Gilgamesh; Coordinates on pg 20

Care to peruse completed maps? Take a stroll through the Atlas.

Moderators: Cartographers, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Gilgamesh; update on pg 5

Postby thenobodies80 on Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:43 pm

i see you decided to go back and so challenges bonus returns +2.... I'm agree. ;)
But with the bull startings as neutral or not?
I think neutral is the best choice in dispite to a small 2.75% of chances.
I'm complitely agree with zone bonuses
Why +5 for 7 cities? there are 8 cities...it's more simple +5 for all cities :?

Wonderful layout....i don't like arrows (in general), but it's only personal.
The new yellow color is necessary but doesn't fit well like the old one, try to switch some colors?
For example canaan and amorites.

Absolutely stamped in my opinion :)
Great map!

thenobodies80
I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.
All PMs are autobinned.
If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.
Thanks to those who helped me through the years. :)
Corporal 1st Class thenobodies80
 
Posts: 5558
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am
Location: Not here
Medals: 70
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
General Achievement (8) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (17)

Re: Gilgamesh; update on pg 5

Postby yeti_c on Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:04 pm

6 pages - but don't forget that this had a fair few comments in the competitions...

This map is ace - Oaktown is a god.

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Gilgamesh; update on pg 5

Postby edbeard on Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:21 pm

maybe put your signature by the title so it's a bit more hidden and subtle? might make for a cooler overall look. make it like you've carved it into the stone so it doesn't stand out but you can see it if you look for it. right now it jumps out at me whenever I look at the lower left territories



the only comment I have is still on the same point as I made in january. the new placing of your signature is better but I still think it'd look cooler if done more in a more subtle manner by being next to the title and maybe with a "carved/chiseled into the stone" look
User avatar
Major edbeard
 
Posts: 2501
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:41 am
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (1) Map Contribution (5) General Contribution (3)

Re: Gilgamesh; pg 4

Postby Merciless Wong on Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:22 am

sailorseal wrote:5. The Grey bonus is too low.


oaktown wrote:Disagreed - since you have to either hold the Bull or defend against it, Sumer and Subartu (grey) are now very close in size and borders, so I think that making them both +6 (including the cities within) is in line with the rest of the map.


Disagree on this. The Bull is a dead end (right?) so you can conquer it and just leave 1 in or is neutral so you can just ignore it.
Its border doesn't really count. 2 of the borders terits connect to the same spot in another continent so you could just set up a forward defense and reduce your defense points by a further one.

Suspect as it stands, the game will go to someone who gets one of the niche +2's then successfully gets Sumer.

Perhaps Subartu should be +6 or +7... or one of the cities should be moved from Sumer to Subartu.
Last edited by Merciless Wong on Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; update on pg 5

Postby Merciless Wong on Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:32 am

Perhaps connect Rapiqum to the bull of heaven? One way only. Make it less of a dead end?
A secret passage not mentioned in the epic?

Also the continent across the water from grey. +4 border terits versus a +4 bonus. Very weak. Can we break that link from Mari the grey to it. That way it would make an interesting combination with the neighbouring continent on the West.

Also go some way to helping grey be a more relevant continent.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; update on pg 5

Postby oaktown on Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:32 pm

No update at this time, but there's plenty to reply to... excuse me for not taking the time to quote everyone properly.

i see you decided to go back and so challenges bonus returns +2.... I'm agree. ;)
But with the bull startings as neutral or not?
I think neutral is the best choice in dispite to a small 2.75% of chances.


I'm thinking we start the bull as a normal territory. There are 44 territories, so whether or not it starts as as automatic neutral will only impact initial placement in four player games. My logic is that since there is only the one territory that can attack the bull, making it a neutral start means only one player has access to it. And if the Uruk player doesn't want to take the Bull, it effectively takes it out of play. I say let the players fight over it, and force the Uruk player to do something about it - as per history.

I'm complitely agree with zone bonuses
Why +5 for 7 cities? there are 8 cities...it's more simple +5 for all cities :?


Does a bonus always have to involve all of the territories in question? I think partial control bonuses work well in Berlin. Anyway, if you hold all eight cities the game is probably over anyway.

Wonderful layout....i don't like arrows (in general), but it's only personal.
The new yellow color is necessary but doesn't fit well like the old one, try to switch some colors?


