Feudal Epic, L&S, Pg. 49 [D, Gp, Gr]

by **Try Again** on Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:24 am

this is taking a long time
but i will enjoy the map

by **gimil** on Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:12 am

BeakerWMA wrote:Not a comment on the name, more on potential gameplay:

Just a thought for the new map (or maybe the next one...hint hint ) : anyway, could you make it so that if you lose your Castle, you are eliminated and all your troops go Neutral? (think of it as in Feudal times, the castle has fallen, the King is dead and all the King's armies are loose upon the land). Would make protecting your Castle that much more important and impact strategies greatly.

Great job thus far guys.

It is not currently possible with the XML feature we have. Although it is definetly something worth looking into. Sounds like an ace idea

by **gimil** on Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:56 am

Ditocoaf wrote:I know this has probably been discussed at length already, but I would also like to throw my own .02 in here about the main gameplay change from the original: 1 entrance per kingdom. It seems to me, that it not only limits the number of strategies, but makes luck (the roll of the dice) incredibly important in the game. If you luck out and capture a large bonus from your kingdom in the first few rounds compared to your opponents, that's a giant advantage. Since there's only one way to expand, all can do in the first few rounds is grab that bonus and then break out of the kingdom.

There is a few reasons for having only one entrance.

In most games of feudal war (the first map) players only tend to use the one breakout point. Rarely do they use the second and when they its commonly when they are in a much stronger position anyway. To gain 2 entrances for a castle I would have to reduce the territory count and redesign the entire layout. I just generally feel that having one entrance isn't as big an issue as people think it is.

by **gimil** on Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:08 am

Click image to enlarge.

A few small changes through request after the last update.

by **MrBenn** on Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:16 am

gimil wrote:In most games of feudal war (the first map) players only tend to use the one breakout point. Rarely do they use the second and when they its commonly when they are in a much stronger position anyway. To gain 2 entrances for a castle I would have to reduce the territory count and redesign the entire layout. I just generally feel that having one entrance isn't as big an issue as people think it is.

I haven't played many games on Fuedal War, but the two breakouts gives a little bit of flexibility when deciding strategy. With just one breakout, the gameplay becomes fairly linear for the early rounds. I'm not really too sure where I sit on this, but some consensus of opinion would definitely help get this map moving ;-)

by **gimil** on Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:20 am

MrBenn wrote:
gimil wrote:In most games of feudal war (the first map) players only tend to use the one breakout point. Rarely do they use the second and when they its commonly when they are in a much stronger position anyway. To gain 2 entrances for a castle I would have to reduce the territory count and redesign the entire layout. I just generally feel that having one entrance isn't as big an issue as people think it is.

I haven't played many games on Fuedal War, but the two breakouts gives a little bit of flexibility when deciding strategy. With just one breakout, the gameplay becomes fairly linear for the early rounds. I'm not really too sure where I sit on this, but some consensus of opinion would definitely help get this map moving

Come on benn we all know I should be out of here by now :-^

Besides, gameplay isn't really linear, you still have to fight against the first castle your twined up with (just like the first map) after that there is much more choice in how you move about the map than the last installment would let you.

by **MrBenn** on Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:51 am

gimil wrote:Come on benn we all know I should be out of here by now

Well, somebody has been AWOL for too long - you nearly got scrapped the other day! haha!

I can't stamp you just yet... but I meant to put this at the end of my previous post: [Advanced Idea]

by **gimil** on Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:52 am

My AWOL session should hopfully be over now thou

by **Try Again** on Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:07 am

i like the one breakout point, too

by **InkL0sed** on Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:22 pm

Hmm... is that little minimap really necessary? Seems to me you could get rid of it and use the extra space for something else.

by **gimil** on Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:26 pm

InkL0sed wrote:Hmm... is that little minimap really necessary? Seems to me you could get rid of it and use the extra space for something else.

