Page 2 of 11
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:50 pmby natty dread
There are no bonuses given for specific areas. Bonuses are given for each 2 territories owned in the same country/alliance, as indicated by colors on map. Players don't need to know the name of any country - just how many territories they own in each. There are no fixed bonuses for owning a country, which differ from country to country. It's the same for all: 1 unit for each 2 territory owned within any and all countries.
I realize this, but people still should know the name of the bonus areas - think about team games, how will you tell your teammate "take that blue bonus... not not that blue bonus, the other blue bonus..." or when you're negotiating a truce in a singles game...
Bonus area names are necessary for smooth gameplay, even if they don't have specific bonuses. Look at maps like Feudal or New world, bonus areas are named even in them. A small & simple minimap like the one in Feudal is all I ask.
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:05 pmby Raskholnikov
Got it. Will talk to Pamoa about having this is Africa, like you suggested.
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:59 pmby Evil DIMwit
Rashkolnikov wrote:The Middle East Alliance has 11 territories. We could take Jerusalem completely out of play (like Nepal) and thus simplify the area.
That'd be nice. Jerusalem's awkward troop number placement is one of the most annoying. If you do that, though, be sure to connect Cairo to the rest of the map somehow, either by sea route or by tanker (the latter would be either interesting or awkward since there are no other Mediterranean tankers in the region).
While I'm on the subject of awkward placement: It's not enough for icons to touch the label of their territory; if they aren't on the territory itself, it's confusing to look at. That's true in Istanbul, it's true in Abu Dhabi, it's true with the Krasnodar fleet, and especially the Ajana fleet. In these cases there's just no room for more than one territory in that region; I recommend just scrapping those fleets. Maybe put a fleet in Izmir to give one to Turkey.
The territories lose troops each turn, down to a minimum of 1. So yes, it's a territory decay.
I think even then, the revolt territories are one of the least necessary features gameplay-wise, and since you're (hopefully) trying to simplify the gameplay, the revolts should be first to get cut.
Yes , we could have terrorists bombard refineries only, the US 5th Fleet bombard all terrorists, and US 6th Fleet bombard all tankers.
Another way to differentiate the fleets would be to have them only be able to bombard tankers in the same sea. That would kind of make sense.
Perhaps also only have terrorists bombard refineries within the same region? That way they give more of a sense of local resistance.
Then again, that wouldn't come into effect very much since probably most of the refineries that have terrorists in their region actually border that terrorist territory.
The bonuses for Arunachal and Kashmir are not particularly interesting; because of the build-a-bonus system, it's not likely that a player is going to hold either all of China or all of India. It might work better to say that those territories count for either country.
Finally, you'll want to either make the metropolis auto-deploy bigger or the neutral smaller, since most of the metropolises are so out of the way that just a 2-troop auto probably won't affect much.
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:18 pmby Raskholnikov
Evil DIMwit wrote:Rashkolnikov wrote:The Middle East Alliance has 11 territories. We could take Jerusalem completely out of play (like Nepal) and thus simplify the area.
That'd be nice. Jerusalem's awkward troop number placement is one of the most annoying. If you do that, though, be sure to connect Cairo to the rest of the map somehow, either by sea route or by tanker (the latter would be either interesting or awkward since there are no other Mediterranean tankers in the region).
Yes, that's an issue. Maybe we can keep Jerusalem, combine Beirut and Damascus, and move the Jerusalem label up.While I'm on the subject of awkward placement: It's not enough for icons to touch the label of their territory; if they aren't on the territory itself, it's confusing to look at. That's true in Istanbul, it's true in Abu Dhabi, it's true with the Krasnodar fleet, and especially the Ajana fleet. In these cases there's just no room for more than one territory in that region; I recommend just scrapping those fleets. Maybe put a fleet in Izmir to give one to Turkey.
I can easily see reducing tankers from 15 to 9 - 3 per region, which would then eliminate the ones you mention.The territories lose troops each turn, down to a minimum of 1. So yes, it's a territory decay.
I think even then, the revolt territories are one of the least necessary features gameplay-wise, and since you're (hopefully) trying to simplify the gameplay, the revolts should be first to get cut.
Well they do add a degree of realism to the game... Also revolts are not separate territories, like tankers, but just a characteristic of existing territories. The fire symbols can easily be removed towards the end of the process, if they still are a sticking point.Yes , we could have terrorists bombard refineries only, the US 5th Fleet bombard all terrorists, and US 6th Fleet bombard all tankers.
Another way to differentiate the fleets would be to have them only be able to bombard tankers in the same sea. That would kind of make sense.
Perhaps also only have terrorists bombard refineries within the same region? That way they give more of a sense of local resistance.
Then again, that wouldn't come into effect very much since probably most of the refineries that have terrorists in their region actually border that terrorist territory.
If we reduce tankers from 15 to 9, that would give US fleets a really limited number of targets. I still think we can try my proposal above: terrorists bombard refineries only, the US 5th Fleet bombards all terrorists, and US 6th Fleet bombards all tankers.The bonuses for Arunachal and Kashmir are not particularly interesting; because of the build-a-bonus system, it's not likely that a player is going to hold either all of China or all of India. It might work better to say that those territories count for either country.