I'm not so high on the arrows myself... I'll see what i can do. I can cool the yellow down a bit as well; it definitely sticks out in the legend.

This map is ace - Oaktown is a god.

Not sure I follow, tell me more.

the new placing of your signature is better but I still think it'd look cooler if done more in a more subtle manner by being next to the title and maybe with a "carved/chiseled into the stone" look

Agreed - I'll try to make it better fit the overall map.

Suspect as it stands, the game will go to someone who gets one of the niche +2's then successfully gets Sumer.
Perhaps Subartu should be +6 or +7... or one of the cities should be moved from Sumer to Subartu.


Strategically, if I started in Elam I'd cetainly go after Sumer, with the bonus of picking up an army for the cities as I've taken half of Sumer. But a player who starts across the board may have an easier time at that first +2, and if you're lucky enough to nab it early you can expand into the adjoining +2.

Subartu is already a +6 when you add the city bonus. In my opinion Sumer and Subartu should be the same bonus - Sumer technically has one fewer territory, but you really have to count the Bull as a territory or else it's an extra border. Subartu has one more border (6) than Sumer (5), but all of the borders have only one enemy border, making expansion extremely easy. I think that rather than changing the values, I would propose adding an attack route across the eastern river - Eshnuna to Banylon maybe.

Perhaps connect Rapiqum to the bull of heaven? One way only. Make it less of a dead end?
A secret passage not mentioned in the epic?


Erm, I would balk at this one. Gilgamesh stood at the gates of his city and fought the Bull, losing Enkidu in the process. I'd like to be true to the epic here.

Also the continent across the water from grey. +4 border terits versus a +4 bonus. Very weak. Can we break that link from Mari the grey to it. That way it would make an interesting combination with the neighbouring continent on the West.

Imagine Africa (+3) in the classic map - if you add a connection from South Africa to Brazil, does it become a +4 or a +5. Six territories, four borders, two of the borders only have one enemy and are thus very easy to expand from. I like that region as a start, because it's a healthy bonus and you can add two cities very easily.
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Gilgamesh; update on pg 5

Postby sailorseal on Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm

Let me start out by saying I have always loved this map.
Now I also think your army circles (rectangles) are very cool :D
Now I would like to see the city symbol darkened to avoid not being noticed in the gray. I would also like to raise your awareness to the problem of a army circle on The Bull of Heaven. I would also like to see a fourth challenge in Caanan to bring life to the left side of the board.
Great Map
User avatar
Cook sailorseal
 
Posts: 2738
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: conquerclub.com
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (3)

Re: Gilgamesh; update on pg 5

Postby Merciless Wong on Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:08 am

Think you need to do a relative strength analysis of the big continents.

Grey is 9 terits, 5 to defend
Red is (assuming taking bull of heaven and 1 enemy territory in blue/purple) 10 territories, 4 to defend

My experience is that number of defense points is more material than number of territories.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; update on pg 5

Postby oaktown on Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:34 am

Merciless Wong wrote:Grey is 9 terits, 5 to defend
Red is (assuming taking bull of heaven and 1 enemy territory in blue/purple) 10 territories, 4 to defend

My experience is that number of defense points is more material than number of territories.

I agree - a three territory region in which each terit is a border is harder to hold than an Australia with one border. In this case both regions are 9 terits with 5 borders; if red expands he can reduce his borders by one but would that one border reduce the bonus from 6 to 5? (I'm factoring in the extra bonus for the city.) I'd say not. I'm also alright with erring on the side of giving a slight edge to controlling that part of the world, since that's the most historically and geographically valuable region, AND the home of our hero!

Rather than changing the bonuses, I'd be open to adding an attack route somewhere into red... I'm open to suggestions.
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Gilgamesh; update on pg 5

Postby Merciless Wong on Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:18 am

Link ur to anshan - that way the terits to defend can't be reduced by 1 simply by occupying 1 spot of enemy territory
Having said that - I made a mistake grey is 6 to defend.

Let me do a comparison for you to make up for any rudeness on my part in Prince of The City

Small Continents
Canaan 5 terits, 2 to defend +2 - balanced
Wilds 4 terits, 2 to defend +2 -balanced
Dilmun 7 terits, 2 to defend +3 - balanced
Elam 4 terits, 2 to defend +2 - balanced

Large Continents
Amorites 6 terits, 4 to defend +4
slight weak relative to Dilmun (+1 bonus for -1 terit but +2 terits to defend)

Subartu, 9 terits, 6 to defend +6 including 3 city

Sumer 8 terits, 6 to defend +6 including 3 city
slight strong relative to Subartu especially when BoH starts neutral and is dead end

Obvious forward combinations
Sumer + Bull of heaven + Susa 10 terits, 4 to defend, +6 including 4 city
very strong!!

