries like Italy,Uk and France. As much as i know no one want to split these countries....

"Of course it's income would need to decrease as a united Australia as roughly the same income as Japan."

I'm fairly certain that's referring to setting it to a Japan-equivelant (Or is it saying to cut it down below that?)

I think half and half would be better for tactical purposes as well, because a united Australia would easily dominate any and all nearby nations quickly.

I think the US would do well with some basis in historical territorial trends when dealing with the west and regional divisions for the east.

Yeah I just realised my writing at the point Goodnames pointed out was retarded. I meant it shouldn't have the same income as Japan which it currently does if you get all the parts of Australia. It does back up what I was saying about India in that a nation divided can have access to more income without upsetting balance too much... All of Australia is nearly equal to India currently. Divided vs. United.

Even as a United Australia it cannot dominate other nations quickly, infact it would still be a pretty bad choice. The same problem exists with Far East Russia right now - the cities are too far away from where they need to be to get good and quick expansion. United Australia is designed as a band aid to that - Perth, Cairnes and Darwin can begin expanding from turn 1 but the overall issue is that the majority of it's population is in the south east and it needs to be in the north west. Afterwind is based on reality so there's nothing we can do to fix that except add more towns in the north west (even if they are really small) and Unite it into one (or perhaps two) so it's not totally useless in the early game.

A division in two would also be fine, I'd also like to say that if it were in two both halves would need to have access to northern cities so I propose a division like this:

NSW, Victoria and Queensland represent Australia: East. The capital can be in Canberra but the issue of that is not what we were discussing here.
Western, South and Northern Territories represent Australia: West (Or Outback whatever) with the capital in Adelaide. With the capital there it allows for the easy uniting of East and West but with the full country bonus still hard to grab (cos of distance) but it does allow Cairnes, Darwin and Perth to get on their way ASAP.

TL:DR Nerf Australias income, unite into one. If not one then two so long as the expansion needs are adressed then I'm fine with either, so long as it's not North and South.

I support all of these ideas so much, I would love a more divided USA and India. I also agree on uniting Australia, maybe not 1 country(since it would be impossible to recap your country after it is subbed) but 2 seems reasonable.

I agree with this with all my heart.

And I think we should buff some territories in South America to make it a more viable options in world games.

Kirjutas notserral, 19.04.2012 at 23:47

I agree with this with all my heart.

And I think we should buff some territories in South America to make it a more viable options in world games.

This.

As well as possibly a slightly more self-capable Africa (It's pathetically failed whenever Africa tries to defend itself)

As is was explained to me.. The creaters of Afterwind are from Europe, so dont expect them to put the time into making the bounderies and such as realistic as possible for the rest of the world.

Besides goodnames, Africa isnt self capable and is pathetically failed in real life =/.. sad to say, but true. Long gone are the days of Ancient Carthage, Egypt, Kushite, and Fatimid.. And those were the big ones,, Most people only know about Egypt, even though the Carthage, and Fatimid empires were bigger.

I've always believed that realism should take a back seat to gameplay in games which mirror the real world. The system used to divide nations into regions, whilst certainly realistic it inhibits good gameplay.

Africa isn't self capable in real life. But it would make the gameplay more interesting if it was in the game.

The point of this thread is that realism should be second to gameplay. That's literally the exact opposite of what you just said.

Honestly...I do not think we should get into changing too much now. I am on board with the division changes, but changing incomes of Africa and South America will only take away from the game.

Chuck norris approves this message

I agree with all of the basic ideas behind these changes, and the original proposed solutions are not bad. However, I do agree with an East and West Australia. It just makes sense. Unlike splitting Australia into six zones and keeping India whole.

I agree with all of your points except I have one concern. I don't know if what you suggested will make the North American map more playable in competitive games and improve gameplay (Although it makes the most sense when you look at the commercial and population centers of the country). There is too large of an open area caused by USA: Mountains and USA Midwest. In order make it an actual playable map, you would need to break up these regions into several smaller and poorer countries. It would also be beneficial to add a northern Mexican country. I can understand why many of you feel that giving a single nation this much significant treatment would represent a glorifying of it. In a sense I agree with you, however, in order to improve Afterwind we must put aside ideas of nationalism. The North American map is broken and it needs fixing.

I understand that the developers are European and it makes sense that they give a greater detail to Europe then to other areas of the world. I do feel that this personal centrism needs to stop though. (I am most likely guilty of it myself in this post, but you guys can take my ideas for what they are worth). The GDP of the US is around $15 trillion, while that of the entire European Union is only $16 trillion, with the largest single country being Germany with around $3 trillion. (International Monetary Fund (2011)). It makes perfect sense that you guys would be opposed to this but if you take into account that the US is made up of individual and diverse states which form a union, it may help.

My main point is that it would add substantially to gameplay if even the poorer regions of North America (USA: Mountains and USA: Midwest) were broken up. I tried to be as objective as possible, but it may be impossible.

Kirjutas NateBaller, 21.04.2012 at 15:30

My main point is that it would add substantially to gameplay if even the poorer regions of North America (USA: Mountains and USA: Midwest) were broken up. I tried to be as objective as possible, but it may be impossible.

I completely agree.

I agree with Nateballer. And I still think Brazil: Southeast and Colombia should be buffed at least to Spain tier. Along with a great general income buff to the african nations of about 20~30%. And I agree with everything else said in this thread.

I just want to say that while the proposed changes are quite sound (except uniting Australia - it used to be one country and it wasn't very good for gameplay), changing country boundaries is a massive pain, in terms of time and effort. Adding/removing cities is a whole lot easier, though.

Anyway, thanks for the suggestions, we'll keep them in mind the next time we update the map!