I disagree entirely with Natty on this. Your effort here is to make a risk map that can play like Parchesi. Natty has already said that he's never heard of Parchesi yet thinks that changing the board is the way to go?
Ok, so you're saying that only people who have played Pachisi can offer feedback on this map? I'm sorry but that's just not how the Foundry system works. Everyone is free to speak here.
We make maps for CC gameplay here. You can't simply port a game with different rules into CC and expect not to have to make any changes to it. Whether I know Pachisi is irrelevant, I know maybe some things about gameplay design so if I see a potential gameplay flaw I post about it.
I don't see how taking away spaces of the board does anything. You wouldn't cut a chess board down to 48 squares simply because it would work better for risk why would you even suggest doing it to a Parchesi board simply because you've never played.
You, as well as the mapmaker, should know that mapmaking requires compromises. Heck, we have had historical geographical maps where the mapmaker has been forced to make compromises on historical
and geographical accuracy in order to improve the map playability. And you're saying we can't touch a board game's squares?
Using your chess example, look at the various chess maps that have been attempted. The one that made it the furthest, was also one that was willing to bend the gameplay of chess and mold it into a gameplay suitable for a CC map.
I understand the fear of stalemating. So lets look at how to solve that within the board itself.
A map where eliminations are impossible (objective-only map) has been attempted several times before. Generally, players don't seem to want to play those kinds of maps. They are problematic, not only for deadlocks, but for assassin & terminator games - the whole assassin & terminator dynamics are rendered irrelevant on a map that offers no chance of elimination.
-Sully)
