Forum

by **natty dread** on Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:19 am

Why do you think so?

by **Vlasov** on Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:28 am

I just played my first turn on this map. I was the first player to take a turn (#9746524), a 4-player game with Fog, but I could still see three other owned Capitals besides one that I own.

NOWHERE on the map does it state that each Capital "autodeploys" +1 army per turn -- but it happened on my turn -- for ALL the players, not just me!

What gives?

by **natty dread** on Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:35 am

They don't autodeploy. They start with 4.

by **Vlasov** on Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:26 am

Okay. I see. But shouldn't it say that on the map?

by **natty dread** on Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:15 pm

No.

by **isaiah40** on Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:38 am

Problem:

I don't think this is right.

by **natty dread** on Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:18 pm

You probably connect through some other route there. The territories are not connected in the XML.

One problem that needs to be corrected though: it seems 1v1 starts with 12 territories. I don't know how I managed to f*ck that up again... damn fucking 1v1 games, I swear they're giving me grey pubic hairs or something.

Ok so 43 territories... 9 neutrals, 43-9 = 34... so that's 11 + 1 capital... argh. What to do, add 2 more neutrals? I don't see any other choice, with the starting positions already being used for the capitals... but where to put them... :-k

by **natty dread** on Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:27 pm

On second though, this map doesn't play all that well for 1v1 in the first place... sooo maybe I should just chalk this one up as "not a good 1v1 map"... I mean if the map isn't that great for 1v1 in the first place, why f*ck up the gameplay of the other game types just to make it into a mediocre 1v1 map instead of a bad one?

Thoughts anyone?

by **isaiah40** on Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:33 pm

No I didn't. It is connected. Green still has Livino and Split-Dalmatia, and red still has Sarajevo. We are in round two now. Game 9751636, read the game log. Also I suggest placing a starting neutral in Montenegro as it gets dropped by a player right from the get go.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:52 pm

Sorry, isaiah, but I just tested the border in a speed game (with the help of chuckbp2 - thanks!) and there is no connection between the Adriatic Sea and Herzegovina.

-Sully

by **thenobodies80** on Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:01 pm

isaiah40 wrote:No I didn't. It is connected. Green still has Livino and Split-Dalmatia, and red still has Sarajevo. We are in round two now. Game 9751636, read the game log. Also I suggest placing a starting neutral in Montenegro as it gets dropped by a player right from the get go.

Titograd?
The xml is ok for what i can see.... :-k

by **dowian2** on Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:14 pm

natty_dread wrote:On second though, this map doesn't play all that well for 1v1 in the first place... sooo maybe I should just chalk this one up as "not a good 1v1 map"... I mean if the map isn't that great for 1v1 in the first place, why f*ck up the gameplay of the other game types just to make it into a mediocre 1v1 map instead of a bad one?

Thoughts anyone?

Because it comes up on random. Right now, for a 1v1 game, you start with 12 regions. A smart player who goes first uses his 4 deploy to take your capital, and they're deploying 6 and you're deploying 3 before you even start. I don't think you're going to be able to turn this into a good 1v1 map without seriously changing gameplay to the point where you're hurting the other game types, but this would be a terrible deciding game in a 1v1 random tourney or something of the like.

I'm not a mapmaker, but is there any way to code the XML in such a way that it's done differently for 2-player games? I assume there's some sort of switch on Woodboro preventing people from starting with the Pirate Stations in 2-6 player games, but those are starting spots for 7-8 player games... could something similar be done here?

by **isaiah40** on Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:36 pm

My bad, for some reason, that anchor was actually submerged! LOL

by **Bruceswar** on Fri Sep 16, 2011 3:04 am

dowian2 wrote:
natty_dread wrote:On second though, this map doesn't play all that well for 1v1 in the first place... sooo maybe I should just chalk this one up as "not a good 1v1 map"... I mean if the map isn't that great for 1v1 in the first place, why f*ck up the gameplay of the other game types just to make it into a mediocre 1v1 map instead of a bad one?

Thoughts anyone?

Because it comes up on random. Right now, for a 1v1 game, you start with 12 regions. A smart player who goes first uses his 4 deploy to take your capital, and they're deploying 6 and you're deploying 3 before you even start. I don't think you're going to be able to turn this into a good 1v1 map without seriously changing gameplay to the point where you're hurting the other game types, but this would be a terrible deciding game in a 1v1 random tourney or something of the like.

I'm not a mapmaker, but is there any way to code the XML in such a way that it's done differently for 2-player games? I assume there's some sort of switch on Woodboro preventing people from starting with the Pirate Stations in 2-6 player games, but those are starting spots for 7-8 player games... could something similar be done here?

Agreed. Note to self stay away! At least on 1 vs 1's

by **Gillipig** on Fri Sep 16, 2011 3:33 am

natty_dread wrote:On second though, this map doesn't play all that well for 1v1 in the first place... sooo maybe I should just chalk this one up as "not a good 1v1 map"... I mean if the map isn't that great for 1v1 in the first place, why f*ck up the gameplay of the other game types just to make it into a mediocre 1v1 map instead of a bad one?

Thoughts anyone?

It's maybe a bit too unbalanced in 1v1. I think it could be easily fixed by just making us start with 11 territs instead of 12. I don't see how making 1v1 games start with 11 regions will mess up the gameplay of larger games so there's no harm in making that correction!