Yes, I agree. One Kashmir would go to China, two others would be combined and given to Afpak and two existing Afpak territories combined to make the region less crowded, and Arunchal would go to India. Instead of the Cashmir window in the legend, we could put there the mini-map natty was asking for.Finally, you'll want to either make the metropolis auto-deploy bigger or the neutral smaller, since most of the metropolises are so out of the way that just a 2-troop auto probably won't affect much.
Yes, we can reduce the metropolis neutrals to 3 instead of 5 if you think it makes better sense.Thank for your really great comments! Much appreciated!
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:28 amby Industrial Helix
OK... I figure best to address a subject one at a time.
suggestionWhy not have a single Caspian Sea/Black Sea/Med. Sea/ Arabian Sea/ Territory?
how it will astly improve things:Graphically, it will take less room and you can use the tanker symbol.
Make it a killer neutral so the seas don't act like regular territories.
Every seaside port can attack other sea side ports anyway. Putting a sea territory instead of 9 tanker territories will clear the region of unreadable debris and still maintain gameplay. You'll lose your tanker bonus, but really, no one regards Panama and Liberia as world powers because they command 1/3 the tanker fleet in the world. So it was kind of a unrealistic bonus anyway.
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:50 amby pamoa
we should keep each region to an even number
so it is still interesting to get the last territory (+1 each 2 territ)
I prefer US fleet bombard terrorists
terrorists bombard refineries and tankers inside their region
we have then to add one in Iran
sea as a territory with small tanker symbols as access point
instead of tankers as territories
much better for me as gameplay (less terit and easier to understand)and graphics (more room)
Kashmir and Arunachal should remain out of any country
as they are disputed territories
maybe Kashmir as one territory
both as ethnic unrest
I personally hate mini-maps
but if its needed
if Kashmir is one single territ
then I can use this space for mini-map
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:05 amby Raskholnikov
How about this: set up the Caspian / Black Sea Mediterranean / Indian Ocean tanker territories as killer neutrals;
so:
Caspian Sea tanker will connect: Ashgabat and Baku
Black Sea Tanker will connect: Tbilisi and Odessa
Mediterranean Sea will connect: Izmir and Cairo;
Indian Ocean tanker will connect: Abu Dabi and Mumbai
and they will work exactly as the Channel Territory in Third Crusade.
This will eliminate 15 tanker territories for 4 Sea territories: net reduction of 11 territories.
I would still keep the US 5th and 6th Fleets, as follows: Can be one-way attacked by any capital; are killer neutral; Sixth fleet can attack all refineries; 5th fleet can attack all terrorists.
In terms of territories:
Merge L'iv into Kyiv; Merge Dnipropetrovsk into Odessa; create Bucharest (coverning Romania and Moldavia) and Sofia (covering Bulgaria). This will keep Eastern Europe at 6 territories, but would make for larger territories and would connect Eastern Europe to Turkey.
Merge Beirut into Damas;
Merge Gilgit into Strinagar and give it to India;
Give Aksai to China;
Give Arunachal to India;
Eliminate Kashmir and Arunachal bonuses;
Split Aksu in 2 so China will have 10 territories.
The four Metropolises for the four 6 territory countries will be: Bucharest, Istanbul, Mashhad and Lahore, with 3 neutrals on each to start.
We eliminate the pipelines.
Revolts and terrorists stay as is.
Refineries can go down from 24 to 17, with the following being eliminated: Dniepopetrovsk, Istanbul, Makhachakala, Samara, Ashgabat, Shymkent, Altai (bonus armies: +2 for first 3, +1 for every subsequent 2)
This will bring us to : four countries of 6 territories; four countries of 10 territories; 17 Central Asian territories; 4 Sea territories; 2 fleets - for a total of 87 territories - 12 less than originally planned.
Since the Kashmir bonus will dissappear and the area simplified, the Kashmir insert at the bottom right will be replaced by a mini-map, with the following names:
Eastern Europe, Russia, Kazakhstan, Caucasus, Central Asia (4 countries south of Kazakhstan), China, India, AFPAK, Iran, Turkey, Middle East
On the main map, Kazachstan's border should be shown as a thicker white line, since it has 10 territories and gives the 1 bonus army for every 2 territories conquered within its borders. The other 7 Central Asian countries which are all separate territories give no such bonus.
A key question to decide is: should we give bonuses for holding an entire country? At this stage, I am still enclined not to. Let's see how the second version looks like and we can then decide. If yes, it would be easy to add the bonus numbers on the mini-map.
Natty, Evil, Helix, if you all agree with this, maybe pamoa, once he finishes moving and has some time next month, can take a stab at a second version of the map - and also take into consideration the color suggestions made above.
Thank you all for your suggestions and advice. And especially to pamoa who really does all the work!
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:10 pmby Evil DIMwit
Two more things. One:
natty_dread wrote:I realize this, but people still should know the name of the bonus areas - think about team games, how will you tell your teammate "take that blue bonus... not not that blue bonus, the other blue bonus..." or when you're negotiating a truce in a singles game...