Sumer + Bull of heaven + susa + niniveh 11 terits, 5 to defend, +8 including 5 city
very strong !!

Sumer + Bull of heaven + susa +rapiqum + mari 12 terits, 4 to defend, +8 including 5 city
very strong!!

Key Combinations
Dilmun + Wilds, 11 terits, 3 to defend, +4
(balanced against a single large continent)

Sumer + Bull of heaven + Elam , 13 terits, 4 to defend, +8
strong

Canaan + Amorites, 11 terits, 5 to defend, +6
weak

Amorites + Subartu, 15 terits, 6 to defend, +9
+9 but so much harder to hold than the sumer + 5 cities strategy

Cannan + Amorites + Subarrtu, 20 terits, 5 to defend, +11 - too big to be fleasible

Problems:
The 3 challenge bonus and the 3 city bonus means that in 1v1 and in 2v2 - someone will start with +1 or even +3 bonuses. Use of neutrals fixes this for 3 challenge, but what about the 3 city bonus??

Sumer (if you consider the obvious combinations) is tremendously strong.

Suggestion:

Make 6 cities neutral
Link Ur and anshan
Sumer back to +4 bonus
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; update on pg 5

Postby oaktown on Sat Apr 25, 2009 5:43 pm

Thanks for the long look, Wong... I'll jump right to the conclusions.

Merciless Wong wrote:Problems:
The 3 challenge bonus and the 3 city bonus means that in 1v1 and in 2v2 - someone will start with +1 or even +3 bonuses. Use of neutrals fixes this for 3 challenge, but what about the 3 city bonus??

Agreed that the cities will be a problem in 1v1 games; 2v2 games will have four starting players so things will be pretty spread out (bonuses are collected by individual players, not by teams). But I loathe coding a bunch of neutrals into a map - it means so many dead areas and somebody has to waste turns hitting neutrals to gain a bonus. On a typical six player game, everybody would start with just five territories rather than seven if I start setting the cities and challenges as neutral. And it wouldn't encourage the use of the cities or the challenges. So while starting with a bunch of neutrals will help two player games, in my opinion it wrecks all other formats.

The alternative, of course, would be to set starting positions. I could code all of the cities as two starting positions so that each player would start with four cities, and a +1. And we could code two of the neutrals so neither player gets that bonus. The down side of this is, of course, that now each player is starting with more territories: 16 (34/3 + 5) rather than 14 (44/3), so that first player gets to start the game by placing six armies and stealing his opponent's bonuses.

Ugh... I'll just say it: two player games are retarded. I've lost almost every 1v1 game in which I've gone second, and won almost every 1v1 game in which I've gone first. I've found that on some maps - even large maps - it is possible to crawl your way back into play after being hammered by the first player, but that there are some maps on which getting the first turn can be absolutely devastating - and the maps with a load of neutrals to get trapped behind like San Marino can actually be the worst.

Here's what I think would be the best solution: code TWO cities (not sure which yet) as netural. That gives us 42 start territories, which is classic-size and nicely divisible by most game sizes. Code TWO starting positions of TWO cities each (not sure which yet), bringing the number of cities that each player starts with to 14 (38/3 +2). Each player is guaranteed to start with two cities, and could start with as many as four cities. One player will probably start with an extra +1, but would have to take three territories from his opponent on the first round to knock down his drop of 4, and really what we want to do is ensure that player two gets to start with a fighting chance.

And I'd say leave the challenges as normal starts... if somebody drops all three (which is, what, an 3.7% chance?) more power to them.

Merciless Wong wrote:Sumer (if you consider the obvious combinations) is tremendously strong.

Suggestion:
Make 6 cities neutral
Link Ur and anshan
Sumer back to +4 bonus

Given what was going on historically, Sumer should be really strong. It's the center of civilization at the time, and the source of our epic. So I'd like to try to explore options that allow Sumer to remain the largest bonus on the board.

