[Abandoned] - Gettysburg

Abandoned and Vacationed maps. The final resting place, unless you recycle.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Cartographers

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 6 pg 4

Postby MarshalNey on Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:14 am

So far so good, your placement of neutrals follows logically and should eliminate the worst outcomes of a 'lucky drop'.

I'm going to fool around with some math and figure out (if my brain is up to it) the probability of dropping any of those 4-region bonuses. There are a whopping 7 of them, which may or may not be a problem.

It may seem that I'm paying undue attention to mitigating the luck of the drop, but the map is very bonus-rich in both number and payout- so if a bonus is dropped, it will likely be a game-changer (+4 bonus or higher). If worse comes to worst, consider lowering the bonus values overall.

Finally, you might consider playing around with some of the neutral values to reflect the ease or importance of the bonus in question. For instance, Round Top gives an autodeploy of 2 (which it should as it was critical) so maybe it should start neutral 4 instead of neutral 3... same could be said for Western Cemetery Hill. Or alternatively you could lower the neutral values for the other autodeploys to 2.

-- Marshal Ney
User avatar
Captain MarshalNey
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:02 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO
Medals: 34
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (4) General Contribution (5)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 6 pg 4

Postby Minister X on Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:03 pm

I'm no fan of lucky drops so I also will try to simulate many games and see what the chances are. Anything at all significant should trigger the adding of more neutral starters.

Gameplay: The bonuses are as per the spreadsheet but the rest is just my first/best guess at things. Please inform me: when can/would playtesting begin? Is it only when a game goes Beta? Or is there some off-record playtesting once XML is done but before Beta?
User avatar
Major Minister X
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:45 pm
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 6 pg 4

Postby Minister X on Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:28 pm

I set up a spreadsheet to calculate how often a bonus would be earned on the drop. It's not 100% foolproof but it's got to be close. If anything, I've been conservative. (Details if asked.)

With eight players the chances are negligible. With six they're about 3%. One in 33 games would have a drop onto a bonus. With five players, surprisingly enough, the odds aren't much worse. With four players there should be a bonus drop once in every twenty games on average. I could calculate more -- for three and for two players -- but it's very time-consuming and I think these numbers might be good enough to conclude that no changes to the map are needed. I was expecting them to be much worse.
User avatar
Major Minister X
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:45 pm
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 6 pg 4

Postby MarshalNey on Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:43 am

Minister X wrote:I set up a spreadsheet to calculate how often a bonus would be earned on the drop. It's not 100% foolproof but it's got to be close. If anything, I've been conservative. (Details if asked.)

With eight players the chances are negligible. With six they're about 3%. One in 33 games would have a drop onto a bonus. With five players, surprisingly enough, the odds aren't much worse. With four players there should be a bonus drop once in every twenty games on average. I could calculate more -- for three and for two players -- but it's very time-consuming and I think these numbers might be good enough to conclude that no changes to the map are needed. I was expecting them to be much worse.


With the size of the bonus that we're talking about (+4 or larger), anything in single-digit percentages or higher makes me nervous. I'll use a quote from the Rome map thread:

MarshalNey wrote:Also in general, I like to see the percentage for bonuses on the drop at or below 5% (1 in 20 games), particularly if they are greater than a +1 bonus. For something like a +4, the percentage should be 1% or lower. That may sound harsh, but consider that many thousands of games will likely be played on the map, and every time players see an opponent get a whopping +4 on the drop, they'll howl and scream at the Foundry and CC (plus they'll foe the map... well, they would if they could anyway).


Consider the topic and the sweet graphics that are shaping up for this map. With that in mind, when this map goes beta it will probably get several hundred games created in the first couple of weeks. If we're looking at the percentages your trials gave (my rough math actually puts the top percentages at 3-4%) then one can estimate that about 4 or 5 games will result in a player starting with a +4 bonus or better. That's maybe 10 or 20 players who will probably never want to play the map again based upon that experience, before it even gets quenched.

