[Abandoned] - Gettysburg

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

Moderators: Cartographers, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

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: 7197
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: 7197
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: 25031
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:
ImageImage
show: High Score
User avatar
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3957
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: To be absent from the body is to be present with Christ
Medals: 36
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 (2) 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: 2409
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:24 pm
Location: Rapid City, SD
Medals: 36
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) 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: 7197
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 MarshalNey on Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:46 am

Victor Sullivan wrote:Fair enough. I thought the idea was at least worth discussing.

-Sully


Indeed it is... I think I or someone I know proposed this once before though... wait, I've got it- TheBastard and his original maps, like Reconquista. He eventually sort of came up with a scheme, but it was complicated.
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 Minister X on Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:15 am

A page back MarshalNey had suggested circles instead of rectangles. I don't think even he realized how good a suggestion that was. It gave me lots more space and enabled me to use blobs to identify the flanks, simplifying the map considerably. I also reduced the font size of the tert names, went from three-digit army numbers to two-digit, altered the appearance of the dotted lines (and added some), and moved the flags off the main map and into the legend area. The flags can't co-exist with those red and blue blobs.

I don't know about anyone else but I love the new "spiderweb" look. I think it really captures something about the tactical characteristics of the battlefield.

show: superseded
Last edited by Minister X on Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:13 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 8 pg 6

Postby lostatlimbo on Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:27 pm

I don't know much about the historic details of this battle, but the gameplay looks interesting enough.

My only critiques are graphical. The canons look out of place. The background has a rustic feel - almost hand-drawn, yet the canons are clearly photos with a 3d perspective. I think you should simplify these and make them flat to fit in with the rest of the map. Even a silhouette might suffice.

That said, why are there so many canons? Re-using the same graphic suggests that it is part of the gameplay, but they seem to only exist for decoration. If that is the case, perhaps you should alter the canons with muskets or structures from the period. Again, not intimately familiar with the subject material, but I'm sure others can add more.

The red & blue highlights on the Union/Confederate bonuses in the legend look rather sloppy. I'd just use a clean, rounded box there or change the font color.

Lastly, the font you've chosen for territory names looks really choppy to me. Try some different anti-alias settings to make these crisper.

Aside from that, I think you've got yourself a very solid map here!
User avatar
Lieutenant lostatlimbo
 
Posts: 1380
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:56 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (2) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (8)

Re: Gettysburg [31/7/2011] V 8 pg 6

Postby MarshalNey on Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:41 pm

I'm really liking the look of the circles- wow.

I've sent out the bulletin, so in a couple of days- if there is no gameplay advice from the community- this should get the gameplay stamp.

-- 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 8 pg 6

Postby MarshalNey on Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:12 am

And here it is- viola!
Image
This doesn't mean gameplay discussion must end, but as the map is deemed to have met or exceeded the Foundry standard, the focus now turns to the graphics of this 'spiderweb' battle map.

Congratulations MinisterX! =D>

Can't wait to see this in play- I'd say get cracking but you already work at such a pace that makes me dizzy ;)

-- 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)

PreviousNext

Return to Recycling Box

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Login