An Ur to Anshan connection is certainly possible, but geographically dubious. Anyway, I don't see how it solves the biggest problem, which is that Sumer is extremely powerful when coupled with Elam. This just creates another internal connection.

A more interesting option might be to add a route through the eastern mountains from Aratta to Awan. Awan - and by extension an Elam/Sumer bloc - would have another border to defend. Aratta would have another point to defend and could be pumped up to +4, which would not only create another enviable starting position but it would create a strong northern presence, putting more pressure on Aratta and Awan. Plus it would be fun to draw - I don't think I've yet made a map with an overland attack route. :)
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Gilgamesh; update on pg 5

Postby Merciless Wong on Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:50 pm

Sumer + Bull of heaven + susa +rapiqum + mari 12 terits, 4 to defend, +8 including 5 city
very strong!!

/this it the one I'm worried about Aretta to Awam wouldn't do anything to stop how powerful that is..
/think about each change and how it affects the combos above -you'll eventually be able to think of something that makes it work

/Perhaps you can balance sumer by putting really tough killer neutrals on one of its provinces... perhaps guarding the bull of heaven

/On the +1's - You also have to realise that with 8 cities out there - the odds of someone starting with 3 or more are pretty high, its not just the challenges. On this issue you are in the same boat as the England map... so you should join forces and get the Gameplay guy to pindown his policy on starts with bonuses in 1v1 or 2v2. The obvious solution is starting all the cities neutral.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; update on pg 5

Postby oaktown on Sun Apr 26, 2009 1:05 am

Merciless Wong wrote:The obvious solution is starting all the cities neutral.

I agree that you've identified a concern with the gameplay, but I still don't agree that you've found the solution Wong. Starting all cities neutral - and I assume you want at least one challenge to start neutral - means that in a 1v1 game there would be nine automatic neutrals, plus 13 neutrals assigned randomly. Each player would start with only 11 territories, and would have to slog through 22 neutrals to do anything. If you have played San Marino or Wales you will know what a mess it is to start on a map that is basically all neutral. On this map, with that many territories starting as dead areas, nobody would ever bother to achieve a bonus - it would be suicide to go after neutrals early in the game. It'd be just a slug fest between two players with shit placements to see who gets eliminated first, so the game comes down to who gets the first turn and who gets good dice. I really think this is a not a solution that improves gameplay.

And before your latest post, did you actually read my proposed solution? It would leave a one in three of a player starting with a city bonus; it's a bit high, but both players have the same chance of starting with three cities. I proposed coding two of the cities neutral - if those two cities were Susa and Babylon it would certainly create a significant impediment to the player who wanted to make a go of taking those two regions, because again concentrating on neutrals early in a 1v1 game can be suicide. And if Ur and Uruk were coded as opposing player starting positions it would all but guarantee that the eastern cities could not be used as a stepping stone bonus to take over Elam and Sumer.

Merciless Wong wrote:Perhaps you can balance sumer by putting really tough killer neutrals on one of its provinces... perhaps guarding the bull of heaven

I don't think you understand how killer neutrals work. A killer neutral reverts back to a neutral territory when your turn starts back up. If a killer neutral is part of a region bonus, it is impossible to actually pick up that bonus because you'll never start a turn with that territory.

The thing with 1v1 games is there will always be a good chance that a player starts with an advantage. If you throw yourself into a 1v1 game - especially one on a large map - you are taking the chance that you are going to be out of the game before your first turn ever comes up. It's the nature of the beast. I'm open to making changes to allow for as much balance as possible in 1v1 games, but I'd rather not every other game type worse by doing so.
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Gilgamesh; update on pg 5

Postby sailorseal on Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:06 pm

Now I would like to see the city symbol darkened to avoid not being noticed in the gray. I would also like to raise your awareness to the problem of a army circle on The Bull of Heaven. I would also like to see a fourth challenge in Caanan to bring life to the left side of the board. Could Silver Mountain be split in half to avoid people starting with that area bonus?
Just a side not, I do not see this map being a 1v1, I am not suggesting to change anything to help this but I say don't change anything to help 1v1, as we all know:
MrBenn wrote:1v1=Shit Happens

Great Map
User avatar
Cook sailorseal
 
Posts: 2738
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: conquerclub.com
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (3)

Re: Gilgamesh; update on pg 5

Postby oaktown on Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:14 pm

Click image to enlarge.
image


sailorseal wrote:I do not see this map being a 1v1, I am not suggesting to change anything to help this but I say don't change anything to help 1v1

While I agree that this will never be the best 1v1 map (as is the case of any map with 42+ territories), I'd like to make starts in 1v1 games as equitable as possible. If not, it becomes a newb farming map.

