swimmerdude99 wrote: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.
swimmerdude99 wrote: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?
mcshanester29 wrote:swimmerdude99 wrote: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?
jonofperu wrote: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 wrote: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.
jonofperu wrote:1) It slows the map down. If you have only one starting territ and you have to fight through a literal mountain of neutrals before you see your opponent it's going to drag.
jonofperu wrote:2) Winning depends more on dice. I've seen feedback on some other map projects with lots of neutrals and something I want to avoid is rolling against too many neutrals before encountering your opponent. There would still be some strategy involved - how to fort auto-deploys and how to use bombardment - but whoever got better dice against the neutrals would come out ahead before encountering their opponent.
jonofperu wrote:3) I like the strategy implications for first turn advantage if your opponent can bombard you after you hit a neutral first.
jonofperu wrote:4) I can't think of a way to code starting spots for 1-3 territ starts that works out evenly for different numbers of players. What if some players have to fight each other and others end up on their own? Or what if teams end up on their own side. It would happen with fewer starting spots rather than Option E.
jonofperu wrote:WARNING: massive post ahead! (especially if you read the quotes )
jonofperu wrote:OPTION E
4 starting positions with one territ per side. Even on every side for 1-4 players. 5-8 players are randomly assigned starting positions. The number of different players/starting positions with 5-8 should provide sufficient balance.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users