[Abandoned] - Trench Warfare!

[Incandenza]

Okay, let's talk about the inset graphic:

NEW POLL:

Which machine gun inset graphic do you prefer? If you feel strongly one way or another, please post why! This poll will run for two weeks.

A (closer view)


B (wider view)

(note: this would not be the final wider inset graphic)

[Juan_Bottom]

A) looks much nicer, but B) is a much clearer example

[t-o-m]

Closer looks better and more clear to me, however i think it needs that sort of thing like this:

Code: Select all

|______|
   |___|
     |_|
(machine gun here)

edit:
that turned out weirdly, quote me and you'll see what i did really.

[oaktown]

hey folks, nice work... haven't looked in on this map yet, so here we go...

Machine gun: I prefer "B" but I think the color needs to pop out just a bit more - tough on the colorblind eyes. And since there are multiple machine guns in that image, you may need to make the others lighter or less opaque to make it clear what you are getting at.

As this is my first real look at this map and I haven't read the entire thread, I have to say that a lot is unclear to the first-timer. I'm hoping that things will become more clear as you post the starting values of neutrals and starting locations for players, since that will give a better sense of how the map will play and how bonuses are structured, but here are some initial questions:

Trenches, I assume, are the three or four territory boxes, making them regions; you get an auto-deployed bonus for holding the entire region, but I don't see how armies can auto-deploy into a multiple-territory region.

The bit about machine guns only bombarding No-Mans land is confusing, because it immediately raises questions about whether or not you can hit the opposing machine guns (which I see that you can from the FAQ). You should either spell out what it can hit, or what it can't hit - right now you do both with no mention of the machine guns.

"Orders" - reinforcements, mortars, and artillery - I assume will become more clear with future versions. Same with foxholes, which I'm guessing are the dark holes in the no-man's land... they'll need to be better distinguished.

[cairnswk]

i prefer the wider view myself, even for the inset. It makes is absolutely clear what can be targeted and leaves no doubt. perhaps combine the two for the inset.

[Incandenza]

Hey hey oak, thanks for dropping in...

Machine gun: I prefer "B" but I think the color needs to pop out just a bit more - tough on the colorblind eyes. And since there are multiple machine guns in that image, you may need to make the others lighter or less opaque to make it clear what you are getting at.

We'll see how the poll plays out, but like I wrote, option B wouldn't be the final image and would be tweaked.

I'm hoping that things will become more clear as you post the starting values of neutrals and starting locations for players, since that will give a better sense of how the map will play and how bonuses are structured

Version 2 on Page one has a large map with neutrals for your perusal.

Trenches, I assume, are the three or four territory boxes, making them regions; you get an auto-deployed bonus for holding the entire region, but I don't see how armies can auto-deploy into a multiple-territory region.

When you hold the whole trench, each terit would get a +1. It's waiting on some sort of xml thing, yeti would know better than I.

The bit about machine guns only bombarding No-Mans land is confusing, because it immediately raises questions about whether or not you can hit the opposing machine guns (which I see that you can from the FAQ). You should either spell out what it can hit, or what it can't hit - right now you do both with no mention of the machine guns.

The "only" is in there to keep people from thinking that machine guns can actually attack. I would say that the fact that the instructions spell out that they can't bombard trenches or foxholes, yet say nothing about machine guns, would be clear with a bit of thought.

"Orders" - reinforcements, mortars, and artillery - I assume will become more clear with future versions. Same with foxholes, which I'm guessing are the dark holes in the no-man's land... they'll need to be better distinguished.

Well... the foxholes could stand out a bit more, sure, but I don't see how much more obvious the orders need to be. Everything you need to know about orders are right there in the legend. Certainly it will be a bit confusing with only a cursory glance, but there are several currently quenched maps that are in the same boat. This is not a map where a player will be able to instantly understand everything just by glancing at it. This is by design, since complex maps rock.

Of course, mibi might have a plan, or there may be a good suggestion in the thread here. Certainly we're not trying to make things intentionally confusing, so stay tuned.

i prefer the wider view myself, even for the inset. It makes is absolutely clear what can be targeted and leaves no doubt. perhaps combine the two for the inset.

That is one of the advantages of B, is that it conveys more information...

[Tense]

The angle 90 degrees should be represented as shown here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Right_angle.svg

[Androidz]

The angle 90 degrees should be represented as shown here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Right_angle.svg

Uhm no. Its pretty much 90 degrees what mibi did with A. and that more accurate for this gameplay

Mibi im pretty sure this isint possible in this Xml. But what would be cool is when you've conquered the Machinegun, then all terretories you can bombard with it will turn red as Option B. With this you don't have to add it to Legend.

This would also give it a more warish theme:P

[yeti_c]

Trenches, I assume, are the three or four territory boxes, making them regions; you get an auto-deployed bonus for holding the entire region, but I don't see how armies can auto-deploy into a multiple-territory region.

When you hold the whole trench, each terit would get a +1. It's waiting on some sort of xml thing, yeti would know better than I.

Yes essentially each trench would have a bonus * number of squares. The Autodeploy territory would increment through them adding 1...

For example...