I realize that we can't eliminate luck on the drop sometimes, but the maginitude of the bonuses in question makes a lucky start on this map really lucky. We're not talking Berlin where the French bonus of +1 gets dropped regularly (although that's still quite irritating) or even Waterloo where the flags bonus of +3 gets dropped on occasion (tolerable only because players start with so many regions that it makes less of a difference). We're talking about +4 on a medium-sized map, where 4-player games (most likely Doubles) could be over before they begin.

I think that perhaps the bonuses values overall could use a bit of toning-down (not counting the autodeploys, which should be left alone I think). Thoughts?

-- Marshal Ney

P.S. As for the question about play-testing, you will unfortunately have to wait for Beta testing. There have been suggestions in the past for trying out a map at earlier stages, but so far nothing has come to fruition. :| Although BisonKing ingeniously made a board-game version of his Thysenal map and play-tested it with some of his friends (!)
User avatar
Captain MarshalNey
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:02 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO
Medals: 34
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (4) General Contribution (5)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 6 pg 4

Postby jefjef on Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:16 am

Think ER5 should be located inline with West Cem Hill and The Angle. Perhaps change its name to Zieglers Grove or Bryan farm.
This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.
Image
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
User avatar
Colonel jefjef
 
Posts: 5982
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:41 pm
Location: on my ass
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10)
Tournament Contribution (3)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 6 pg 4

Postby Minister X on Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:13 am

jefjef wrote:Think ER5 should be located inline with West Cem Hill and The Angle. Perhaps change its name to Zieglers Grove or Bryan farm.

According to the maps I've researched The Angle lies exactly halfway between Emmitsburg Road and Taneytown Road, so I'm going to say 'no' to this suggestion unless you can provide some compelling argument. Why did you suggest it in the first place? You provide no rationale or explanation.

BTW, I found an online game map of huge detailed proportions that looks to me to be excellent. Warning: enormous .JPG file.... HERE.

Regarding bonus-on-drop: in looking over what I'd have to do to eliminate the chances, I realized I made a mistake in my calculations. They're really about half of what I said they were. (I forgot about some of the neutral starters I already had!) Still, if it would be easy enough to reduce the odds still further, why not? I'm sitting at 68 deployable out of 79. The golden numbers below 68 are 67, 66, then it skips to 59. There are only three droppable continents that consist of four terts: Hagerstown Rd., Carlisle Rd., and the Confederate Left. I can put neutral starters on the first two -- it would look consistent with the other neutral starters we've created on the other roads -- and stay on a golden number. It leaves just one continent of four or fewer terts that doesn't have a neutral starter on it preventing a drop-to-bonus. I think that will be fine.

NEXT: I've had two PM's from a constructive critic who obvious has poor command of the English language. I think maybe he PMed me instead of posting here because he's embarrassed by that so I'll protect his identity. He wants, if I understand him correctly, where I've got red and blue army boxes corresponding to Confederate and Union forces, to have then IDed as cavalry, infantry or artillery. It's a fascinating concept that I want to consider. [He also warns me that if I fail to do this the map will be unable to qualify for inclusion in a collection of "Greatest Battles of the Civil War".]

I had responded above to one request for artillery: the range at this scale was short (essentially just to the next tert) and the guns were spread amongst the divisions. That said, there are a few places it would make sense to put artillery, and if, instead of ranged attack they were given one-way attack, then we could actually set up artillery duels. Cavalry: most of the significant cavalry action took place off this map, and cavalry mostly fought dismounted. Still, cavalry played a role in the battle and if I could find places on the flanks to put a few units, having them be able to access two terts as in Austerlitz, it would provide a taste of their importance. In each case we'd be sacrificing geographic authenticity and accuracy but gaining, IMHO, flavor-of-the-battle authenticity. [Plus I'd retain eligibility for inclusion in that collection! ;-)]

Would you like to see a draft that includes unit types? It will be a major revision/redrafting but I'm willing to give it a try.
User avatar
Major Minister X
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:45 pm
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 6 pg 4

Postby Minister X on Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:25 pm

Here's an example of what the units might look like:

Image
User avatar
Major Minister X
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:45 pm
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 6 pg 4

Postby MarshalNey on Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:49 pm

Minister X wrote:Regarding bonus-on-drop: in looking over what I'd have to do to eliminate the chances, I realized I made a mistake in my calculations. They're really about half of what I said they were. (I forgot about some of the neutral starters I already had!) Still, if it would be easy enough to reduce the odds still further, why not? I'm sitting at 68 deployable out of 79. The golden numbers below 68 are 67, 66, then it skips to 59. There are only three droppable continents that consist of four terts: Hagerstown Rd., Carlisle Rd., and the Confederate Left. I can put neutral starters on the first two -- it would look consistent with the other neutral starters we've created on the other roads -- and stay on a golden number. It leaves just one continent of four or fewer terts that doesn't have a neutral starter on it preventing a drop-to-bonus. I think that will be fine.


