The New World [Quenched]

[MOBAJOBG]

^but the efficient and result oriented player who starts first in a 1vs1 sequential game should win an opponent's Homeland on the larger main land by the end of Round 2.

Anyway, I do appreciate what you're trying to achieve or do with this map but don't claim it's balance when it's not so.

[1st Edit]Note: I would prefer to play 1vs1 freestyle game on this map and definitely ensure that I end the turn first.

[hulmey]

Here mine point of view.
These map have 69 terits(i read in first page),and these mean that map is not create to be suitabile for 1v1 player.If we want to create map to be suitabile for 1v1 player game then he must change gameplay to be like Feudal war,and these not will be good.I hope that people will understand that map with big numbers of terittories who dont have same gameplay like Feudal,give big advance in 1v1 games.

Well said Qwert

i have to strongly disagree, there are plenty of big maps that don't have the conquest gameplay and are still balanced for 1v1.

You of all people should know this isnt always teh case and the more complex maps cant cater for all game modes. Think its your AoR map which is really quick to finish in 1 vs 1. That also shows unbalance!!

[qwert]

DIM
i have to strongly disagree, there are plenty of big maps that don't have the conquest gameplay and are still balanced for 1v1.

From yours point of view,what Big maps is balanced in 1v1 sequenched games.Mine ardennes map is not balanced for 1v1 players,and i belive that yours AOR also not balanced for 1v1 player game.
I read that some games in your AOR is finished in 2 round,and these mean that map is not suitabile for 1v1 player.
Thing what i want to say that its quit dificulty to create map to be balanced for all number of players(only Feudal style gameplay)

[gimil]

DIM
i have to strongly disagree, there are plenty of big maps that don't have the conquest gameplay and are still balanced for 1v1.

From yours point of view,what Big maps is balanced in 1v1 sequenched games.Mine ardennes map is not balanced for 1v1 players,and i belive that yours AOR also not balanced for 1v1 player game.
I read that some games in your AOR is finished in 2 round,and these mean that map is not suitabile for 1v1 player.
Thing what i want to say that its quit dificulty to create map to be balanced for all number of players(only Feudal style gameplay)

Ive played a couple of 1v1 games on new worlds and have never noticed anything being unbalanced.

[gimil]

And to everyone else. We can discuss the balancing issues if this map here. If you wanna talk about large maps and 1v1 games go over to foundry discussion

[DiM]

DIM
i have to strongly disagree, there are plenty of big maps that don't have the conquest gameplay and are still balanced for 1v1.

From yours point of view,what Big maps is balanced in 1v1 sequenched games.Mine ardennes map is not balanced for 1v1 players,and i belive that yours AOR also not balanced for 1v1 player game.
I read that some games in your AOR is finished in 2 round,and these mean that map is not suitabile for 1v1 player.
Thing what i want to say that its quit dificulty to create map to be balanced for all number of players(only Feudal style gameplay)

qwert, read the bolded part. i never said anything about aor being balanced or not. and yes some games finished rather fast but that's because people didn't know how to play. i have won a lot of games on both might and magic from going second. and many others have done the same. if you know how to play then there's no imbalance. if you don't know how to play and start wasting your troops on stupid attacks then you deserve to lose.

now back on topic. maps with many terits can be balanced even if they don't have conquest gameplay.
world 2.1 is one of the largest maps around and it is perfectly balanced in 1v1. CCC is also pretty big and it is balanced.and there are more.

and gimil, this is about the new worlds not being balanced in 1v1 so we are on topic. qwert said it is impossible to make new worlds balanced in 1v1 because it is big. i said it is possible.

[_big_easy_]

Just played a 2 player game where the other guy dropped 3 European Homelands to my 1.

Needless to say, I lost fairly easily.
Would have been even quicker had he realized to attack the Landing Points his first turn.
From Rd 3 on, he was getting 24 auto-deployed (4 x 3EuroHomeland, 3 x 3LandPoints + 3 Ind.Homeland),
while I was getting 16 auto-deployed (4 x 1EuroHomeland, 1 x 3LandPoint, 3 x 3Ind.Homelands)

That's a pretty big discrepancy for a 2 player game.
I think it would improve the gameplay if you could make the distribution of European Homelands as equal for 2-5 players.

