District of Alaska - v14.1 [2015-25-05] pg16 [QUENCHED]

[Faro]

I see (with Bob) a connection between Port Valdes and Port Bethel, is that normal? they are not on the same see.

Otherwise, nice map

Yeah, that's right.

The ports attack ports within their own body of water, and the adjacent body of water. Gulf of Alaska (Valdes) and Bering Sea (Bethel) are adjacent bodies of water.

Thanks, I should read the instruction more carefully.

[koontz1973]

Seamus, I am finding that too many neutrals on the map are causing problems. The player who is cut of and can get the base in round one is in a pretty good advantage. Consider raising the neutrals to a 4 or 5 at least for base camps.

Bringing this over to this page as this is now a priority.

[Seamus76]

Seamus, I am finding that too many neutrals on the map are causing problems. The player who is cut of and can get the base in round one is in a pretty good advantage. Consider raising the neutrals to a 4 or 5 at least for base camps.

Bringing this over to this page as this is now a priority.

I'm not sure a +2 auto deploy really makes or breaks the game on this map. Especially in the games I've been playing.

I put forward one option to help that issue, and another below to help an issue I see, and that would be to raise only the starting neutral on the tert where the base camps are. So, Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction would be 2n instead of 1n. This basically makes taking a base camp the same 4n you suggest, but spreads it so that the base camps themselves are not too much to make them unappealing to players.

More importantly I would like to see Port Heiden go from 1n to 2n. This would make taking the Unalaska bonus a little more challenging, which right now I think is a a little too easy to get and hold by turn 2 or 3.

[koontz1973]

Seamus, I am finding that too many neutrals on the map are causing problems. The player who is cut of and can get the base in round one is in a pretty good advantage. Consider raising the neutrals to a 4 or 5 at least for base camps.

Bringing this over to this page as this is now a priority.

I'm not sure a +2 auto deploy really makes or breaks the game on this map. Especially in the games I've been playing.

I put forward one option to help that issue, and another below to help an issue I see, and that would be to raise only the starting neutral on the tert where the base camps are. So, Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction would be 2n instead of 1n. This basically makes taking a base camp the same 4n you suggest, but spreads it so that the base camps themselves are not too much to make them unappealing to players.

More importantly I would like to see Port Heiden go from 1n to 2n. This would make taking the Unalaska bonus a little more challenging, which right now I think is a a little too easy to get and hold by turn 2 or 3.

But with the games I have been playing, every player is heading for them. Once they have that +2, it is hardto get rid ofthem. Either lower the auto to +1 or raise the neutral to a 4 for the base and 2 for the region. That is 6 that need to be taken and with players able to attack with 6 (3+3) it akes them grabable but not easy.

[Seamus76]

Seamus, I am finding that too many neutrals on the map are causing problems. The player who is cut of and can get the base in round one is in a pretty good advantage. Consider raising the neutrals to a 4 or 5 at least for base camps.

Bringing this over to this page as this is now a priority.

I'm not sure a +2 auto deploy really makes or breaks the game on this map. Especially in the games I've been playing.

I put forward one option to help that issue, and another below to help an issue I see, and that would be to raise only the starting neutral on the tert where the base camps are. So, Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction would be 2n instead of 1n. This basically makes taking a base camp the same 4n you suggest, but spreads it so that the base camps themselves are not too much to make them unappealing to players.

More importantly I would like to see Port Heiden go from 1n to 2n. This would make taking the Unalaska bonus a little more challenging, which right now I think is a a little too easy to get and hold by turn 2 or 3.

But with the games I have been playing, every player is heading for them. Once they have that +2, it is hardto get rid ofthem. Either lower the auto to +1 or raise the neutral to a 4 for the base and 2 for the region. That is 6 that need to be taken and with players able to attack with 6 (3+3) it akes them grabable but not easy.

The terts holding the base camps kill 1, so a player would need 4 on there, drop 3 on the 3 remaining, and then it would 6 on 6 (or 7 total minus the one), which seems like a lot to go through, and by then someone may be advancing enough to make them less of an option. Personally I would rather see all the neutrals stay the same, but if anything have the auto deploy go down to +1.