Agreed. I'm honestly a little too lazy to do the exact math here, but if bonuses get dropped more than a couple of times during Beta you might want to consider lowering the values overall as a last resort, to mitigate the effects.

Minister X wrote:According to the maps I've researched The Angle lies exactly halfway between Emmitsburg Road and Taneytown Road, so I'm going to say 'no' to this suggestion unless you can provide some compelling argument. Why did you suggest it in the first place? You provide no rationale or explanation.


Perhaps jefjef knew that the Emmitsburg Road ran directly over Cemetery Hill, and thought that the Emmitsburg Road was being shown as parallel to Cemetery Hill. In reality, since it can't have two names at once, the final stretch of the road is simply labeled as 'West Cem Hill' on this map.

Or maybe jefjef is proposing that the West Cem Hill region should be designated as part of the Emmitsburg Road bonus. That would be another case entirely, and up to the mapmaker's discretion I think. It might tie a record as the region would then be part of 3 separate bonuses (!).

In any case, the map is accurate as shown.

Minister X wrote:NEXT: I've had two PM's from a constructive critic who obvious has poor command of the English language. I think maybe he PMed me instead of posting here because he's embarrassed by that so I'll protect his identity. He wants, if I understand him correctly, where I've got red and blue army boxes corresponding to Confederate and Union forces, to have then IDed as cavalry, infantry or artillery. It's a fascinating concept that I want to consider. [He also warns me that if I fail to do this the map will be unable to qualify for inclusion in a collection of "Greatest Battles of the Civil War".]

I had responded above to one request for artillery: the range at this scale was short (essentially just to the next tert) and the guns were spread amongst the divisions. That said, there are a few places it would make sense to put artillery, and if, instead of ranged attack they were given one-way attack, then we could actually set up artillery duels. Cavalry: most of the significant cavalry action took place off this map, and cavalry mostly fought dismounted. Still, cavalry played a role in the battle and if I could find places on the flanks to put a few units, having them be able to access two terts as in Austerlitz, it would provide a taste of their importance. In each case we'd be sacrificing geographic authenticity and accuracy but gaining, IMHO, flavor-of-the-battle authenticity. [Plus I'd retain eligibility for inclusion in that collection! ]


I think that the added complexity would lower the map's popularity on this site; although I personally like involved rule sets I know that they mostly cater to a niche market on CC. If your goal is to keep the gameplay straightforward, then I think that no further gameplay elements should be added. As for the other site, you could always add those elements in for a different version of the map as I see no reason why the CC map and the 'collection map' need to be the same.

If the map does take a more complex route however, I might have some comments on the artillery in particular. The effective range of some emplacements was considerably longer than others, based in part on visibility and the time that the units had to prepare and mark the various ranges in their field of fire. The artillery on Cemetery Hill, for instance, bombarded targets accurately as far away as Benner's Hill and Seminary Ridge on the map. And of course the artillery on Seminary Ridge bombarded Cemetery Ridge and the Angle on Day 3 (and overshot it shortly thereafter). Finally I think that bombardement rules, rather than 1-way attack, makes more sense for an artillery duel.

-- Marshal Ney
User avatar
Captain MarshalNey
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:02 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO
Medals: 34
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (4) General Contribution (5)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 6 pg 4

Postby jefjef on Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:58 pm

Didn't intend to cause any offense in re of my sugg. It was purely for historical troop alignments. Emmitsburg road at that point was never part of the union line. It had to be crossed to assault the actual line at the Bryan barn/farm/Ziegler grove region which was on elevated terrain. At that location the road is not yet on the hill. The way it is now makes for an unnatural alignment. That's why I suggested. That's all. The connections also looks like we won't really be able to reenact pickets charge by directly assaulting the angle from Seminary ridge/Confederate position.

