Kieri
I think regional battlegroups are a much more workable idea than the utterly failed "experiment" we are currently taking part in, but I still think these battlegroups are too big. I have put together my own idea of regions based on regional cultures and battlegroup activity level, as derived from total average energy (thanks to Gabriel's score thread!). I tried to keep each regions’ energy output between three-quarters of a million and 1.25 million energy per campaign (I was not totally successful in this). I have 10 regions, which I think is a good number between the 51 we used to have and the 5 you are using now. I think this map allows for more active gameplay while not becoming overwhelming, even as the game grows. I'm hoping you are still open to fine-tuning the battlegroups so we get to an arrangement that works well for all.



Northeastern BG: Average energy 885,958
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachutsettes, Rhode Island, and Connecticut

New York BG:
A battle group with more than 1000 players and more than 750,000 average campaign energy does NOT need more players.

North Atlantic BG: Average energy 1,175,411
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Colombia

Mid-Atlantic BG: Average Energy 1,197,176
Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas

Southern BG: Average Energy 1,339,818
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana

Great Lakes BG: Average Energy 2,016,172
Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois

Great Plains BG: Average Energy 1,157,319
North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, Iowa,

Southwest BG: Average Energy 831,218
Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Nevada

Northwest BG: 852,929
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii, Alaska

California: see above re:New York

This is obviously just my idea, but from my experience with the game I think it would work well.
Thanks,
Kieri







Edited by Kieri (today 01:59:31)