Code: Select all

// Helper continent to reduce bloat.
<continent>
  <name>Trench A</name>
  <bonus>0</bonus>
  <components>
    <territory>B4</territory>
    <territory>B5</territory>
    <territory>C5</territory>
  </components>
</continent>

// auto deploy continent to B4
<continent>
  <name>Trench A Bonus>
  <bonus>1</bonus>
  <components>
    <continent>Trench A</continent>
  <components>
  <deploy>B4</deploy>
</continent>

// auto deploy continent to B5
<continent>
  <name>Trench A Bonus>
  <bonus>1</bonus>
  <components>
    <continent>Trench A</continent>
  <components>
  <deploy>B5</deploy>
</continent>

// auto deploy continent to C5
<continent>
  <name>Trench A Bonus>
  <bonus>1</bonus>
  <components>
    <continent>Trench A</continent>
  <components>
  <deploy>C5</deploy>
</continent>


Special Note -> The deploy tag is not in existence and is merely an example of what this would look like - the final format for this has not been decided -> or the idea not even approved yet.

C.

[Incandenza]

Mibi im pretty sure this isint possible in this Xml. But what would be cool is when you've conquered the Machinegun, then all terretories you can bombard with it will turn red as Option B. With this you don't have to add it to Legend.

This would also give it a more warish theme:P

Yeah, I don't think dynamic graphics are possible... besides, even if it were, we'd still need the info in the legend. One could make an argument that the use of the drop-downs and map inspect will make things very clear once a game is in-progress, but official foundry policy has always been (to my knowledge) that all needed information and instructions should be contained in the legend.

Oh, and new update soon-ish!

[Androidz]

Mibi im pretty sure this isint possible in this Xml. But what would be cool is when you've conquered the Machinegun, then all terretories you can bombard with it will turn red as Option B. With this you don't have to add it to Legend.

This would also give it a more warish theme:P

Yeah, I don't think dynamic graphics are possible... besides, even if it were, we'd still need the info in the legend. One could make an argument that the use of the drop-downs and map inspect will make things very clear once a game is in-progress, but official foundry policy has always been (to my knowledge) that all needed information and instructions should be contained in the legend.

Oh, and new update soon-ish!

ok but you have to admit dynamic graphics would be cool:P like when the machinegun bombard a place smoke appear form the terretorie:P and shit like that. Well to bad its not possible:(

Hmm kk, but then Option A would be enough tough. (if dyn..graphic)

Cant wait for the update:P

[ZeakCytho]

One thought about the mg minimap: you could animate it to flip back and forth between the close-in and far-out images. But it would need to be subtle, like the animations in Conquer 4.

[yeti_c]

Not gonna work... GIF's are the only thing that can be animated - and that would utterly destory the GFX that Mibi has here.

C.

[Incandenza]

Okay, foundrarians, here's where we're at:

At this moment in the machine gun inset poll, the wider view (Option B) is narrowly leading the closer view (Option A) 9-7. The poll ends friday, so if you haven't voted, please do so.

Here's the current version of the large map:

Click image to enlarge.

And here is the current version with neutrals:

Click image to enlarge.

So here's what we'd like to know:

How do you all feel about the neutrals? Too hard to get thru No Man's Land? Too easy?
Does the gameplay seem at least somewhat balanced?
Does anyone see a game type that would be difficult or impossible or downright unfun on this map?
Do the instructions make sense? (and by make sense, I mean make sense after a bit of study, as if you were playing on the map and needed to know, not just after a quick first pass)
Any further graphical tweaks?

Personally, I'm excited at the eventual prospect of playing on this map, and as it represents part of mibi's swan song as CC cartographer, I'm hoping to somehow convey that excitement to the rest of ya.

[mibi]

I was wondering is the desirability of the fox holes. once a player reaches af ox hole they have two options take out 10 in a leteral movement and get intoa foxhole, or take out 22 in a forward movement and get into the other players trench. per haps the fox hole should be reduced to 5 to seem more like an oasis from the constant neutral attacking.

I have also noticed that the outer fox holes are much easier to get to from one front. from the allied trench the left hole is 4-10-12-hole, the center holes are either 10-12-15-15-hole or 10-12-12-hole if you leave from the side of a trench.

i think we should attempt to ponder what path a player would take across NML's. I have done this and it seems there are quite a few paths across, each have their own +'s and -'s.

also, i think this map would be really fun as a speed game, a long speed game for sure, but fun.

[Androidz]

kan you move the D2 neatrual to D3? to don't make a confusement there? Or atleast make it clear that their seperate.

[t-o-m]

I was wondering is the desirability of the fox holes. once a player reaches af ox hole they have two options take out 10 in a leteral movement and get intoa foxhole, or take out 22 in a forward movement and get into the other players trench. per haps the fox hole should be reduced to 5 to seem more like an oasis from the constant neutral attacking.

I would play this in speed dubs freestlye, so i would have one person on a machine gun gunning down the neutrals whilst the attacker moves forward keeping his armies.
This would be good for that style of play, however i realise you're looking to evaluate the gameplay for all settings.