Good luck with the map. Looking forward to it.

Image
This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.
Image
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
User avatar
Colonel jefjef
 
Posts: 5982
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:41 pm
Location: on my ass
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10)
Tournament Contribution (3)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 6 pg 4

Postby Minister X on Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:36 am

jefjef wrote:... historical troop alignments...

As I mentioned above, my deployment pattern is based on a Day Two "overview" map that doesn't precisely reflect any one moment's deployments. Also, I haven't an unlimited number of terts and have made a less-than-total effort to get the ones I have directly atop the main troop concentrations. Result: inaccuracy in where I'm showing troops versus where they were at any one point in time.

That explanation aside, I'm not wedded at all to the current pattern. It sounds like I could satisfy jetjef simply by removing the blue coloring from ER5. That would make the Union center three terts instead of four but that's okay. Perhaps TR6 can be moved northward and made blue to make up for it. Jetjef: would that do the trick? If not, can you please suggest some simple realignment like that, bearing in mind that the roads should have exactly as many terts as they have - no more or less. (Reflects road bonus versus how useful that road was.) Also bear in mind that I need to insert more impassable areas than truly existed on the battlefield. ("Impassables" on a map like this simply means dotted lines not present.) Once again, I'm not wedded to the pattern I have, but if you want to add more dotted lines someplace please suggest some other place where a similar number could be removed so gameplay can remain sufficiently channeled.

NEY: the constructive critic wasn't talking about some collection off-site, but rather (I think) something here like the WWII games. I dunno. Forget it. I don't want to start some unnecessary controversy.

I think you're right about the map needing and wanting no more complexity. I'll save the cap-and-cannon-plus-horse for my next Civil War game. ;)
User avatar
Major Minister X
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:45 pm
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 6 pg 4

Postby Minister X on Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:33 am

7th Draft: shading under army bonuses, legend title added, armies shown (including location and value of neutrals).
I'm ready to creat a small version if given the size I need to meet.

show: superseded


Regarding the Union troops at ER5: I double-checked my source map. Since Emmitsburg Road goes through Cemetery Hill there are of course Union troops on it. The map I'm using shows them on or just a touch east of it down to ER5/the Angle. Given where my terts are and what the map shows, this then is the most accurate approximation. But my terts can move and my map isn't necessarily the final authority.
Last edited by Minister X on Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major Minister X
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:45 pm
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 7 pg 5

Postby MarshalNey on Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:45 pm

Given the large amount of ground that each region represents, I think it could be argued either way for ER5. Frankly, since it works better for the gameplay, in my opinion I say keep it and let history be fudged just a tad. There were quite a few Federal skirmishers roving in front of the main lines, fighting a little-documented but costly battle for both sides (costly for the Union in men- a couple hundred! and costly for the Confederacy for the mortal wounding of General Pender).

I'm satisfied with the gameplay here, so I'll put this in the next bulletin and send out a message to my fellow CAs for a look-see.

-- Marshal Ney
User avatar
Captain MarshalNey
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:02 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO
Medals: 34
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (4) General Contribution (5)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 7 pg 5

Postby Victor Sullivan on Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:18 am

One thing I would add is a penalty for holding both a Union and a Confederate "flank," as it doesn't make much sense that one would benefit from holding both sides, if that makes sense. The idea of the penalty would be more to encourage players to stick to one "side of the war," and I think this could play out neatly in 1v1s.

As for the box format you're using, I'm frankly not a fan. Mostly this is because it just makes your map look far more confusing that it really is.

-Sully
User avatar
Corporal Victor Sullivan
 
Posts: 7175
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:17 pm
Location: Columbus, OH
Medals: 45
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)
General Achievement (9) Map Contribution (4) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (6)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 7 pg 5

Postby Minister X on Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:28 am

Victor Sullivan wrote:One thing I would add is a penalty for holding both a Union and a Confederate "flank," as it doesn't make much sense that one would benefit from holding both sides, if that makes sense. The idea of the penalty would be more to encourage players to stick to one "side of the war," and I think this could play out neatly in 1v1s.

