[Vacation - Valid until Oct 2013] Ziggurat

[swimmerdude99]

So wait, are you allowed to bombard now from the camps up as well? I don't really like that :/ I liked just attacking one level at a time, and as you go up you are gaining an advantage to bombard down.

Also I still love the way it looks. for the starting positions are you wanting something artsy? Maybe you could have the starting camps just be a simple campfire or something that looks period?

[BigBallinStalin]

So wait, are you allowed to bombard now from the camps up as well? I don't really like that :/ I liked just attacking one level at a time, and as you go up you are gaining an advantage to bombard down.

Say what?! It needs to be tried out. It's something new and exciting!

[mcshanester29]

Also I still love the way it looks. for the starting positions are you wanting something artsy? Maybe you could have the starting camps just be a simple campfire or something that looks period?

Newbie here so take it for what it's worth I was thinking the same thing have something artsy for the starting camps or for the altar just to give it a little color. I like the layout of the map and that it is unique.

I would also say maybe only let the camps bombard up to level c?

[swimmerdude99]

Also I still love the way it looks. for the starting positions are you wanting something artsy? Maybe you could have the starting camps just be a simple campfire or something that looks period?

Newbie here so take it for what it's worth I was thinking the same thing have something artsy for the starting camps or for the altar just to give it a little color. I like the layout of the map and that it is unique.

I would also say maybe only let the camps bombard up to level c?

I really think they should be VERY limited in their allowance to bombard, I liked that its a race up not that you can bombard from wherever you want, go for the highground! Its strategical and logically sound, I can see why you might be able to bombard up long distance... but not too far. And most certainly shouldn't be able to attack more than one panel I think!!

[jonofperu]

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I'm glad people like the map!
Still not sure what to do with the camps graphically, but something as simple as campfires might do the trick.
Maybe I could put some blood on the altar for color... lol

The reasoning behind bombardment up the ziggurat from the camps is this:
1. Realistically you can bombard a fortress, although with limited success if your weapons are weaker than the defenses.
2. The main reason though is playability. Allowing bombardment from the camps speeds the map up a lot and reduces the effect of the neutrals. It took me some getting used to, because I think I originally reacted the same as Swimmerdude. It felt like it was sacrificing the original strategy premise. HOWEVER, there were some negative comments about having so many neutrals on the map and I gradually began to see the advantages of eliminating those neutrals more quickly and bringing the players together to clash in the struggle for high ground.

Look at it this way.
If players can basically attack neutrals all the way to the top without encountering their opponents, then it becomes nothing more than a dice competition. If I roll better against neutrals than you I get to the top first and win. And a roll advantage gets compounded exponentially as you gain bonus/auto-deploy. If I'm analyzing this correctly, bombardment brings players into contact with each other sooner and introduces more strategy angles. The basic dilemma is: "Do I take this neutral, because if I do he will be able to bombard me." So if someone jumps ahead conquering a few neutrals, you can neutralize his first turn/roll advantage by bombarding.

Several have suggested limiting starting positions per player to 3. My original concern was that someone could end up with one side of the zig all to themselves and an unfair advantage. Others said it would keep people hidden from each other in fog games.
My concern now with this is what happens in a 2 player game? You could easily end up with someone getting a side to themselves. I'm torn between keeping a fog element by limiting starting spots and creating a complex dynamic all the way around the map as each player attacks from multiple points. Without a limit on starting spots you create a huge melee struggling for the high ground in the middle, but you lose the fog effect if each camp bombards its side. This feature is up in the air for me.

Which is better?
a) FOG and only 3 camps to work with to assault the mountain
b) 8 starting spots each in 2 player, 16 camps all attacking the mountain and struggling to control the high ground

[jonofperu]

Oh, and its a valid suggestion to limit the bombardment range to level C. Will have to think about it.
And to clarify, the camps can bombard ONLY their side of the ziggurat.

[swimmerdude99]

Okay I think I will have to agree with the bombarding. Without unlimited forts it would take FOREVER to get up... But the thing I was thinking about was that maybe if you don't allow bombardment you would ahve to choose to wait to attack and that would add to the strategy, possibly needing to wait tunrs... I think you might want to just limit it to just bombarding down to start and see how that would play? I would really like to be able to try both... but I assume that may not be doable since BETA is supposed to just test simple changes. So I guess I can understand trying both, but I think eithe rway could work. I just like the idea you originally had. But I don't mind the new idea of bombarding up.

Also for the initial starting points, is there anyway to make sure they you can only have 1 starting point on each side?

[koontz1973]

jonofperu, you have come a long way, and still you have a long way to go. But you know what, you have proved yourself over the past weeks. I am going to sticky this and send you up to the main foundry in a couple of days. Keep up the great work and I look forward to kicking your arse all over the map when we get to play it.

koontz

[jonofperu]

Thanks koontz!