I also still think Port Heiden should be a starting 2n as well.

[koontz1973]

The terts holding the base camps kill 1, so a player would need 4 on there

Those are all neutral 1, with the neutral 3 on the base camps, you have 4 to go through for the +2 auto. Anyone dropping next to that will start with 3, get a 3 to deploy, so it is 6 v 6. That is a very attractive thing to try for and players are doing just that including you in every game we have together. You do not need to hold the region with the base camp to get that bonus so the minus 1 is not an issue.

Things to correct this,
drop the auto to a +1
raise the base camp neutral to at least 4.

or

auto stays at +2
neutrals go to 3 and 3 (6 in total)

Either one would be a lot better than now. Try the second option first as it requires less tinkering (just increase the neutrals on the regions that hold the base camps. If that does not solve the issue, try the top option. But this needs to be dealt with ASAP now considering we have to test it on the other site first.

[Seamus76]

The terts holding the base camps kill 1, so a player would need 4 on there

Those are all neutral 1, with the neutral 3 on the base camps, you have 4 to go through for the +2 auto. Anyone dropping next to that will start with 3, get a 3 to deploy, so it is 6 v 6. That is a very attractive thing to try for and players are doing just that including you in every game we have together. You do not need to hold the region with the base camp to get that bonus so the minus 1 is not an issue.

Things to correct this,
drop the auto to a +1
raise the base camp neutral to at least 4.

or

auto stays at +2
neutrals go to 3 and 3 (6 in total)

Either one would be a lot better than now. Try the second option first as it requires less tinkering (just increase the neutrals on the regions that hold the base camps. If that does not solve the issue, try the top option. But this needs to be dealt with ASAP now considering we have to test it on the other site first.

I know all maps are different, but one comparison I would make is to baltic crusades. That map is pretty popular and has terts right next to only 3n terts giving autodeploys of +3.

I want to make the map fair, but I don't want to make the base camps too unattractive for only a +2 auto, which I think going through 6 would do.

Why not try leaving the base camps at 3n, and upping the terts they sit in to 2n. That way it's the players 6 against the neutral 5 to get +2 auto deploy, which is more of a gamble but also still attractive enough for some to take the risk. That to me seems like a good balance, and it forces players to either make a gamble early on or wait a round or two before trying for them. Personally its rare for me to kill 5 with 6 so I would probably wait longer to try for them or not at all.

I'm also going to make Port Heiden 2n unless there are any objections.

[koontz1973]

I know all maps are different, but one comparison I would make is to baltic crusades. That map is pretty popular and has terts right next to only 3n terts giving autodeploys of +3.

But BC has a lot more auto deploys than this map, also spread out a lot more so everyone has a chance of dropping next to one.

I want to make the map fair, but I don't want to make the base camps too unattractive for only a +2 auto, which I think going through 6 would do.

People go though a 5 neutral for a +1 auto on Rorke's Drift. And the base camps need to be taken for the bonus region so not taking them is not an option. Raising the neutrals to 6 will not stop people taking them, it will only make them think about it in round one.

Why not try leaving the base camps at 3n, and upping the terts they sit in to 2n. That way it's the players 6 against the neutral 5 to get +2 auto deploy, which is more of a gamble but also still attractive enough for some to take the risk. That to me seems like a good balance, and it forces players to either make a gamble early on or wait a round or two before trying for them. Personally its rare for me to kill 5 with 6 so I would probably wait longer to try for them or not at all.

My analysis says 6 is the minimum, 8 is the target number, but lets go with the 5 for now and keep an eye on it. If it continues, they will have to go higher.

I'm also going to make Port Heiden 2n unless there are any objections.

None, but again this is an easy bonus with neutrals all around. Raise it to a 2 and again, look at it later for a 3.

[koontz1973]

Did no one play this map on the test site? Howe many games where played? Why do I have to deal with all of these problems now after the beta testers should of solved all of these issues?