As for the box format you're using, I'm frankly not a fan. Mostly this is because it just makes your map look far more confusing that it really is.

-Sully

How would the "no opposing flanks" rule get reflected in XML coding? I can't think of how to do it. On the boxes: what would you prefer: circles, ovals, lines as in Austerlitz, territories with borders on all sides? Bear in mind that I want to show the roads as roads, and make the roads continents. That almost rules out border lines - they'd be confused with the roads.
User avatar
Major Minister X
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:45 pm
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 7 pg 5

Postby MarshalNey on Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:43 am

I do have to say, that although I'm no graphics expert I think the previous version with the smaller, 'softer-looking' boxes was more visually pleasing. The larger boxes do make the map look more cluttered, and they are larger than they need to be to accomodate the army numbers. In fact, the army numbers could go outside the box and I don't think it would hurt. I feel that the boxes are there simply as an indicator of place (location), not to house the numbers.

However I wouldn't ditch the boxes just yet, until some others weigh in with opinions. Perhaps old-style army circles would do.

As for the negative bonus, I think that again one should be careful not to overcomplicate the map. Although this is a battle between two bitterly opposed armies, the main theme here is siezing the roads and defensive terrain in a race against time.

-- Marshal Ney
User avatar
Captain MarshalNey
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:02 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO
Medals: 34
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (4) General Contribution (5)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 7 pg 5

Postby Victor Sullivan on Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:07 am

Minister X wrote:
Victor Sullivan wrote:One thing I would add is a penalty for holding both a Union and a Confederate "flank," as it doesn't make much sense that one would benefit from holding both sides, if that makes sense. The idea of the penalty would be more to encourage players to stick to one "side of the war," and I think this could play out neatly in 1v1s.

As for the box format you're using, I'm frankly not a fan. Mostly this is because it just makes your map look far more confusing that it really is.

-Sully

How would the "no opposing flanks" rule get reflected in XML coding? I can't think of how to do it.

If someone held Confederate Left and Union Center, let's say. You'd have the continents, "Confederate Left" for +4 and "Union Center" for +5, and an additional continent, "Union Center and Confederate Left" (or whatever you wish to call it. Perhaps "Opposing flanks" or something) for +0, that overrides "Confederate Left" and "Union Center".

As for your fear of overcomplicating things, Marshal, I honestly think this would enhance the gameplay for reasons stated before. As I said, it's more to encourage a player to "pick sides", so to speak, and I think it would really work nicely for 1v1s (as most likely one would choose Union, the other, Confederate).

-Sully
User avatar
Corporal Victor Sullivan
 
Posts: 7175
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:17 pm
Location: Columbus, OH
Medals: 45
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)
General Achievement (9) Map Contribution (4) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (6)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 7 pg 5

Postby Minister X on Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:50 am

Victor Sullivan wrote:If someone held Confederate Left and Union Center, let's say. You'd have the continents, "Confederate Left" for +4 and "Union Center" for +5, and an additional continent, "Union Center and Confederate Left" (or whatever you wish to call it. Perhaps "Opposing flanks" or something) for +0, that overrides "Confederate Left" and "Union Center".

Okay. I understand, and that's pretty cool. Do any other games have a feature like this?

Say I own two Confederate continents and then take over one Union one. Do I lose both my Confeds or just one of them. Which one?

How would you word the warning on the map? "Holding any colored Union bonus negates holding any/all Confederate ones and vice-versa" ??

Comment: even in a 1 vs 1 game this might be less effective than you hope. Most of the continents are roads, and all the big ones are. Plus, if I've "chosen" Confed, I still would want Union terts if I'm going after the road they're part of. So the separation/isolation won't necessarily be obvious and distinct as you may be picturing. It's an interesting idea and would make the game unique (so far as I know), but let's make sure all the details fall into place. Will it be too easy for forget the rule and then accidentally lose all your hard-won bonuses and the game? Does the Confederate "side" have a huge advantage because the Union is blocked from getting to most of the road bonuses? Or is that made up for by the fact that the Union has interior lines - especially useful if reinforcements are adjacent only. Is it screwy that this rule, which is a BIG rule, applies to a small minority of the continents on the map? Wouldn't it make more sense to use it on a map where just about all the terts "belong" to one side or the other? (I'm working on just such a map for a different Civil War battle!!)