Thats coz ur a bad player....Its better to start out with the native kingdoms than the homelands.........

So why did you pick Britain in your tourney?

[qwert]

qwert said it is impossible to make new worlds balanced in 1v1 because it is big. i said it is possible.

Well its possible,but then you must change gameplay,and these is not good,because map must have diferent gameplay then other maps.
so i give mine point of view and i close these case from mine side.

[rocky mountain]

personally, i've played a few games on this map, and i do not find it imbalanced. the gameplay was perfectly fine in my eyes.
for one game i started with 2 homelands on each side (europe and native) and i lost.
once i started with 3 european homelands, and won (so native homelands are not necessarily better)
on the last game, a started with the same as case one, only i won.

it doesn't really depend on the homelands, but how you use them. they each have their advantages.
that is all

[t-o-m]

i like the homelands as you can get the double auto-deploy, but that always leaves you just forting your landing point to the max.
i feel bad because i kinda screwed gimil over in our game, well screwed us both
i saw what he said in chat but i was too scared to answer because i feared taht he might smite me with his mod powers!
sorry gimil

[hulmey]

Just played a 2 player game where the other guy dropped 3 European Homelands to my 1.

Needless to say, I lost fairly easily.
Would have been even quicker had he realized to attack the Landing Points his first turn.
From Rd 3 on, he was getting 24 auto-deployed (4 x 3EuroHomeland, 3 x 3LandPoints + 3 Ind.Homeland),
while I was getting 16 auto-deployed (4 x 1EuroHomeland, 1 x 3LandPoint, 3 x 3Ind.Homelands)

That's a pretty big discrepancy for a 2 player game.
I think it would improve the gameplay if you could make the distribution of European Homelands as equal for 2-5 players.

Thats coz ur a bad player....Its better to start out with the native kingdoms than the homelands.........

So why did you pick Britain in your tourney?

haha, you cant choose what country you start with lol

[hulmey]

personally, i've played a few games on this map, and i do not find it imbalanced. the gameplay was perfectly fine in my eyes.
for one game i started with 2 homelands on each side (europe and native) and i lost.
once i started with 3 european homelands, and won (so native homelands are not necessarily better)
on the last game, a started with the same as case one, only i won.

it doesn't really depend on the homelands, but how you use them. they each have their advantages.
that is all

[MrBenn]

On etiny niggle... my tired eyes got confused by the 2 N's and S's on the ports, and I thought I was ttacking North Pacific Port from South Atlantic port (duh!)
Perhaps you could add an A/P to the territory label to distinguish them better (ie North Pacific seaport could have NP on the map instead of just N; North Altlantic Seaoart could have NA on the map instead of just N - and the same for the Southern ones)?

[rocky mountain]

i think

North Pacific seaport could have NP on the map instead of just N; North Altlantic Seaoart could have NA on the map instead of just N - and the same for the Southern ones

is a good idea. (if it's possible)

personally, i've played a few games on this map, and i do not find it imbalanced. the gameplay was perfectly fine in my eyes.
for one game i started with 2 homelands on each side (europe and native) and i lost.
once i started with 3 european homelands, and won (so native homelands are not necessarily better)
on the last game, a started with the same as case one, only i won.

it doesn't really depend on the homelands, but how you use them. they each have their advantages.
that is all

[t-o-m]

On etiny niggle... my tired eyes got confused by the 2 N's and S's on the ports, and I thought I was ttacking North Pacific Port from South Atlantic port (duh!)
Perhaps you could add an A/P to the territory label to distinguish them better (ie North Pacific seaport could have NP on the map instead of just N; North Altlantic Seaoart could have NA on the map instead of just N - and the same for the Southern ones)?

there is a label on the actuall sea saying "pacific" and "atlantic"