[Seamus76]

Did no one play this map on the test site? Howe many games where played? Why do I have to deal with all of these problems now after the beta testers should of solved all of these issues?

Probably not, because people are playing maps that have been around for years. The beta site should really only offer 'beta" maps. If people want to play the regular maps that are available in the real site, then that's where they should play it.

Looks like there are 10 games finished, with others active.

[Seamus76]

I want to make the map fair, but I don't want to make the base camps too unattractive for only a +2 auto, which I think going through 6 would do.

People go though a 5 neutral for a +1 auto on Rorke's Drift. And the base camps need to be taken for the bonus region so not taking them is not an option. Raising the neutrals to 6 will not stop people taking them, it will only make them think about it in round one.

The base camps are "Part of no District", as stated in the legend, so they do not need to be taken for the district bonus, just the Expedition Route bonus. Also, as for Rorke's Drift, I find taking those +1 is mainly because I have a tert trapped behind one, not so much for the bonus all the time, but I do see your point. I guess to me a lower neutrals makes it more appealing in lager games, but in 1v1 where there is more space it might make it a little too easy.

Why not try leaving the base camps at 3n, and upping the terts they sit in to 2n. That way it's the players 6 against the neutral 5 to get +2 auto deploy, which is more of a gamble but also still attractive enough for some to take the risk. That to me seems like a good balance, and it forces players to either make a gamble early on or wait a round or two before trying for them. Personally its rare for me to kill 5 with 6 so I would probably wait longer to try for them or not at all.

My analysis says 6 is the minimum, 8 is the target number, but lets go with the 5 for now and keep an eye on it. If it continues, they will have to go higher.

Sounds like a plan. I'll update the xml this evening to change Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction to 2n instead of 1n.

I'm also going to make Port Heiden 2n unless there are any objections.

None, but again this is an easy bonus with neutrals all around. Raise it to a 2 and again, look at it later for a 3.

Will do this evening with the above change.

[Seamus76]

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-12-08:
XML update only:
- Adjusted S.S. Polaris large map coordinate
- Changed Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction to starting 2n instead of 1n
- Changed Port Heiden to starting 2n instead of 1n

[Endgame422]

Not sure if this came up before the beta map was available but i have a small concern. When attacking from a port why am i able to attack the "outgoing"(small boat that attacks to ports) boat at all? If i have a port to attack it from i can already attack all the other ports that the small boat can attack. I do not think this is a huge issue but i accidentally attacked the wrong boat and caught myself in a dead end that i had to fortify out of or lose my troops. Stupid mistake on my part,but i can't be the only one making mistakes like that. Again, not a big issue just a thought. Regardless as to wether you change this or not the map is top notch and i will be playing it in the future. Well done!

[Seamus76]

Not sure if this came up before the beta map was available but i have a small concern. When attacking from a port why am i able to attack the "outgoing"(small boat that attacks to ports) boat at all? If i have a port to attack it from i can already attack all the other ports that the small boat can attack. I do not think this is a huge issue but i accidentally attacked the wrong boat and caught myself in a dead end that i had to fortify out of or lose my troops. Stupid mistake on my part,but i can't be the only one making mistakes like that. Again, not a big issue just a thought. Regardless as to wether you change this or not the map is top notch and i will be playing it in the future. Well done!

I actually made the same mistake myself.

I guess the thought was "why shouldn't they", since there was not room in the legend to differentiate between the incoming and outgoing ships. I.e. There is not enough room to say, "And border Outgoing Small Boats within their body of water only." Plus is it an outgoing or incoming ship, based on where you are coming from, right? If you're on the Exploration Ship it's outgoing, but if your on the Port it would technically be incoming.

So long story short, I think it's a mistake people will make, but probably only once, and to actually explain it would take up too much room so I'm not sure there is much I can do to fix it.

But, with that said, if everyone thinks keeping the legend the same and just making the "outgoing" (from the Exploration Ships) small ships un-attackable from the Ports is less confusing, I would be happy to fix it.

[QuatroQuatro]

Big fan. I give it an A-

[Seamus76]

Big fan. I give it an A-

Thank you!! An A- is better than most of the grades I've gotten in life, so, I'll take it! I'm also honored you used your first post on me.