Apart from a dozen or so minor graphical tweaks, here's what I've done:
  • Removed the City State from Ur. There are still seven city states so the bonus structure for holding cities isn't disrupted, but it reduces the value of Sumer because now the region doesn't come with an automatic city state bonus
  • Coded two city states - Karkemish and Susa - as neutral starts. This drastically reduces the odds of somebody starting with a bonus, and reduces the early value of Elam by requiring a player to take out a neutral to take the region.
  • Coded two city states - Babylon and Uruk - as opposing start positions. This will only affect 1v1 games. This was done to provide some parity in that part of the map, since there was concern that the region was too powerful.
  • Swapped the colors of Sumer and Amorites - I found myself leaning in to see which was which, so this set-up is more color-blind friendly.
  • Added a few attack routes across the rivers, and I may have removed one. Most attack routes hit City State territories, making them more vulnerable to attack.
  • Made the army brush stroke in Bull of Heaven orange... it's not even necessary for army number readability, but I guess without it somebody may miss the fact that there is a territory there.
  • Hopefully made the city images more visible... some dark, some light, some with outer glow to provide contrast.

In 3+ player games there will be 42 territories split up for starts. In 1v1 games each player will start with 14 territories (40÷3+1), and there will be 16 neutral territories. Player 1 (and for that matter player 2) will have an 11% chance of starting the game with the city bonus - those are odds I can live with, especially since player 2 will get to drop 4 armies and try to do something about it.

Still to do:
  • Come up with an alternative to the spears. They are big and kind of ugly.
  • Do something better with my sig.
  • Since I'm already coding start positions, I may as well code two of the challenges as well to avoid anybody starting a 1v1 game with that bonus. It won't affect the number of starting territories/player.
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Gilgamesh; play tweaks, pg 6

Postby sailorseal on Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:55 pm

Just a quick note, I like the smears, even though they are big they are creative. I like them
User avatar
Cook sailorseal
 
Posts: 2738
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: conquerclub.com
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (3)

Re: Gilgamesh; play tweaks, pg 6

Postby Merciless Wong on Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:11 pm

Missed your 2 neutral city comment so didn't take that into account. Just say with 2 neutral cities out of 8.
Chance of getting 3 or more in 1v1 is huge. In 1v1v1 is still there and 1v1v1v1 may still be there. If gameplay guy raised it, he aint going to forget it.

Intuitively in a 3 player with 6 free each should start with 2 by random chance. Not much of a fluke required for someone to start with one more and get the +1. I'm not even going to run the numbers.

I'd just engage the guy on gameplay to clarify what his tolerence level then craft a solution is rather than redraft & redraft.

Plus I've never played Wales and if you think it is a mess, perhaps you should put that feedback on the Wales forum.
If you have played San Marino or Wales you will know what a mess it is to start on a map that is basically all neutral.


Do you know if neutrals have to be 3 - lots of 1 army neutrals might work. Not too strong, but you can't start with them?
Also what would happen if you coded 3 starting positions of 2 each in 2 player and 3 player on the cities?
Last edited by Merciless Wong on Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; play tweaks, pg 6

Postby sailorseal on Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:19 pm

Merciless Wong wrote:No idea what are neutrals and what aren't so I 'll refrain from comment. Just say with 2 neutral cities out of 8.
Chance of getting 3 or more in 1v1 is huge. In 1v1v1 is still high and 1v1v1v1 may still be there. If gameplay guy raised it, he aint going to forget it even if you don't get anyone posting about the issue.
Merciless take a look at the current version before you comment, your numbers are off
Plus I've never played Wales and if you think it is a mess, perhaps you should put that feedback on the Wales forum.
User avatar
Cook sailorseal
 
Posts: 2738
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: conquerclub.com
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (3)

Re: Gilgamesh; play tweaks, pg 6

Postby Merciless Wong on Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:25 pm

Am a version behind. So numbers are wrong.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; play tweaks, pg 6

Postby sailorseal on Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:28 pm

Merciless Wong wrote:Am a version behind. So numbers are wrong.