Finally: do we really want to make a map that caters to 1 vs 1 games? Aren't they used mostly for point-farming, which is a lowly practice? Let's say that it turns out that going for the Confeds is much better than going for the Union -- not at all unlikely but perhaps not immediately obvious to the novice -- wouldn't that make this an IDEAL map for point-farmers? They'd know to go for the Confeds at all costs.

Making interior lines or exterior envelopment valuable is very cool, but again: in a game where there aren't so many other bonuses to be had.
User avatar
Major Minister X
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:45 pm
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 7 pg 5

Postby Victor Sullivan on Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:56 pm

Minister X wrote:
Victor Sullivan wrote:If someone held Confederate Left and Union Center, let's say. You'd have the continents, "Confederate Left" for +4 and "Union Center" for +5, and an additional continent, "Union Center and Confederate Left" (or whatever you wish to call it. Perhaps "Opposing flanks" or something) for +0, that overrides "Confederate Left" and "Union Center".

Okay. I understand, and that's pretty cool. Do any other games have a feature like this?

Well, the basic function of overrides has been used before, but the concept of holding opposing bonus areas to negate all bonuses...nothing comes to mind.


Minister X wrote:Say I own two Confederate continents and then take over one Union one. Do I lose both my Confeds or just one of them. Which one?

It would be easier just to say you lose it all, though it's up to you how you want to do it.


Minister X wrote:How would you word the warning on the map? "Holding any colored Union bonus negates holding any/all Confederate ones and vice-versa" ??

"Hold opposing flanks and lose your bonus!" is how I might put it.


Minister X wrote:Comment: even in a 1 vs 1 game this might be less effective than you hope. Most of the continents are roads, and all the big ones are. Plus, if I've "chosen" Confed, I still would want Union terts if I'm going after the road they're part of. So the separation/isolation won't necessarily be obvious and distinct as you may be picturing. It's an interesting idea and would make the game unique (so far as I know), but let's make sure all the details fall into place. Will it be too easy for forget the rule and then accidentally lose all your hard-won bonuses and the game? Does the Confederate "side" have a huge advantage because the Union is blocked from getting to most of the road bonuses? Or is that made up for by the fact that the Union has interior lines - especially useful if reinforcements are adjacent only. Is it screwy that this rule, which is a BIG rule, applies to a small minority of the continents on the map? Wouldn't it make more sense to use it on a map where just about all the terts "belong" to one side or the other? (I'm working on just such a map for a different Civil War battle!!)

First, remember, a player has to hold an entire Confederate flank and an entire Union flank for the bonus to be negated. One could still take individual opposing territories and be fine. And if you feel one side has an advantage over the other, then adjust the bonuses/connections as you feel is necessary. Also, if a player forgets about the rule, and it is clearly in the legend, they only have themselves to blame! ;)


Finally: do we really want to make a map that caters to 1 vs 1 games? Aren't they used mostly for point-farming, which is a lowly practice? Let's say that it turns out that going for the Confeds is much better than going for the Union -- not at all unlikely but perhaps not immediately obvious to the novice -- wouldn't that make this an IDEAL map for point-farmers? They'd know to go for the Confeds at all costs.

Again, you can make adjustments as you feel is necessary. Second, mostly large team games (like Quads) are used to farm. At any rate, I don't think that should be a concern.

-Sully
User avatar
Corporal Victor Sullivan
 
Posts: 7175
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:17 pm
Location: Columbus, OH
Medals: 45
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)
General Achievement (9) Map Contribution (4) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (6)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 7 pg 5

Postby AndyDufresne on Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:34 pm

I don't think 1vs1 is ideal for farmers. I play a lot of 1vs1, and I'm certainly not farming!


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25441
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) General Achievement (4) General Contribution (2)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 7 pg 5

Postby isaiah40 on Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:35 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:I don't think 1vs1 is ideal for farmers. I play a lot of 1vs1, and I'm certainly not farming!


