Forum

by **LED ZEPPELINER** on Wed May 27, 2009 6:21 pm

Bruceswar wrote:I got all excited ... then I see it is not up for play yet

me too

by **SultanOfSurreal** on Wed May 27, 2009 6:51 pm

congrats, I've watched this map all the way from new drafts/projects and it is great to see it quenched.

now hopefully we don't have to wait a month and a half like with oceania....

by **sailorseal** on Wed May 27, 2009 6:52 pm

Just noticed, Andy was in perfect timing with my post

by **Bruceswar** on Fri May 29, 2009 1:29 am

This map needs to be fixed for 1 vs 1 games. So many unneeded neutrals. Can something be done?

by **LED ZEPPELINER** on Fri May 29, 2009 6:15 am

Bruceswar wrote:This map needs to be fixed for 1 vs 1 games. So many unneeded neutrals. Can something be done?

but the great thing about 4 player games is that every territory is filled, and the only neutrals are the ones on the attack route

by **Bruceswar** on Fri May 29, 2009 6:29 am

LED ZEPPELINER wrote:
Bruceswar wrote:This map needs to be fixed for 1 vs 1 games. So many unneeded neutrals. Can something be done?

but the great thing about 4 player games is that every territory is filled, and the only neutrals are the ones on the attack route

Yes it is nice... for that.. doubles, or a 4 way.. but can't something be done about the 1 vs 1 neutrals?

by **Dublanous1** on Fri May 29, 2009 7:05 am

I really can't wait to see this come out playable.

by **the.killing.44** on Fri May 29, 2009 7:18 am

Dublanous1 wrote:I really can't wait to see this come out playable.

Already playable

Bruceswar wrote:This map needs to be fixed for 1 vs 1 games. So many unneeded neutrals. Can something be done?

Well in 1v1 games it's split three ways, so instead of splitting the 33÷2 R1 (neutral), it has to be 33÷3 no R, so it's 11 starting terts for p1, p2, and np.

.44

by **iancanton** on Fri May 29, 2009 4:37 pm

according to the opening post, there are only 32 starting regions plus 3 neutral regions. this means each player starts with 10 regions in 1v1, with 12+3 neutral. i suggest that we code peary land as start positions, so that each player will start with 1+10=11 regions, with 10+3 neutral. this is not a huge reduction in neutrals, but is a step in the right direction and also has the beneficial side-effect of cutting from 5% to less than 1.5% the chance of player 1 starting with a +2 or +3 bonus in 1v1.

ian.

by **the.killing.44** on Fri May 29, 2009 6:48 pm

Sounds good to me

http://h1.ripway.com/killing44/GreenX.xml

.44

by **neanderpaul14** on Sat May 30, 2009 9:49 pm

nice job 44 =D>

by **Peter Gibbons** on Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:28 pm

I never post in the map foundry, but I follow it a lot. Have been looking forward to this map and absolutely love it.

One question, though (and I'm sure the answer is somewhere in this thread, but I'm going to be a bit lazy):

The -1 for the ice passes... was playing a game where I had only one army on one of the passes. At the beginning of my next turn, the game log said that I lost a troop for holding it, yet on the map, it remained my territory with one army there. So, is this a glitch? Was it supposed to revert back to a neutral? If it's NOT supposed to revert back to a neutral, is there anyway to amend the log so that it doesn't say "-1" in those situations (because, in a fog game, it's not true)?

Thanks. And again, thanks for this map!

by **sailorseal** on Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:23 pm

Peter Gibbons wrote:I never post in the map foundry, but I follow it a lot. Have been looking forward to this map and absolutely love it.

One question, though (and I'm sure the answer is somewhere in this thread, but I'm going to be a bit lazy):

The -1 for the ice passes... was playing a game where I had only one army on one of the passes. At the beginning of my next turn, the game log said that I lost a troop for holding it, yet on the map, it remained my territory with one army there. So, is this a glitch? Was it supposed to revert back to a neutral? If it's NOT supposed to revert back to a neutral, is there anyway to amend the log so that it doesn't say "-1" in those situations (because, in a fog game, it's not true)?

Thanks. And again, thanks for this map!

Not a glitch it is just that the log has to say it but you cannot lose the territory because it is not a killer neutral, just ignore it

by **the.killing.44** on Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:25 pm

sailorseal wrote:
Peter Gibbons wrote:I never post in the map foundry, but I follow it a lot. Have been looking forward to this map and absolutely love it.

One question, though (and I'm sure the answer is somewhere in this thread, but I'm going to be a bit lazy):

The -1 for the ice passes... was playing a game where I had only one army on one of the passes. At the beginning of my next turn, the game log said that I lost a troop for holding it, yet on the map, it remained my territory with one army there. So, is this a glitch? Was it supposed to revert back to a neutral? If it's NOT supposed to revert back to a neutral, is there anyway to amend the log so that it doesn't say "-1" in those situations (because, in a fog game, it's not true)?

Thanks. And again, thanks for this map!

Not a glitch it is just that the log has to say it but you cannot lose the territory because it is not a killer neutral, just ignore it

Yes, on any map with this feature (Dust Bowl, Oasis, etc.) you lose it down to 1 of your own troops. It's just the way the game engine works.

.44

by **perchorin** on Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:38 pm

First off I want to say how much I love this map, it's already become one of my favorites. That said, I'm really unhappy with the recent change of starting with 11 territories instead of 10 in a one versus one game. Now there is too much of an advantage to going first, all you have to do is take a single territory and the game almost hinges on the second players first move, especially in no spoils games. I disagree with the earlier poster who said there were too many neutrals, it was perfect before in my honest opinion. Just hope you can give it some more thought, thanks!