Forum

by **cairnswk** on Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:08 pm

Oneyed wrote:...
btw, did you thought about any "stations" instead circles?
Oneyed

Yes Oneyed...perhaps in gfx stage i would add them or see how they look.

by **Funkyterrance** on Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:37 pm

cairnswk wrote:Version 11.
a little touch up....
1. for FT, those resource notations should be clearer now in white.

They were actually easier for me to read in the original off-white(?) for me but I can read them either way, thx.

by **nolefan5311** on Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:29 pm

Am I reading it right that every position along each line is a +1 autodeploy?

I also think you should add a killer neutral along the way to that people can't just fort their base forward every turn. I would add another dynamic to it.

The "Silver & Gold Spike"...is that the winning condition? Or holding all 4 of them (Silver & Gold, Gold 1, Gold 2, and Silver) is the winning condition? Either way, I don't really like it. I think you should keep the 4 there, make them something other than Silver of Gold Spikes, and add a 5th that can be assaulted by the two "outside" spikes, and add a bonus to the 2 "inside" spikes, if you know what I mean. Give players an option to either go right for the spike, and perhaps grab a bonus before doing so.

Also, and I might be throwing too much at you, but you could also make a losing condition that if your opponent holds your any part of your line he wins too, just to give another option to win (going through all 4 center regions and grabbing one of your opponents regions).

Not that it's not spicy enough, but just suggesting some ideas to spice it up a little more lol.

by **cairnswk** on Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:26 pm

nolefan5311 wrote:Am I reading it right that every position along each line is a +1 autodeploy?

yes, except for each start position of +2 autodeploy.

I also think you should add a killer neutral along the way to that people can't just fort their base forward every turn. I would add another dynamic to it.

i don't understand the logic here. The game is going to be long enough just getting to the end and overcoming the bombardment. Why ad more to it that is really going to be a bigger obstacle...you know they did actually achieve these goals, not put somethings in the way of destroying the line every time a train ran over it, which would be the equivalent of every turn. I think one bombardment from your oponent which can be repeated is enough.

The "Silver & Gold Spike"...is that the winning condition? Or holding all 4 of them (Silver & Gold, Gold 1, Gold 2, and Silver) is the winning condition? Either way, I don't really like it. I think you should keep the 4 there, make them something other than Silver of Gold Spikes, and add a 5th that can be assaulted by the two "outside" spikes, and add a bonus to the 2 "inside" spikes, if you know what I mean. Give players an option to either go right for the spike, and perhaps grab a bonus before doing so.

No, your not hearing the history. There were four spikes driven, which is part of the gameplay. Yes i need to clarify on the map that all four are needed as well as your line, but anything other than that is in my mind not an option.

Also, and I might be throwing too much at you, but you could also make a losing condition that if your opponent holds your any part of your line he wins too, just to give another option to win (going through all 4 center regions and grabbing one of your opponents regions).

Not that it's not spicy enough, but just suggesting some ideas to spice it up a little more lol.

Well, i think that according to history it's spicy enough and that gameplay would be going over the top. So no, that won't be done.
Nolefan5311, thanks for the suggestions, but i think these were way outside of what i had in mind here.

by **nolefan5311** on Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:58 pm

Having every single region autodeploy is a little overkill and don't really understand why that's there. You're just putting a bunch of troops on the map that will never be used.

I'm not going to pretend I am intimate with the history of what the map is about, but it's not like the bombardment is historically accurate either. Adding a killer neutral would force players to not just keep a stack at their forward point in the line and be able to continually fort up their starting position (this can be avoided with the bombardment by a player just dropping at his forward point and creating a stack on the bridge by forting up his start positino). That's only going to make the dice that much more important. You have decaying neutrals...not sure why you seem to be so opposed to adding a killer.

All of my suggestions were put forward to take dice luck out of it as much as possible by adding a couple different strategic options.

by **cairnswk** on Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:23 pm

nolefan5311 wrote:Having every single region autodeploy is a little overkill and don't really understand why that's there. You're just putting a bunch of troops on the map that will never be used.

Well i don't beleive the troops will never be used...all reinforcements in whatever sitaution will have to be planned well, so that players can achieve their goals.
and they don't get those troops until they own the territory, so they have to conquer before they can get any autodeploy.

I'm not going to pretend I am intimate with the history of what the map is about, but it's not like the bombardment is historically accurate either.

That is somewhat true, although in RL if they wanted to hold up their opponent they very well had to capacity to do so if they wanted.

Adding a killer neutral would force players to not just keep a stack at their forward point in the line and be able to continually fort up their starting position (this can be avoided with the bombardment by a player just dropping at his forward point and creating a stack on the bridge by forting up his start positino). That's only going to make the dice that much more important. You have decaying neutrals...not sure why you seem to be so opposed to adding a killer.

Well, it's my opinion that it's too much, let's see if others have any opinion about it eh?

All of my suggestions were put forward to take dice luck out of it as much as possible by adding a couple different strategic options.

well i don't think we'll ever do that in any game since the dice are a force unto themselves from my experience. Some people also simply have better luck with dice as we see from Bruceswar on NZ 1v1 game. Lady luck is a force unto herself.

by **cairnswk** on Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:17 pm

Nolefan5311, the other reason that i don't want killer neutrals used (that i have just thought about) is this...