[kent456]

Like the map. It is "Kodiak" not "Kadiak."

[Seamus76]

Like the map. It is "Kodiak" not "Kadiak."

Thanks, I'm glad you like it. It's been pretty fun actually.

You are correct, the current name and spelling is Kodiak, but in 1895 when this map is based on it was Kadiak. You can see here, just zoom in.

Map Of Alaska. Punnett Brothers, 1897

[Donelladan]

Hello,
I am playing the map for the first time, and I find the instruction on the right side :"Ports connect within their own [...]. Revert to neutral if held", are not very easy to read. Especially on the small map - I almost only play using small map - but even as a big map not so easy.
I think you should make the letter a bit thicker and/or blacker.

[Gilligan]

"SS Consellation" for XML:)

Edit: looks like this XML was still not uploaded: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=186049&start=315#p4363404

fix the spelling of Constellation and I'll make sure to tell tnb.

[Seamus76]

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-12-08:
XML update only:
- Adjusted S.S. Polaris large map coordinate
- Changed Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction to starting 2n instead of 1n
- Changed Port Heiden to starting 2n instead of 1n

"SS Consellation" for XML:)

Edit: looks like this XML was still not uploaded: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=186049&start=315#p4363404

fix the spelling of Constellation and I'll make sure to tell tnb.

I just checked this most recent version that was posted and I don't see the misspelling. Was it this version?

Also, the more I play the map the more I'm not so sure the extra 1n is needed on Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction. It seems like those +2 auto deploys aren't so make or break as suspected early on. Thoughts?

[Gilligan]

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-12-08:
XML update only:
- Adjusted S.S. Polaris large map coordinate
- Changed Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction to starting 2n instead of 1n
- Changed Port Heiden to starting 2n instead of 1n

"SS Consellation" for XML:)

Edit: looks like this XML was still not uploaded: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=186049&start=315#p4363404

fix the spelling of Constellation and I'll make sure to tell tnb.

I just checked this most recent version that was posted and I don't see the misspelling. Was it this version?

Also, the more I play the map the more I'm not so sure the extra 1n is needed on Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction. It seems like those +2 auto deploys aren't so make or break as suspected early on. Thoughts?

It was live when I saw the misspelling. Noticed it when I cashed.

[Bonogi]

This is my first post on the board but I'm playing a game with Seamus76 and he told me of the coming changes(buffing Unilaska and the Basecamps) so I just wanted to share my thoughts(this comes from experience in normal/escalating scenarios):

My main concern is this: buffing up the neutrals that protect the base camps are going to turn those into sucker plays. I am fine with the Unliaska buffing because it is situated in a great spot strategically. But the basecamps are already punished by the expedition routes. The expedition routes already make it hard to capture a basecamp over the course of multiple turns they also make it hard to take a basecamp from a defensive stack builder to an offensive army and generally it requires a turn of reinforcement, they are already slow and lumbering. I am worried that buffing the basecamp's neutral protection will make so they will only be targeted by the noobs, while the experienced players sit back and don't risk so much. I enjoy that the basecamps are very tempting targets, but even as it stands now, they are no sure thing, going after one early is still a risky proposition, I believe that bumping their protecting neutral from 1 to 2 will really tip the scales risk/reward wise and would anticipate going after them myself far less(not that I go after them all the time now, like I said, they are risky).

Love the map though! One of my favorites actually.

[Seamus76]

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2014-22-02:
XML update only:
- Changed Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction back to starting 1n instead of 2n, as I had changed in the last update(which to this day has not been uploaded, so I'm not sure much will change to the live map except Port Heiden going to 2n.)
- Updated Constellation spelling

[Gilligan]

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2014-22-02:
XML update only:
- Changed Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction back to starting 1n instead of 2n, as I had changed in the last update(which to this day has not been uploaded, so I'm not sure much will change to the live map except Port Heiden going to 2n.)

Make sure to fix the spelling of Constellation in this version. I changed it myself when I sent it off for upload yesterday.