--Andy


So how are you getting all your bananas? :lol:
User avatar
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3958
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: To be absent from the body is to be present with Christ
Medals: 37
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2) General Achievement (4) Map Contribution (5) General Contribution (6)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 7 pg 5

Postby Minister X on Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:06 pm

Victor Sullivan wrote:
Minister X wrote:How would you word the warning on the map? "Holding any colored Union bonus negates holding any/all Confederate ones and vice-versa" ??

"Hold opposing flanks and lose your bonus!" is how I might put it.
-Sully

Is the Union Center a flank? What are "opposing" flanks, only the Union right and Confed left and vice-versa? This is WAY too ambiguous. Until we can come up with a formula that at least I can understand, this is a non-starter.
try:
"Simultaneously holding any Union and any Confederate bonus invalidates both/all" and where the map currently shows just "Bonuses" bottom center, it should read "Union Bonuses" and Confederate Bonuses" on separate lines. The color coding would also be used in the explanatory sentence to further link it to the types of bonuses. That whole bottom center section would be used for this. Autodeploys can be explained on the map itself (?) with just "+1"s and "+2"s next to terts.
User avatar
Major Minister X
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:45 pm
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 7 pg 5

Postby Minister X on Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:09 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:I don't think 1vs1 is ideal for farmers. I play a lot of 1vs1, and I'm certainly not farming!


--Andy

I wonder how much you guys peruse the public games? A lot of high-ranking players post a dozen or two 1 vs 1 games at a time, waiting for suckers to accept their challenge. Do they just love playing total strangers 1 vs 1? Or are they farming? (In either case I avoid them like the plague and pity those who don't.)
User avatar
Major Minister X
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:45 pm
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 7 pg 5

Postby TaCktiX on Fri Sep 16, 2011 3:37 am

1vs1 isn't ideal compared to 4v4 Quads on Waterloo or 8p Freestyle Assassin on CC City Mogul. It still works and it's the modus operandi of some folks, but it's nowhere near as lucrative.

As for the "invalidating bonuses" idea, from a historical perspective it makes sense, but it will seriously penalize someone trying to lock up an area of the map in the mid- to late-game. To keep from nulling a rather nice bonus they would have to intentionally create more borders to their stuff by excluding one territory of the other flank. When historicity actively causes people to do stuff that just doesn't strategically make sense, historicity should be tossed out the door.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class TaCktiX
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:24 pm
Location: Rapid City, SD
Medals: 37
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2) Map Contribution (1)
Tournament Contribution (4) General Contribution (6)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 7 pg 5

Postby Minister X on Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:19 am

TaCktiX wrote:When historicity actively causes people to do stuff that just doesn't strategically make sense, historicity should be tossed out the door.

I agree with this absolutely, but the rule in question isn't really a matter of reproducing some specific aspect of this battle so much as it's designed (at least in my mind) to generate some sense of there being a "line" or "front" to a battle.

...you know, the more I think about it the more I don't like it. If I'm the Confederate left flank I want to take over the Union right. That's the whole idea. I should be rewarded for it, not penalized.

I know that's not the consideration Victor Sullivan had originally. Here's how he put it:
One thing I would add is a penalty for holding both a Union and a Confederate "flank," as it doesn't make much sense that one would benefit from holding both sides, if that makes sense. The idea of the penalty would be more to encourage players to stick to one "side of the war," and I think this could play out neatly in 1v1s.

It makes some sense as he puts it, but none as we were just looking at it. And let's recall that the Union and Confed lines were added more so the map would the look of a battle rather than to add tactical complexity; more to get the Civil War appearance than a simulation.

Given this plus the practical difficulties in implementing the idea... let's drop it.
User avatar
Major Minister X
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:45 pm
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 7 pg 5

Postby Victor Sullivan on Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:45 pm

Fair enough. I thought the idea was at least worth discussing.

-Sully
User avatar
Corporal Victor Sullivan
 
Posts: 7175
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:17 pm
Location: Columbus, OH
Medals: 45
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)
General Achievement (9) Map Contribution (4) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (6)

PreviousNext

Return to Recycling Box

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login