Re: New Zealand [20.1.13] V21 BETA LIVE

[cairnswk]

For now, Version 10 with starting neutrals, and impassables notated - on front page also.

Click image to enlarge.

[iancanton]

I wonder if perhaps Wellington and Taranaki would do better as +1s? Even with ian's hike in neutral size, both bonuses would still be desirable.

+1 is certainly possible, since it becomes +2 with the tiki. we'll have to change them back if it's clear during beta that no-one's interested in these bonuses.

ian.

[cairnswk]

I wonder if perhaps Wellington and Taranaki would do better as +1s? Even with ian's hike in neutral size, both bonuses would still be desirable.

+1 is certainly possible, since it becomes +2 with the tiki. we'll have to change them back if it's clear during beta that no-one's interested in these bonuses.

ian.

ian, i have to ask that if we change the +2s on wellington and taranaki to +1, why not do that for the other territories with +2 bonuses - namely Auckland and Northland and Gisborne?

[Victor Sullivan]

I wonder if perhaps Wellington and Taranaki would do better as +1s? Even with ian's hike in neutral size, both bonuses would still be desirable.

+1 is certainly possible, since it becomes +2 with the tiki. we'll have to change them back if it's clear during beta that no-one's interested in these bonuses.

ian.

ian, i have to ask that if we change the +2s on wellington and taranaki to +1, why not do that for the other territories with +2 bonuses - namely Auckland and Northland and Gisborne?

Ah, I missed Gisborne. I would say yes to that. For Auckland and Northland, it can go either way. I think it may be best to reduce Auckland to +1, but leave Northland at +2. I think that strikes a nice balance between the pros and cons of raising and lowering their bonuses, though like I said, it can go either way.

-Sully

[iancanton]

for some reason, i thought that u meant gisborne when u said wellington. while i still believe taranaki is worth only a +1 (all zone bonuses mentioned in this post exclude the tiki bonus), this does not apply for any bonus zone, such as gisborne, that includes a white plane because it must cope with one-way assaults. none of us had taken this important factor into sufficient account previously in discussing bonuses. my recommendations are as below.

northland: drop from +2 to +1 because of the end-of-map location, but remove the ferry route, which is rendered unnecessary by kataia airport.
auckland: raise from +2 to +3 because of the one-way assaults.
waikato: drop from +6 to +4 because of lack of airport, but remove the ferry route to discount northland as an enemy zone.
bay of plenty: no change at +3.
gisborne: no change at +2.
taranaki: drop from +2 to +1 because it's in the nearest thing on this map to a corner location.
manawatu: no change at +6.
hawke's bay: drop from +4 to +3 because of having only 4 regions.
wellington: raise from +2 to +3 because of the one-way assaults, which more than compensates for having only 3 regions.

nelson: drop from +3 to +2 because of the near-corner location.
marlborough: drop from +3 to +2 because of having only 3 regions.
west coast: perhaps raise from +3 to +4 unless u block off either nelson lakes or karamia (a marginal case).
canterbury: raise from +6 to +8 because of the one-way assaults, two airports and large number of regions.
otago: no change at +5, since the removal of dunedin airport is cancelled out by one-way assaults to queenstown.
southland: drop from +4 to +3 because of the end-of-map location.

ian.

[cairnswk]

ian, excellent analysis. i'll make the changes to the map today and post new version.

[AndyDufresne]

auckland: raise from +2 to +3 because of the one-way assaults.
wellington: raise from +2 to +3 because of the one-way assaults, which more than compensates for having only 3 regions.
southland: drop from +4 to +3 because of the end-of-map location.

These are the only gameplay changes from Ian's excellent list that I'd think more about. In regards to Southland, even if it is in a corner, it seems hard for me to say it is equally valuable as Auckland and Wellington, it seems worth more. In regards to Auckland and Wellington, +3 seems to be pushing it.


--Andy

[cairnswk]

auckland: raise from +2 to +3 because of the one-way assaults.
wellington: raise from +2 to +3 because of the one-way assaults, which more than compensates for having only 3 regions.
southland: drop from +4 to +3 because of the end-of-map location.

These are the only gameplay changes from Ian's excellent list that I'd think more about. In regards to Southland, even if it is in a corner, it seems hard for me to say it is equally valuable as Auckland and Wellington, it seems worth more. In regards to Auckland and Wellington, +3 seems to be pushing it.


--Andy

Andy, i kinda agree about Southland, i think it's worth +4 - it has 8 territories, 3 of which are natural borders, and 1 of those is a black plane being able to be assaulted from 4 other terrs, effectively giving it 7 bordering terrs that can attack it.
I agree with ian about Wellington and Auckland, both are white planes, with them being able to be assaulted from 5 other terrs.

[cairnswk]

Before i go further, and i appologise to any who has already suggested it, does anyone want to split Canterbury...re-exmaing the regions now it is simply too large.

What about a split Ashburton-Mt Hutt and Selwyn?

[iancanton]

In regards to Southland, even if it is in a corner, it seems hard for me to say it is equally valuable as Auckland and Wellington, it seems worth more.

Andy, i kinda agree about Southland, i think it's worth +4 - it has 8 territories, 3 of which are natural borders, and 1 of those is a black plane being able to be assaulted from 4 other terrs, effectively giving it 7 bordering terrs that can attack it.

my main point of reference is classic north america, which has one more region, but is attacked by only 3 bonus zones instead of 5. i agree that all 3 borders being connected is not enough advantage to reduce the bonus by 1, so +4 (excluding the tiki) is appropriate.