Bonus area names are necessary for smooth gameplay, even if they don't have specific bonuses. Look at maps like Feudal or New world, bonus areas are named even in them. A small & simple minimap like the one in Feudal is all I ask.
I don't think this is really necessary. It's not difficult to describe the different regions, and they will most likely be given names on the game log whenever they give a bonus. A minimap that only exists to give names to the regions would be a waste of space, in my opinion.
Two, if you're going to have different functions for the two U.S. fleets, give one of them a more distinguishable name. Maybe rename the one that bombards terrorists "U.S. Special Forces" or something.
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:41 pmby natty dread
Evil DIMwit wrote:I don't think this is really necessary. It's not difficult to describe the different regions, and they will most likely be given names on the game log whenever they give a bonus. A minimap that only exists to give names to the regions would be a waste of space, in my opinion.
The XML can be made to tell what they are, sure, but only after you own at least 2 territories in that area. It's not a waste of space at all. Anything that helps people to grasp the gameplay and map dynamics better is not a waste. This is a complex map, and anything that helps navigating it should not be overlooked.
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:03 pmby Raskholnikov
Well I like pamoa am not a believer in small maps. That being said, since the Cashmir insert will disppear, there is no harm having one in that space to clearly indentify countries, like some of you wish. Especially since pamoa kindly said he would not mind doing it. So let's try and see. And, if we decide to add country bonuses, this will come in handy.
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:25 pmby Raskholnikov
For those thinking of regional bonuses, this is what they would be:
I don't think they are necessary and would end up unbalancing the game. But here they are.
Eastern Europe: 5; Russia: 10; Kazakhstan: 9; Caucasus: 3; Central Asia: 5: China: 7; India:7; AFPAK: 6; Iran: 6; Turkey: 4: Middle East: 4
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:28 pmby Industrial Helix
Very high for bonus values...
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:07 pmby Raskholnikov
Well that's what the CC spreadsheet ordered given existent attacking and defending territories for each and nr of neighbours. And yes, they are very high. Which is why i think they would destabilise the game.
If we raise the divider by 50 per cent, from 6 to 9, this is what we get:
Eastern Europe 3, Russia 6, Kazachstan 6, Caucasus 1, Central Asia 3, China 5, India 5, Afpak 4, Iran 4, Turkey 2, Middle East 2.
This is much more reasonable.
If we raise the divider by 100 per cent, from 6 to 12, this is what we get:
Eastern Europe 2, Russia 4, Kazachstan 4, Caucasus 1, Central Asia 2, China 3, India 3, Afpak 3, Iran 3, Turkey 1, Middle East 1.
This is close to striking the balance between encouraging territorial unity without destabilising the game. I could live with these numbers if you guys insist.
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:34 pmby Raskholnikov
I am very happy to let everyone know that ender512 has kindly agreed to partner up with us on the xml side. As long as we get gameplay and graphics right, I now know xml and numbers placement will be perfect. Welcome to the team, ender!
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:36 pmby Industrial Helix
The proposed changes sound great, but I think the key is whether or not they look great in the new version of the map.
My biggest disapproval (though not a deal-breaker) is the continued use of the US fleets... which I don't understand. Maybe it will look better with a more streamlined map. I dunno, I can be convinced.
Get an update going and we'll go from there. Best of luck!
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:56 amby Raskholnikov
How about this:
1. Terrorists cannot attack each other.
2. Fifth Fleet can attack all terrorists and turns to 3 neutral after each round.
3. Kuwait is merged into Iraq.
4. Sixth Fleet becomes the starting point (capital) for the Middle East Alliance and links to Cairo (the metropolis). Ryiad is no longer the Middle East capital.
This maintains both fleets, gives each an entirely different role, the role of the US is empasised, and its more difficult to conquer all terrorists since they can't attack each other any longer, and a tiny territory is eliminated, reducing the oerall territory number to 86.
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:00 amby natty dread
That sounds good to me.
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:04 amby Raskholnikov
Thanks!
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:34 amby Industrial Helix
You're making the US fleet the capital of the mideast?
For some reason I doubt this is accurate... but ok. Let's try it on for size.
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:54 amby Raskholnikov
Well if you look at the countries concerned, most rely on the US for their security and are largely pro-US (Syria excepted). In terms of power projection, it makes sense. Plus it it a good way to make the US an integral part of the game, rather than a side-show, which totally represents reality. But yes, we can look at it once the second draft is done and re-evaluate the entire idea then.
v2
Posted:
Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:39 amby pamoa
took me time
but here we are
- Click image to enlarge.
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:33 amby Raskholnikov
Thank you. Great work! I updated the top of the page.
Any chance we could move to the Gameplay section now please?
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:40 amby natty dread
Submit a design brief...
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:54 amby Industrial Helix
That looks about 50 times better, nice work. I was worried you guys had given up
Re: Central Asia: The Great Game 2.0 - Struggle for Oil
Posted:
Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:08 pmby Raskholnikov
Thanks! It means a lot from you! Of course we didn't give up... sometimes real life interferes with mapmaking though.... So any chance to go to gameplay, please?
