Moderator: Cartographers
Marvaddin wrote:Marvaddin wrote:I still would like to see some connections far from the bases of the "mountains". Arent connections allowed near the top?
If I counted correctly, there are 49 territories. Can I suggest remove some? I think the red mountain, for example, is useless with 13 territories.
Nothing about this? Are you assuming this configuration as final? Because the country dispersion is a bit strange: 3, 4, 4, 4 (no mountains), 5, 8, 9, 13. 3 big continents, and bordering each other... what a desert!Couldnt you at least reduce some territories? Like -1 for blue, -3 for red and -3 for green mountains.
Dickie B. wrote:I really like the way it looks right now. The geometric shapes and defined borders make it very easy to tell which territories are linked. The only thing I would do differently is to move the bridge between G3 and R4 up to connect G4 and R6 and also connect it to B4. That would give Blue Mountain one extra border and make the border count go in a descending order starting with Red that has 6 and ending with Yellow that has 2. It also makes it harder to hold for the 5 bonus armies. I really enjoy that the helipads will play a huge role in the game, potentially creating an additional three borders to any given hilltop. They will be very strategic points. You will also have to be careful of how many armies you fortify to the top of the hill if you conquer it from a helipad because once they are up there they are stranded with down being the only way out, assuming that you cannot fortify down to the helipad from the peaks. I would like to know how the fortification would work from peak to helipad. I didn't notice any details on it but I think it would take more strategy if it wasn't possible, but it would also make the helipads more valuable if it was possible and create more incentive to hold the pads and the Square, Triangle, Circle groups than the 1 bonus army. Overall I think it is an excellent map.
Marvaddin wrote:And looks like you didnt think about these bonuses. Lets imagine I have 3 kings, A, B, and C. In the xml, A and B will give me a pair bonus, as will A and C, and B and C. So a person holding A, B and C will receive 3 bonuses for a pair, plus the bonus for the triple.
Marvaddin wrote:The problem, mate, is: as the map is currently, there is no need to get any mountain territories to become king. What do you expect for playability of this one? Of course mountains wont be played, except the little yellow one. The groups will dominate the game totally, and even more with the helipads and the several bonuses for holding each king beyond 1. The mountains will be great deserts this way.
Marvaddin wrote:And looks like you didnt think about these bonuses. Lets imagine I have 3 kings, A, B, and C. In the xml, A and B will give me a pair bonus, as will A and C, and B and C. So a person holding A, B and C will receive 3 bonuses for a pair, plus the bonus for the triple.
WidowMakers wrote:Players will need to decide if they want to try and hold a helipad and slowing build up armies to attack the king. Or Build up on one of the mountians and get stronger faster but have less quick acces to the rest of the board.
The XML is setup to give +1 for each pair of Kings. Holding 3 Kings would give you 3 pair (+3) BUT the XML also give -1 for holding any 3 Kings. So holding 2 Kings is 1+1+1+(-1)=2
It also works with 4 pair by (1+1+1+1+1)+(-1-1-1-1)+(1)=3
Look at the xml
http://jmhooton.iweb.bsu.edu/joel/KOTM/ ... 0kings.xml
Marvaddin wrote:No offense, man, but you are the one that have completed only 28 games. This decision is not difficult. Not even a bit. I wouldnt even call it a decision. Trust me, the big mountains wont be played.
Marvaddin wrote:It remember me the guy that did World 2.0 map. He said that a lot of small continents would help to increase the value of full continents, and we know its not true. You are doing the same way, going against the main strategy: try the easier bonus as 1st option, dont care how small it is.
ericisshort wrote:The shapes shouldnt even be bonused because they are already a good strategic move for attacking the tops.
Enigma wrote:bonuses for the continents are too high. why is yellow worth 3? only 3 territories and 2 borders. they all need to be brought down.
Molacole wrote:this map is very good looking. I prefer the textured colors though. second to last picture you posted.
How realistic would it be for somebody to hold 3 kings and not get broken up. they would get destroyed by the heli pads!
2 kings = 1 - need protection against 5 territories
3 kings = 3 - need protection against 6 territories
4 kings = 5 - need protection against 7 territories
all kings = 7 - need protection against 8 territories
Users browsing this forum: No registered users