Greenland [Quenched]

[LED ZEPPELINER]

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

me too

[SultanOfSurreal]

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....

[sailorseal]

Just noticed, Andy was in perfect timing with my post

[Bruceswar]

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

[LED ZEPPELINER]

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

[Bruceswar]

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?

[Dublanous1]

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

[the.killing.44]

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

Already playable

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

[iancanton]

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.

[the.killing.44]

Sounds good to me

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

.44

[neanderpaul14]

nice job 44

[Peter Gibbons]

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!

[sailorseal]

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

[the.killing.44]

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

[perchorin]

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!

[the.killing.44]

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!

Thanks for your feedback:

In what way do you feel 11 starting terts is worse than 10? If it was 12 I would understand because of the dropping number, but with 11 nothing changes except the number of territories themselves, not affecting the drop.

.44

[perchorin]

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!

Thanks for your feedback:

In what way do you feel 11 starting terts is worse than 10? If it was 12 I would understand because of the dropping number, but with 11 nothing changes except the number of territories themselves, not affecting the drop.

.44

Yeah I don't think I explained my thought clearly. I was absolutely loving this map for 1:1 no spoils speed games, but since the change whoever goes first just has to take a single territory to have a 12 to 10 advantage. So the player who goes second must take an enemy territory on his first turn or else the game is essentially lost. The way it was before, regardless of what the starting player did his first turn short of completing a region bonus, the second player could follow his own game plan still rather than simply reacting to player one. Thus, I believe there was more strategy involved with ten starting terts and it's one of the main reasons I liked this map. It's entirely possible that I'm the only one who feels this way so feel free to ignore me if you like, but take a look at my map rank for Greenland if you want a good laugh...I won the first TEN games in a row on that map, then proceeded to lose the next 11 out of 14 coinciding with this particular change
Anyway thanks for listening and again, great job overall!

[saaimen]

Well...
A lot of maps have the standard 14 starting territories. Pretty much same story there, I think...
Do you also feel those would be better if you started with 13 territories?

[perchorin]

Well...
A lot of maps have the standard 14 starting territories. Pretty much same story there, I think...
Do you also feel those would be better if you started with 13 territories?

I might. I wouldn't even bring it up though except for the fact that this one was originally 10 not 11 and it's still in Beta. Personally I think that only adds strength to my argument, because why be the same as a lot of other maps?

[saaimen]

I don't think it's TRYING to be the same as a lot of other maps. So that's not an issue, nor an argument.
It's up to the mapmakers, but IMHO 11 is fine.

[iancanton]

u could put up a poll asking whether each person ought to start with 10 or 11 regions. however, unless we have a clear majority one way or the other, i'm happy for u to rely on ur gut feel as to what is better.

ian.

[perchorin]

u could put up a poll asking whether each person ought to start with 10 or 11 regions. however, unless we have a clear majority one way or the other, i'm happy for u to rely on ur gut feel as to what is better.

ian.

A poll is a good idea! I'm not even sure if that many other people care one way or another but I'd love to find out. Thanks for listening .44!

[Bruceswar]

I love the 11 spots.

[the.killing.44]

Personally I like 11 better, just for less neutrals, but I'll keep MO out of it. I'd love more input!

.44

[Danyael]

Personally I like 11 better, just for less neutrals, but I'll keep MO out of it. I'd love more input!

.44

i concur