Swimmerdude, I don't think there is a way to limit starting spots to 1 per side, but I would love to have the option - or maybe limit to 2 per side and 6 max in 1v1 so there would be some sides with 1 camp v 2 camps and others vice versa... but its all dreaming as far as I know cause you can't code it (from what wiser people have said).

I also think it would be awesome to have an "Alpha testing" phase to try exactly what you suggest, but I hear the idea has been shot down before. It makes sense to me to try out gameplay before finishing a map when you can still make significant changes. Actually playing a map 20 times would certainly give you a better idea of how it plays and how your gameplay ideas work that just imagining it. I've thought of printing out a version and playing myself on it after dusting off my Risk game and using the pieces.

I wonder if it would possible to create two versions of a map as separate maps with different settings?
Probably not worth it in this case, but if there were enough variations between two separate setups it might be a really cool idea.

[koontz1973]

Let me explain starting positions for you, then you can at least make an informed decision.

Starting positions are a way to ensure a fair drop. You can code in as many or as few as you like. Each starting position can be a single region or multiple regions. I you code a starting position as neutral, then if it is not given out, it starts as neutral. If you do not code it as neutral, it will be given out randomly. But this is more of the game play boys side.

xml guide - look for positions but have a read of it.
viewtopic.php?t=183876#p4015798

[swimmerdude99]

Thanks koontz!

Swimmerdude, I don't think there is a way to limit starting spots to 1 per side, but I would love to have the option - or maybe limit to 2 per side and 6 max in 1v1 so there would be some sides with 1 camp v 2 camps and others vice versa... but its all dreaming as far as I know cause you can't code it (from what wiser people have said).

I also think it would be awesome to have an "Alpha testing" phase to try exactly what you suggest, but I hear the idea has been shot down before. It makes sense to me to try out gameplay before finishing a map when you can still make significant changes. Actually playing a map 20 times would certainly give you a better idea of how it plays and how your gameplay ideas work that just imagining it. I've thought of printing out a version and playing myself on it after dusting off my Risk game and using the pieces.

I wonder if it would possible to create two versions of a map as separate maps with different settings?
Probably not worth it in this case, but if there were enough variations between two separate setups it might be a really cool idea.

The print out thing is a stellar idea, then maybe you can play it yourself as a couple people or get friends to play and see which way they like it best. The other option is you could have ziggurat be one and then make another map down the road that is called "Temple" or something like that too that was the other gameplay type

[koontz1973]

jonofperu, with the new abandoned maps policy, I am going to ask, are you going to ask if you want this map stamped?

Let me know in this thread and I will stamp it.

koontz

[BigBallinStalin]

Let me explain starting positions for you, then you can at least make an informed decision.

Starting positions are a way to ensure a fair drop. You can code in as many or as few as you like. Each starting position can be a single region or multiple regions. I you code a starting position as neutral, then if it is not given out, it starts as neutral. If you do not code it as neutral, it will be given out randomly. But this is more of the game play boys side.

xml guide - look for positions but have a read of it.
viewtopic.php?t=183876#p4015798

Can starting positions be coded so that each player must have one starting point on side 1 or side 2, and one starting point for side 3 or side 4? And is it possible to code something like: if starting point = side 1, then second starting point must be = side 3?
(see Figure A)

Figure A:

________(side 1)_______
|...........................|
|...........................|--(Side 2)
|...........................|
|...........................|
_________(side 3)______

-side 4 is on the left side.

[koontz1973]

Yes it is. Just code the positions in twos. So with 4 starts in side 1 and 3 you double them up. Same with sides 2 and 4.
Position 1 - 1+3
Position 2 - 1+3
Position 3 - 1+3
Position 4 - 1+3
Position 5 - 2+4
Position 6 - 2+4
Position 7 - 2+4
Position 8 - 2+4
Code the positions as a max of 1 given out and place a neutral underneath so if it is not given out, it starts as neutral. This way, in any game size only one pair will be given out. But if you code it as a max of two given out, you could end up with 2 lots of 1+3 or 2 lots of 2+4 or one lot of each.

[jonofperu]

YES! Please stamp it Koontz.

I've read the basic XML stuff. I tried to click on the link under positions that says:
"Info about a more extensive use of Starting Positions can be found here: Starting Positions"
… but I got the message "You are not authorised to read this forum."
Any idea what's up with the link?
EDIT: I think it must have been pointing to 4.2 "Starting Positions: Underlying Neutrals and Advanced Usage"

I also searched and found this helpful thread:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=649&t=68154

If I'm reading things correctly here are the options I'm coming up with (to avoid making a huge post that will take up too much space I’ll make it a spoiler):

show: Starting Positions Options