Moderator: Cartographers
people don't just start in the meteors, they start with one meteor each, and then a random assortment of the "orange circle" territories
Bob XIII wrote:is this possible with current XML options?.. what is there to stop a player being given two meteors at the start and someone else getting none?
Bob XIII wrote:people don't just start in the meteors, they start with one meteor each, and then a random assortment of the "orange circle" territories
is this possible with current XML options?.. what is there to stop a player being given two meteors at the start and someone else getting none?
Industrial Helix wrote:Hey guys, we need an updated image before this thing gets moving.
Industrial Helix wrote:Hey guys, we need an updated image before this thing gets moving.
Evil DIMwit wrote:My biggest fear with this is drops: In a 3p game,you'll see players dropping a bunch of +2 bonuses, with 18 territories each (which means if any player loses even one territory, their troop deployment comes down. There's also a 7-8% chance of a player dropping a +4 bonus from the mantle. This all resolves to decent advantages being dropped based on luck.
initus wrote:Since this is replacing the territory count bonus, we are not minding that people start with a little bonus here or there, but we don't want it to be uneven.
Evil DIMwit wrote:initus wrote:Since this is replacing the territory count bonus, we are not minding that people start with a little bonus here or there, but we don't want it to be uneven.
If this bonus replaces the territory count bonus, then you should note that on the map. Though I don't think this is a good idea since the layer bonus inherently gives rise to unevenness. I recommend either dramatically reducing it or doing away with it entirely in favor of a standard-style territory bonus. If you want something a bit different from usual, you can try adjusting the territory bonus increment -- not many maps take advantage of that possibility. But even if you don't, no one will ever accuse you of lacking originality.
Also, it would be handy to be able to see the connections out from the standard magma areas.
carlpgoodrich wrote:I've been staring at this map for a few minutes now, and I'm having a hard time figuring out what the gameplay will be. Since there are no bonus regions and no choke points, it seems like there is little strategy to building up and protecting a layer bonus.
I haven't gone through every combination, but in the top of the outer layer, for example, you have to hold 10 and protect 3 just to get a bonus of 2... definitely not wroth it. Another possibility would be to hope you get drops on a territ that is the only territ that attacks another territ, so you can attack and not advance, thus not having to protect two territs. Again, that will only take you so far. Only other thing I can think of is getting a magma and dumping all your armies on it for that tiny +1.
Do you guys have a better feeling for how these games will unfold? If not I'm worried that this will become a novelty map that no one plays.
initus wrote:Also, what do you mean by: "Maybe just have a few normal territories border the core?"
Well as this is the gameplay workshop, everything is liable to change or be altered, so the current bonus amounts could change. Do you think they are an appropriate amount for the currents if the stagnant magma was not present?
carlpgoodrich wrote:I meant that I like the stagnant magma in that it can attack the core, but I'm worried that it's ability to also attack all the territories around it makes too hard to hold the magma currents (this is just my take, maybe others disagree). So what about making a few territories that are part of lava currents (probably territories that already connect two currents) border the core, and have a higher starting neutral?
carlpgoodrich wrote:This is a hard one, but probably. I'm mainly concerned about how the meteors have a +1 auto, and theres only a neutral of 1 separating them from the outer layer. I'm trying to decide if, were I playing this map, it would be worth it to go for a +1 lava current that is not under my starting meteor. Maybe increase the neutrals on the surface that lead down to the outer layer to 3? Maybe not. I'm not sure.
initus wrote:carlpgoodrich wrote:This is a hard one, but probably. I'm mainly concerned about how the meteors have a +1 auto, and theres only a neutral of 1 separating them from the outer layer. I'm trying to decide if, were I playing this map, it would be worth it to go for a +1 lava current that is not under my starting meteor. Maybe increase the neutrals on the surface that lead down to the outer layer to 3? Maybe not. I'm not sure.
The crust territories might go up to 2, but I don't think that they would serve their function with 3. What we may end up doing is having the territories on the crust that border a lava ocean be an increased amount, perhaps 3 or 5, and the others being 1s. Well with team games the autodeploy would add a little more dynamic gameplay, as you could start working your way from ally's meteors or something, but I get what you are saying though. I probably wouldn't try to go for those, but I guess it depends, if it is early in the game and the auto deploy isn't all that high, there could be the possibility that you could get and hold those, especially if you drop most of the territories in the current. However, the currents that are attacked by a meteor probably need a bonus amount increase.
natty_dread wrote:How will you name the territories? I see you have bonus area names but no individual territory names... May be a bit hard to fit them all unless you have some special plan for them?
Evil DIMwit wrote:I don't think a volcano auto-deploy is necessary or appropriate. You've already got the meteor auto-deploys in the area.
Evil DIMwit wrote:Speaking of which, it's not quite clear which territories the regular surface territories can attack, since they don't have arrows.
Evil DIMwit wrote:However, the chances of someone in a 3-player game dropping the 12-territory bonus with 26 droppable territories in the largest layer is about 11%, which is quite a bit even for a 2-troop bonus. However, if you increase the requirement to 13 territories, the chances shrink to 2.45%, and with 14 territories it's just 00.32%.
Evil DIMwit wrote:Finally, if you have all the meteors as neutral-coded starting positions (as you should), then:
1. You can't really set it up so that each player always gets exactly one. The eight starting positions are evenly divided, so in 3p and 4p games, each player will get two, and in 2p games each player would get four.
2. With 56 territories, you have 48 regular territories and 8 meteors. Therefore in 3p games each player starts with 16 regular and 2 meteor territories, for a total of 18. That means the first player has a significant advantage, because if the other players only lose 1 territory, their standard troop bonus decreases. Therefore I propose reducing the number of regular droppable territories to 47, which prevents this imbalance for all player numbers.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users