Raskholnikov wrote:Industrial and Marshal,
Since you have commented on this project from its very beginning with lots of useful advice, can you please provide us, when you can, with a comprehensive list of all the game play issues you wish us to address, and indicate which ones you see as critical and which as desirable to change but not dealbreakers. This way we will know exactly what absolutely needs to be addressed and where we still retain some discretion in deciding what to change and what not to. Needless to say, all comments will be appreciated and carefully considered, as we have done so far.
Again, many thanks for your ongoing commitment to this project.
R, P, E
Sorry to take a week to respond, but I warned you it might be a little while
As far as I can see, there is only one 'dealbreaker' change for the gameplay-and it's going to be a challenge perhaps to accomodate- and I do have a few other suggestions as well.
Industrial Helix wrote:My verdict: I'd really favor a reduction in borders, which you can do without cutting territories. Reduce the borders and this map will be playable without becoming anarchy. Throw in mountains, treaty lines, change the territory configuration... whatever. But I think the most pressing issue is that nothing is defensible on this map and most games will be free-for-alls rather than games of strategy and calculation.
Helix has a very strong point here. Follow my logic, if you will:
(1) The big change that made this update such a success was the inclusion of 'continent' bonuses. With them, the Terrorists/Fleets and Revolts are meaningful gameplay elements.
(2) However, in order for the continent bonuses to do their magic they must be relevant.
(3) And in order to be relevant, the continent bonuses must be realistically possible- i.e., defensible and desirable from a risk/benefit perspective.
To put it another way, Revolt areas will only be taken if they are necessary for a player to acheive some goal. Since the map is basically wide open, the Revolts won't be choke points and can be avoided. So the only goal that makes them desirable is taking a continent bonus. If the continent bonuses are indefensible and suck up way more troops than they could ever possibly pay out, they won't be sought after- thus the Revolts are back to being a waste of map space. To a much lesser extent, the Terrorist (and thus Fleet) importance will also diminish as their continent-busting ability will be largely worthless- but of course it'll still have a use.
Besides this, however, I hate 'inert' gameplay elements that suck up players' attention but offer no real strategic meaning. If a map is going to have continent bonuses, they should fall mostly in the range of being acheiveable with a modest effort, with a few outliers perhaps in the 'easy to snatch' and 'hard as hell' categories.
Raskholnikov wrote:[in response to Helix] I respectfully disagree.. It will be a different type of strategy and calculation, based on objectives held rather than contiguous territories... And that's one of the key aims of this map: to show that in the 21st century, what counts is the ability to gain and control cities, refineries, tankers and neutralise terrorists, rather than defend territorial borders... I think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have amply proven this point.... So please try to look at it this way rather than from the traditional point of view.
While I'm glad to get a clearer view of your goals for the map- and I'm all for non-traditional perspectives- I also feel that you'll need to go back to the drawing board if you're really set on making a map that shouts that national borders are no longer relevant. Besides that, I'm inclined to think that Oil Power is pursued as a means to an end, and that end is often to preserve national integrity. In fact, the vibe that I get from this map is that there are two 'sides' fighting over Oil that have two antithetical goals- one side wants Oil to build national power, and the other wants Oil to destroy national power. If that's not too far off base, then I think that grabbing a 'national' bonus should be possible. Otherwise who are the terrorists at war with and what are the Revolts trying to accomplish if there aren't any 'oppressive' national entities involved in the gameplay?
My recommendation is to either try subdividing the continents into smaller, more attainable areas, include impassibles or redraw borders to create more interior regions. Any or all of these could work. But it absolutely needs to be addressed I think.
OK, beyond that I have some suggestions but nothing critical. I'll put them in another post so that this one doesn't become a novel.