Before i go further, and i appologise to any who has already suggested it, does anyone want to split Canterbury...re-exmaing the regions now it is simply too large.

What about a split Ashburton-Mt Hutt and Selwyn?

if u want to split canterbury into north and south, then that's the logical place to do it.

by the way, i really dislike the mouths of the rivers being closed off instead of running into the ocean.

ian.

[cairnswk]

iancanton wrote:

cairnswk wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:In regards to Southland, even if it is in a corner, it seems hard for me to say it is equally valuable as Auckland and Wellington, it seems worth more.
Andy, i kinda agree about Southland, i think it's worth +4 - it has 8 territories, 3 of which are natural borders, and 1 of those is a black plane being able to be assaulted from 4 other terrs, effectively giving it 7 bordering terrs that can attack it.

my main point of reference is classic north america, which has one more region, but is attacked by only 3 bonus zones instead of 5. i agree that all 3 borders being connected is not enough advantage to reduce the bonus by 1, so +4 (excluding the tiki) is appropriate.

OK. that's agreed. +4 for Southland.

cairnswk wrote:Before i go further, and i appologise to any who has already suggested it, does anyone want to split Canterbury...re-exmaing the regions now it is simply too large.
What about a split Ashburton-Mt Hutt and Selwyn?

if u want to split canterbury into north and south, then that's the logical place to do it.

OK, i'll do that and see what the bonuses are.

by the way, i really dislike the mouths of the rivers being closed off instead of running into the ocean.
ian.

yes, that will be fixed in graphics one i discover how to do it in Illustrator easily with the gradient tool

btw ian, i am asking you to re-examine the sea link Whanganui to Coromandel...
previously Gillipig proposed this link

For gameplay reasons Northland and Auckland held together needs to have 3 borders! Otherwise in 1v1 games it'll only be about who can hold those bonuses. I suggest making a dotted connection between Whangerei and Coromandel.


so my question is...should this link still be removed on the above...?

[cairnswk]

...
northland: drop from +2 to +1 because of the end-of-map location, but remove the ferry route, which is rendered unnecessary by kataia airport.

Done

auckland: raise from +2 to +3 because of the one-way assaults.

Done

waikato: drop from +6 to +4 because of lack of airport, but remove the ferry route to discount northland as an enemy zone.

Done

bay of plenty: no change at +3.

Done

gisborne: no change at +2.

Done

taranaki: drop from +2 to +1 because it's in the nearest thing on this map to a corner location.

I re-thought this one ian...i think it could be a +2 due to the fact it's got a +4 and +6 either side of it, and is assaultable from 4 other airports?

manawatu: no change at +6.

Done

hawke's bay: drop from +4 to +3 because of having only 4 regions.

Done

wellington: raise from +2 to +3 because of the one-way assaults, which more than compensates for having only 3 regions.

Done

nelson: drop from +3 to +2 because of the near-corner location.

Done

marlborough: drop from +3 to +2 because of having only 3 regions.

Done

west coast: perhaps raise from +3 to +4 unless u block off either nelson lakes or karamia (a marginal case).

Left at +4

canterbury: raise from +6 to +8 because of the one-way assaults, two airports and large number of regions.

N and S Canterbury have been given +4 each, half of what was suggested, but also because i thought that was entriely reasonable for each region

otago: no change at +5, since the removal of dunedin airport is cancelled out by one-way assaults to queenstown.

Done

southland: drop from +4 to +3 because of the end-of-map location.
ian.

As per discussion above with Andy, Southland raised to +4

Adjusted V 10 plus my bonus calculator for interest

[cairnswk]

The rivers are now fixed in V10 above.

[iancanton]

The rivers are now fixed in V10 above.

that's much better!

taranaki: drop from +2 to +1 because it's in the nearest thing on this map to a corner location.

I re-thought this one ian...i think it could be a +2 due to the fact it's got a +4 and +6 either side of it, and is assaultable from 4 other airports?

although i still think +1 is more suitable (compared with gisborne, for example), i can see ur reasoning if u want a +2 for taranaki.

canterbury: raise from +6 to +8 because of the one-way assaults, two airports and large number of regions.

N and S Canterbury have been given +4 each, half of what was suggested, but also because i thought that was entriely reasonable for each region

not sure why u've reduced north canterbury so much. i'm fully in agreement with ur spreadsheet: 5 borders plus one-way attacks against the white airport means +5 (excluding the tiki).

other than this, i'm completely happy with what u have.

ian.

[cairnswk]

...
not sure why u've reduced north canterbury so much. i'm fully in agreement with ur spreadsheet: 5 borders plus one-way attacks against the white airport means +5 (excluding the tiki).

other than this, i'm completely happy with what u have.

ian.

Ian, sorry, do you mean S canterbury? S canterbury is +5 on the spreadsheet...N canterbury is +7, so i'm a little confused as to which region you're talking about. Could you clarify please.

Also i looked at N Canterbury and it already has 1 tiki bonus and only needs 4 other forts to covers its borders.
It has 6 terrs while S Canterbury has 7 terrs. I thought it would be easier to holder this than the S Canterbury.