Alright I''ve posted on here about my game a couple of times - it''s essentially an "epic" (meaning it has a large scope) Turn-based strategy game about the Cold War in which the player controls one of several major "Cold War Players" in an attempt to help "Win" the Cold War for his side (Capitalist or Communist) - or at least allow the world to survive into the next century. Now I''ve reached a bit of a dilema over how the map (which would be a map of the world) would actually look. I''ve decided I was going to divide the map into lots of various territories and each country would be made up of a bunch of these territories. I figured that in this era we have a lot of "boarder shifting" and I though it would be easier if we moved entire pre-defined territories between the control of nations instead of shifting around a bunch of lines every time theres a change in national territory. But anyways to the point. I was originally thinking this should be a tile based game - sort of like Civilization, where you have a tonne of tiles (each representing a certain terrain type) that make up the map. I felt if the player was able to move armies from one tile to another they could take a greater part in whatever wars might errupt and such - essentially I felt having a very detailed map with tiles would add more depth to the game. But now I''m thinking I should scrape that idea and go for more of a "RISK"-like setup - dealing more with strategy then tactics. So for instance to attack a territory the player just moves an army into that territory and the fighting automatically occurs - there''s no moving the unit through jungle or mountain tiles and such. One of the reasons I no find myself considering this approach is because I felt that the game itself is fairly complex to begin with - what with all the politiking and such that goes on - does the player REALLY want to move little armies around jungles and all that - does adding too much detail to the map take away from the main focus of the game? However the problems I have with the "RISK" type setup is it might prove to be too boring, maybe combat would become tedious with not enough player interaction to make it interesting. So to wrap it up here are what I consider the pros and cons of each options. Tile Based: Pros: Lots of tactical detail, lots of player interaction in combat Cons: The player might feel bogged down, the map would have to be made literally gigantic to get a realisitic feel for the size of each nation. "Risk" Type: Pros: Simplier and cleaner interface, the player can concentrate on other things - speeding up the pace of the game. Cons: Player might get too bored. I''m starting the feel if I used this method my game is just a rip-off of Hearts of Iron/Europa Universailis with a Cold War theme. Okay - I know this post is long but I would just like to know which inteface everyone else would perfer?

These are the things that really define your game. Nobody can decide it for you.

It''s a little like asking "should I make a driving game or a puzzle game?"

Look up Diplomacy (the board game not the interaction of nations) - Google should turn up something - that should give you more ideas for your game than Risk.

Like juuso said, ultimately it''s your decision, and you could go either way and have the potential for a great game.

Okay I think I''ve actually decided to stick with a tile based map. The reason is I want to have a good deal of depth in combat situtations - I want there to be Guerilla armies, raids, sneak attacks and that sort of thing I just don''t feel a non-tiled map would give me the ability to really portray that effectively.