OK here goes for an update. Thanks for all the feedback. Some really good ideas and observations from everyone.
1. Shifted all starting spots around one space. This makes it more rewarding to attack the neutrals up the mountain than to attack the neutrals between starting spots (due to auto-deploy). I increased the neutrals on the B corners since they now can be attacked from two sides.
2. Increased neutrals between starting spots to 4. Not sure I want to go higher, but this further encourages fighting for high ground rather than attacking around the base.
3. I reduced the thickness of the paths. I think they might look better if combined with texture – the ideal would be to represent a worn path over stone (if my artistic ability ever gets me that far).
4. I've tried to clarify the bombardment mechanics, but I'm struggling with how to represent it. (could use some ideas please!)
The concept is that you can only attack (up and down) at every other space around each level.
However, once you gain the high ground you can bombard down where you can't attack. "line of sight" makes logical sense to me, but may not be a clear enough explanation. “Straight down in all directions” might be better, but I’m not convinced yet. The walls are intended to represent fortified positions which combined with high ground prevent attacks. Just think of a castle where parapets do not prevent sight or bombardment of those below.
The great advantage of moving up the pyramid is that the higher you go the greater the area you command.
E01 at the pinnacle can bombard the entire pyramid (except D2, D4, D6, D8) since the entire pyramid is below it.
On the symmetry of the map…
It is intentionally symmetrical. I’ve thought of using the same “high ground” concept in a more natural location/scenario, but I felt this map would be the “pure incarnation” of the concept. Granted, different personalities will like/dislike something that’s coldly geometric. But there are a bunch of symmetrical maps out there that I enjoy a lot, so I’ll assume that there should be enough interest in spite of that (Chinese Checkers, Circus Maximus, Conquer 4, Knights, US Senate). Personally I like the idea of a map that is perfectly balanced all the way around. If I create the other version I’ve referred to it will give people another way of playing the concept with the variability of terrain.
Increase auto-deploy. Not sure, it’s going to be a delicate balance.
Other ideas (which I’m not convinced of yet, but they’re interesting)
1. Make attacks one-way up the mountain until you get to the top (or even then, maybe make it so you can only bombard down). I don’t particularly like this even though it’s a very interesting mechanic because it’s just not very realistic – why would you be able to attack up but not down?
2. Change to bonuses per territories controlled per level rather than auto-deploy. I feel like with bombardment maybe it makes high ground TOO valuable. One reason I like auto-deploys on this map is that they make each territory individually valuable. I feel that’s realistic. Holding high ground in one place gives you an advantage at that spot with no particular advantage somewhere else.
Thanks for formatting my post. I read everything (I think), but was bound to miss some things.
Still working on:
Texture – this one’s stretching my limited graphic design/artistic ability, but I know what I want to create, so we’ll see.
Last edited by jonofperu
on Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:46 am, edited 2 times in total.