Yup, I mean those, I think they can be called unbalanced because they all have territories + 1 as bonus armies, so I think people will complain, and I want to make it perfect.
You made the non-divided bonuses not exactly the number of territories, but a little lower. How do you estimate what to give your bonuses?
Oh, and I just didn't know of any questions to ask, plus I was busy with my next map.

|> --- Moros said ---
|> I think they can be called unbalanced because they all have territories + 1 as
|> bonus armies, so I think people will complain, and I want to make it perfect.

That formula seems to be used a lot actually, I think it's pretty good. There's (unfortunately) always people that are gonna complain, nothing you can do about that. Also, what I consider perfect may not be way you consider perfect. And both are probably different from what someone else considers perfect. It will also depend on how many players are in the game and maybe even the cards used. To the best of my knowledge however, it looks like nobody's "perfect" will be miles away from what you did, I think that's the most important.

There's one thing to keep in mind though; that formula is linear in the size of the bonus. It's a slightly weak point it doesn't take defensibility of a bonus into account, but a worse problem is that it's more than twice as hard to conquer a bonus twice as large. Also, it will take considerably longer and, while you're still fighting for it, it's not worth a single army at all!

|> --- Moros said ---
|> You made the non-divided bonuses not exactly the number of territories, but a
|> little lower. How do you estimate what to give your bonuses?

For the most part I used Perrin3088's reasoning (which sounds very reasonable if you ask me) and applied it to all sub- and superbonuses. In short, the idea is that you want to reward people a little for getting a subbonus (but just a little less than you would for a normal bonus of the same size and defensibility). Then when they put in all the work to complete the superbonus, they deserve a little more (combined!) reward than a normal bonus of that same size and defensibility would have gotten them (because, they've accomplished something quite a bit harder). It's of course no coincidence you subdivided the very large bonuses, but not the small ones.

Look at the subbonuses as an incentive, as partial reward on your way to something bigger (and to prevent players from getting wiped off the map because, until they complete it, they wouldn't get any extra income yet, while players going for smaller bonuses would at least get a little extra income, *much* earlier).

Let's take a look at your original values and Perrin's / my suggestion:

40 32 Southern Quebec
17 14 Saint Lawrence Quebec
27 24 Northern Quebec
25 21 Central Quebec
109 24 Quebec (total)

When a player gets the bonus for all of Quebec, I know for sure he must also hold all its subbonuses. [That is not as obvious as it sounds, look at how the Queen Elizabeth Islands (partly) overlap the Northwest Territories. On a map with all the cities in a country, you could make a bonus out of all the regional capital cities; also in that case, bonuses overlap only slightly.] So in the revised version, holding all of Quebec is worth 32+14+24+21+24 = 115 armies, notice how close that is to your 109.

Would you consider making an update, trying to incorporate as much of the feedback so far? I think that would make it easier to focus on the last details. (An improved map will attract more players.)

You did quite an impressive job so far, nice work!

personally, I find that territories -1 is a much more reasonable method for calculating bonuses..
the earth maps actually follow that formula mostly, with some minor tweaks in it, if I recall...

1 territ bonuses are almost always overpowered in early game, and there is little way to stop that, while keeping 1 territ bonuses.. notice earth map gives all 1 territ bonuses a 0 bonus.

giving each bonus -1 means that a 2 territ bonus gives .5armies/territ a 3 territ gives .6armies/territ a 4 territ gives .75armies/territ etc. meaning that the end game value of bonuses increase as the early game value decreases.. the obvious tweaks that have to be made are due to spreadability and defensibility, which really have no *easy* answers to, and must be made on a case by case basis, imho.

Although I'm sure Matma has a formula for perfect bonus/territ ratio for all possibilities ;)

|> ---RvW said---
|> Would you consider making an update, trying to incorporate as much of the feedback
|> so far? I think that would make it easier to focus on the last details. (An improved |> map will attract more players.)

That's exactly what I'm doing here, asking people about values for bonuses and missing connections and so, so in the last version, it'll be (nearly) perfect.
So far, my edits to the map as it is now will be the following:

All missing connections reported so far.
The bonuses just as RvW said (thank you)
Recoloring the Ottawa square (I think I'll make it white)
Switching North/South Quebec bonus squares and Quebec bonus a square again ;)

Did I miss anything?

Ok, no Other suggestions for two days, I'll make it public then!

Found another missing connection:
Témiscamingue <--> Nipissing
(on the border between Ontario and Quebec)
Sorry ;)

Les Laurentides <--> Argenteuil
(slightly North-East of Ottawa)

Now well, Fizzer already complained once that I was making too many versions of my map, so I guess a map with 300 territories and one missing connection will do...

Okay... Just saw the second missing connection :,(
If someone finds one more I'm probably going to kill myself...

is that a sign I should put aside a couple of hours to scour your map for connections..? ;)

Do you hate me?