sailorseal wrote:
Merciless Wong wrote:No idea what are neutrals and what aren't so I 'll refrain from comment. Just say with 2 neutral cities out of 8.
Chance of getting 3 or more in 1v1 is huge. In 1v1v1 is still high and 1v1v1v1 may still be there. If gameplay guy raised it, he aint going to forget it even if you don't get anyone posting about the issue.
Merciless take a look at the current version before you comment, your numbers are off
Plus I've never played Wales and if you think it is a mess, perhaps you should put that feedback on the Wales forum.
User avatar
Cook sailorseal
 
Posts: 2738
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: conquerclub.com
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (3)

Re: Gilgamesh; play tweaks, pg 6

Postby Merciless Wong on Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:30 pm

???? - said, haven't seen latest version - ?????

Ok 5 cities not neutral. 3 players. Chance of staring bonus =
No of possibilities 3^5 = 243

5 cities one player = 3 possibilities
4 cities one player = 3 ('players) x 5 (city they don't have) x 2(who has city they don't have) = 30 possiblities
3 cities one player = 3 (players) x 5 x 4 x 0.5 (cities they don't have, 0.5 is because order is irrelevant for city that's left out) x 2 x2 ( who has city they don't have) =120 possibilities

Total 153 possibilities. More than 50%

Sounds high but it makes sense when you realise only way no one has bonus is for cities to be distributed 2 -2 -1
3 -1-1 is more likely than you think.

Perhaps code third starting position is solution.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; play tweaks, pg 6

Postby oaktown on Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:16 am

Merciless Wong wrote:Perhaps code third starting position is solution.

I've thought about it - in fact I almost did this for my last update - but it would have other side effects. For instance, in a two player game there's no way of knowing which of the three positions the two players will be assigned, and the original intent of assigning two starting positions is to place each player in a 1v1 in Assur. It means giving a player a 1 in 3 chance of starting with both Assur cities, which is worse than if we just let all of the cities be assigned randomly.

But even more important is that I don't much care what happens at the drop in a three player game. If the other two players are on the ball they'll notice the advantage and do something about it; if they aren't they deserve to lose that game. That has nothing to do with luck, it's good play. I'll do what I can to make a map even, but I'm not going to make the map idiot proof! :lol:

As for discussing the matter with the gameplay stamper, I am confident that when iancanton stops by the thread he'll give me his informed opinion of the map. I have every ounce of faith in iancanton, just as I am sure that he had great confidence in the fellow who was the "guy on gameplay" for a year before he took the job.
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Gilgamesh; play tweaks, pg 6

Postby tlane on Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:58 pm

Hey oak,
This is my first time posting on this map, and really looking at the map/thread, so sorry if I repeat something.

Graphically this map looks great. I really like the brick background idea, but there are one or two little tweaks that could be made.
1. There are three red smudges in the bottom right corner, 1 on the "er" of Eridu, one right next two Ur, and one small one next two the numbers on Uruk. (theses may just be my screen)
2. It looks to me like the "number smudge" on Assur is much fainter then the others.
3. Is it possible to move the challenge on Humbaba up about 2 or 3 pixels so it is not in the text.

For gameplay the map seems fine to me, and I am sure Ian will address any problems, if there are any.

Also, this is not that big a deal, but 5 of the 7 cities are a whitish/yellowish color and the other two black. Some people(not many though) may think that there are different bonuses for each color, so this is something you can think about changing(you don't need to)

looking great =D> ,
tlane
Private tlane
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: NYC - sint maarten(sometimes)
Medals: 12
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: Gilgamesh; little stuff, pg 7

Postby oaktown on Sat May 02, 2009 1:59 am

Click image to enlarge.
image


Thanks to tlane for the comments. Went back to one color for the cities, and cleaned some stuff up. The army smudges were all different somehow - I had gotten sloppy. Same with the red smears.

I played with alternatives to the river crossing spears, but instead decided to just try to work these into the map better. They don't pop out quite so much, and they've been grunged-up so that no two are the same.
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Gilgamesh; little stuff, pg 7

Postby gho on Sat May 02, 2009 2:32 am

the brick patterns look too prominent in certain continents (wilds, dilmun etc.) and the ocean/rivers. The brick lines look too straight to be ancient. I like all the icons.
Lieutenant gho
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:13 am
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (1)

PreviousNext

Return to The Atlas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login