DiM wrote:MarshalNey wrote: The Tech Victory Objective seems odd to me, however. Why all of level 3? Why not a pair from each level, for instance?
you don't need ALL of level 3. just all of the Human lvl 3 or all of the Alien level 3.
and this is done because there are 4 winning objectives and they all need to be balanced.
I realize that one doesn't need all of level 3, sorry for the miscommunication. I stated two Victory Objectives but what I really should have said was 2 VO's per "side".
And I agree that the VO's seem decently balanced, I just wonder if there might not be a selection of regions that better suits the theme...
DiM wrote:MarshalNey wrote: I bring it up because tech level 1 seems a bit light in terms of attractiveness. It can be completely ignored in favor of other bonuses and/or the Victory Objectives without detriment.
in order to get to level 2 you first need either a dna lab or a nuke silo. but for the lvl 1 pairs you simply attack from the base. also the lvl 1 techs offer you a bombarding option that no other tech offers. they may not be the best bonuses or the greatest bombardments but the tech lvl 1 represents an alternative and those are the easiest to get bonuses in the first round. if one chooses to ignore them and go for dna/nuke and then lvl 2 then it's their choice. i think it's great to give people choices and create more than one strategy.
Whoops, missed the bombardment instructions tucked away in the corners. Hmmm... that puts a different spin on the importance of Tech Level 1... although I'm not sure that it's a good thing. Between Tech Levels 1 and 2, the whole main map except the bases can be plastered, if I'm understanding correctly.
DiM wrote:MarshalNey wrote: P.S. The 1st post needs map stats! In particular, list the neutral starts vs. open deployment, the number of regions and the breakdown of the drop (# of regions per players in various sized games such as 2p, 3p, 4p, etc.).
none of the maps have breakdowns for 2p 3p 4p. in fact there are very few maps that have a 1st post that's as organized as mine.
i could even go as far as saying my first post is the most complete 1st post that's present in the foundry right now. none of the other maps contain an update history as complex as mine and very few of them bothered to follow the template or present images with neutrals and starting locations.
MarshalNey wrote: P.P.S. Also need to specifiy starting positions. I'm assuming that the bases are each a starting position, but I'd rather know for certain.
starting positions are clearly shown on the map along with all the neutrals and the gameplay is extensively explained in the first post.
[/quote][/quote]
Sorry to disagree, but the 1st post is bare-bones right now. One can't assume that the map speaks for itself when clarity is still a work in progress (which it is at this stage). Newcomers as well as CAs like myself will be able to make better and faster comments on the map if the essentials are typed up in the 1st post.
I know that it's a pain, but I don't ask any less of any other map thread that I comment upon. (see Rome, for instance). I ask for a player breakdown when it's feasible to do so (i.e., when all of the neutrals are pretty much worked out).
As for the starting positions, they are not clear on the map as starting positions. All they are is colored numbers, which could mean open deployment or starting positions (I assume the former unless stated otherwise).
If there is no desire to clarify, that's up to the mapmaker of course. And you wouldn't be alone. But it will unfortunately hinder my ability to comment intelligibly. You seem keen to get the map progressing forward as quickly as possible, so I'm suggesting an expedient way to do so, as it will save visitors time and effort in analyzing the gameplay.
-- Marshal Ney
. Would it be cheeky for me to ask that the white goes up to 90% and the map text comes down to 90% also? That way they are not bright white (which people don't like) and they are consistant.