For something else like what? And how would you know what the territory names are for each region?

by **InkL0sed** on Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:29 pm

gimil wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:Hmm... is that little minimap really necessary? Seems to me you could get rid of it and use the extra space for something else.

For something else like what? And how would you know what the territory names are for each region?

Each region has a village or a castle, you could figure it out if it wasn't obvious to begin with from the drop-down menu. And you could use the space for, I dunno, making more room for armies and names, or maybe to help rearrange territories for the game play.

by **gimil** on Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:47 pm

InkL0sed wrote:
gimil wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:Hmm... is that little minimap really necessary? Seems to me you could get rid of it and use the extra space for something else.

For something else like what? And how would you know what the territory names are for each region?

Each region has a village or a castle, you could figure it out if it wasn't obvious to begin with from the drop-down menu. And you could use the space for, I dunno, making more room for armies and names, or maybe to help rearrange territories for the game play.

Without the mini map many people would get confused even after seeing the drop down menu.

Also it would give me space in a place where space isn't a problem.

by **nemrehs1** on Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:58 pm

this looks AWESOME...i am a big fan of feudal and this looks better then the first.... i hope it gets quenched and i cant wait to play it!

by **Ditocoaf** on Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:48 pm

Ditocoaf wrote:Feudal Conflict?

Feudal Combat?

I thought these were pretty good... no comments?

by **gimil** on Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:49 pm

Ditocoaf wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:Feudal Conflict?

Feudal Combat?

I thought these were pretty good... no comments?

I will stick with Feudal Epic for now. But I will have another discussion with yeti about the names.

by **nemrehs1** on Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:12 pm

gimil wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:Feudal Conflict?

Feudal Combat?

I thought these were pretty good... no comments?

I will stick with Feudal Epic for now. But I will have another discussion with yeti about the names.

Feudal Battle

by **edbeard** on Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:20 pm

my only was why use 10 neutrals when you've only got one way out. seems like it'd just slow the game down. But, what I failed to think about was how it prevents people from getting into an area. On games with neutral starts, it prevents one person from dominating.

basically the map pits you against one foe. one of you will win the area and from there it's time to spread out.

honestly the only way to know if there's any kinks will be in the beta stage. there's nothing obviously wrong with the gameplay that I can see.

in short, looks good to me

by **ZeakCytho** on Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:22 pm

The only thing I see wrong with this map is the title. I guess that's a very good thing, since it's easy to change

by **gimil** on Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:39 pm

edbeard wrote:my only was why use 10 neutrals when you've only got one way out. seems like it'd just slow the game down. But, what I failed to think about was how it prevents people from getting into an area. On games with neutral starts, it prevents one person from dominating.

basically the map pits you against one foe. one of you will win the area and from there it's time to spread out.

honestly the only way to know if there's any kinks will be in the beta stage. there's nothing obviously wrong with the gameplay that I can see.

in short, looks good to me

Ed that must be the nicest thing you ahve ever said to anyone

Cheers mate.

by **gimil** on Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:39 pm

ZeakCytho wrote:The only thing I see wrong with this map is the title. I guess that's a very good thing, since it's easy to change

Talk to yeti about it

by **yeti_c** on Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:34 am

gimil wrote:
ZeakCytho wrote:The only thing I see wrong with this map is the title. I guess that's a very good thing, since it's easy to change

Talk to yeti about it

Cool - we can go with Feudalate after all?

C.

by **gimil** on Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:35 am

yeti_c wrote:
gimil wrote:
ZeakCytho wrote:The only thing I see wrong with this map is the title. I guess that's a very good thing, since it's easy to change

Talk to yeti about it

Cool - we can go with Feudalate after all?

C.

In second thought, Don't talk to yeti.

by **MrBenn** on Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:52 pm

Back once again for the renegade master,
D4 damager, power to the people.
Back once again, (with the ill behavior)(with the ill behavior)(with the ill behavior)(with the ill behavior)

Mr B