'killer neutrals', which will reset to neutral at the beginning of the turn of the player who occupies it.

to me this means that a player will never get to achieve the objective of holding his line plus all all four spikes because the killer neutral will continually reset at the beginning of his turn and he wont be able to hold everything for one turn
I could be wrong

by **nolefan5311** on Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:10 pm

cairnswk wrote:Nolefan5311, the other reason that i don't want killer neutrals used (that i have just thought about) is this...
'killer neutrals', which will reset to neutral at the beginning of the turn of the player who occupies it.

to me this means that a player will never get to achieve the objective of holding his line plus all all four spikes because the killer neutral will continually reset at the beginning of his turn and he wont be able to hold everything for one turn
I could be wrong

This is correct, and something I didn't think about. My apologies lol.

by **cairnswk** on Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:43 pm

nolefan5311 wrote:
cairnswk wrote:Nolefan5311, the other reason that i don't want killer neutrals used (that i have just thought about) is this...
'killer neutrals', which will reset to neutral at the beginning of the turn of the player who occupies it.

to me this means that a player will never get to achieve the objective of holding his line plus all all four spikes because the killer neutral will continually reset at the beginning of his turn and he wont be able to hold everything for one turn
I could be wrong

This is correct, and something I didn't think about. My apologies lol.

No Probs...we all go that crazy place called "did not compute"

by **big-bad** on Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:32 pm

awesome! can't wait to play

by **Leehar** on Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:26 pm

I thought initially this was something like Arms race because of the split in the map, but I like the idea nonetheless!

My question is how exactly this would work for multiplayers/team games etc?

The bombardments, decay & auto-deploys all give intriguing options (if I'm right, you don't actually have to take the resources +2 auto-deploy, to win?)
Also, apparently you can never win until you put a significant stack on the bombard spot? otherwise the opponent can tap you every turn?

I also like that both players have access to the Spikes, it reminds me of the world cup maps where you can fight over the Finals to meet the win condition.
Can't you however make that the WC alone, rather than having to hold the whole line at the same time? You need to go through the line to reach it anyway, so you have done the effort, but there's no need to always hold it afterwords, which would allow something like the killer neutrals that nole mentioned (and it'd be nice to add another feature which has it's own strategic value)

And it is feasible compared to RL where you would need maintenance on a track after you've built it which causes it to revert to neutral?

by **cairnswk** on Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:33 pm

Leehar wrote:I thought initially this was something like Arms race because of the split in the map, but I like the idea nonetheless!
My question is how exactly this would work for multiplayers/team games etc?

Map title at top of thread and on front page: 1v1.
Therefore multiplayers and team games cannot play this map.
Specific style of map. please note.

The bombardments, decay & auto-deploys all give intriguing options (if I'm right, you don't actually have to take the resources +2 auto-deploy, to win?)

That's correct, you don't have to take them, but they would be useful for forts of resources.

Also, apparently you can never win until you put a significant stack on the bombard spot? otherwise the opponent can tap you every turn?

That could be one strategy.

I also like that both players have access to the Spikes, it reminds me of the world cup maps where you can fight over the Finals to meet the win condition.
Can't you however make that the WC alone, rather than having to hold the whole line at the same time? You need to go through the line to reach it anyway, so you have done the effort, but there's no need to always hold it afterwords, which would allow something like the killer neutrals that nole mentioned (and it'd be nice to add another feature which has it's own strategic value)

Yes, you could do as u mentioned, but this is based on historic facts, and those were that both railroad companies built and held their respective lines, and there were spikes driven at the end to signify the finality of it. Given this is a 1v1 game the objective is that you hold al your own line and obtain and hold all the spikes for your side for one turn.

And it is feasible compared to RL where you would need maintenance on a track after you've built it which causes it to revert to neutral?

Yes. True.
Thanks for your comments.

by **agentcom** on Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:41 pm

It's Sacramento not Sacremento.

Looking good. I have a feeling that the bottom player has the advantage at this point, but I'm sure that is something that will be looked closely at in the future.

Another way to simulate the "bad" events happening along the line like Indian attacks, would be to give the opponent a starting position on the opposite side of the map that can be used for bombardment purposes only. In other words, that territory is useless except to bombard a certain point (or points) on the opponent's line.

by **cairnswk** on Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:07 pm

agentcom wrote:It's Sacramento not Sacremento.

Thanks agentcom. fixed that for next version.

Looking good. I have a feeling that the bottom player has the advantage at this point, but I'm sure that is something that will be looked closely at in the future.

Yep.

Another way to simulate the "bad" events happening along the line like Indian attacks, would be to give the opponent a starting position on the opposite side of the map that can be used for bombardment purposes only. In other words, that territory is useless except to bombard a certain point (or points) on the opponent's line.

giving a starting postion on opposite side of the map is not really keeping with historical events, so i'de prefer not to go there

by **FreeFalling123** on Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:57 am

As a dedicated player of CC and with most of that dedication going to random map games I found myself looking into the newer maps and personally this one scares me. For one thing, I play adj/nuke/trench a lot. This map would be put to the ultimate test under these circumstances and okay I don't see why it shouldn't give me good percentages with my knowledge of movements and my play-making ability. However, I'm worried about the early carding chances, and also the fact that I cannot possibly stop my opponent from winning if his luck is too strong in the early rounds (this would be especially true with say flat rate games).

Now, if you are to make a player like me happy about a map of this context, I would want more chances to bombard (the 1 is a slight improvement from earlier versions), but also chances to cross over (maybe through 4 neutrals 3-2-2-3 or something) and mess with my opponents winning chances... a one-line-of-attack into the finish line seems harshly dependent on luck as well.. even though I doubt a game ends so even as that.

These are just a couple quick thoughts about the map. Hope it helps.