[mibi]

I was wondering is the desirability of the fox holes. once a player reaches af ox hole they have two options take out 10 in a leteral movement and get intoa foxhole, or take out 22 in a forward movement and get into the other players trench. per haps the fox hole should be reduced to 5 to seem more like an oasis from the constant neutral attacking.

I would play this in speed dubs freestlye, so i would have one person on a machine gun gunning down the neutrals whilst the attacker moves forward keeping his armies.
This would be good for that style of play, however i realise you're looking to evaluate the gameplay for all settings.

I am thinking that one of the major functions of the machine guns is keeping the other side in its trench, bombarding their machine guns. who ever has control of the guns has a huge advantage and i don't think it will be too likely that both sides with have their own gunner intact for long.

[t-o-m]

If the only bonus is a +3? Apart from auto deploy, i think the strat would be (talking about dubs now) to deploy on each other and either get to machine gun asap, or build up to go to there and kill them off.

Would there be any way to make sure a team gets a drop on the same side?

[yeti_c]

Would there be any way to make sure a team gets a drop on the same side?

No - Again this has been asked for in the XML.

C.

[t-o-m]

Would there be any way to make sure a team gets a drop on the same side?

No - Again this has been asked for in the XML.

C.

I hope it gets through, that would make this map even better than it could possibly get.

[yeti_c]

Would there be any way to make sure a team gets a drop on the same side?

No - Again this has been asked for in the XML.

C.

I hope it gets through, that would make this map even better than it could possibly get.

Yeah - similar on a few maps out there!!

And some maps could be reworked to become proper Team vs Team maps.

C.

[Incandenza]

I concur with the idea of lowering the foxhole neutral (perhaps even substantially), it fits with the whole concept of the foxholes as being safe havens.

And I agree with tom that this map will be highly entertaining in dubs, with quite a few tricks that can be employed.

Androidz, bear in mind that on the map with neutrals, any space that's blank is a starting terit.

[Androidz]

I concur with the idea of lowering the foxhole neutral (perhaps even substantially), it fits with the whole concept of the foxholes as being safe havens.

And I agree with tom that this map will be highly entertaining in dubs, with quite a few tricks that can be employed.

Androidz, bear in mind that on the map with neutrals, any space that's blank is a starting terit.

Oh nice:P

[oaktown]

I'll get right to your questions:

Does the gameplay seem at least somewhat balanced?
I don't see how it wouldn't be... but then, I have overriding concerns (below).

Does anyone see a game type that would be difficult or impossible or downright unfun on this map?
Considering the cost of moving across the no-man's land, I can see a lot of games coming down to two opponents/teams controlling opposite sides and then waiting until they have a big enough stack to move across, and while you're building up your opponent builds up as well and the game just becomes a big boring war of escalation. And since the bunker is the only safe haven from bombardments, there could be a tendency to just build stacks there. As somebody who is stuck in a few dull build-up games, I would be concerned that this map could lend itself to some "unfun." What saves Arms Race from this potential problem is that you can actually eliminate your opponent via bombardments only, and once you hold the warhead you actually get enough armies to do so - but no, I'm not saying this map needs a nuclear warhead.

But nothing would seem to be unplayable... fog games would be especially intriguing on this map.

Do the instructions make sense?
No. They really don't, and I've read the first post. My concerns:
• Alright, it took me a really long time to figure out that the six boxes in the legend are territories. Is there any way they can be somehow better worked into the playable areas of the map - or better set apart from the legend text - because right now they just seem like a confusing bit of legend. Or at least some graphic other than a grey rectangle to draw attention to them??
• "Trenches" and "Foxholes" could be better defined - not everybody who plays this game is a native english speaker; would it kill you to have a graphic next to each?
• "No Man's Land Respawn at half their original strength" means what exactly? That they are killer neutrals that respawn at half their original value, or that when you have been bombarded down to zero they revert back to half of their value? I know, that's not possible given the XML limits at the site, but most players won't know that. If territories are killer neutrals, it wouldn't hurt to say that explicitly.

Another thing I'm failing to understand is the role that the machine guns will play. The first post says that the No Man's Land territories are killer neutrals, so really it would be quite stupid to waste any armies bombarding an enemy in no-man's land since they are just going to revert back anyway. Machine guns would be useful for hitting machine guns, but once you figure that out and you get whacked by the opposing machine gun you'll realize the futility of retaking it.

The only other function I can see of the machine guns would be to soften up territories that your teammates intend to hit, but it would be the same as just giving your teammates those armies to attack with themselves.

And I'd like to point out that the confusion about whether or not the machine guns can attack each other remains valid; it clearly states that the machine guns can attack no-man's land except the trenches and foxholes, by which one would assume that the guns can hit each other since it does not say that they can't. However, there are other exceptions to stated rules in your legend: the no-man's land territories are all killer neutrals, except the foxholes, according to the legend; according to this one would assume that the no-man's land trenches and machine guns ARE killer neutrals, since it doesn't say that they aren't.

So which is it - should we go by the letter of the legend, or trust our instincts based on what we gather by looking at the map? Because my instincts tell me that there are sandbags around the machine guns which protect them from each other.