Antarctica [Quenched]

[natty dread]

So, with some further thought, here's what I propose:

- bases attack at range 2
- max. starting positions are increased to 6
- autodeploy is kept at +2 for now, if this doesn't work out it can be changed later
- standard territory bonus is removed, replaced with +3 for any (you still get the +2 for 2 for bonus areas)

Any comments? Objections? Suggestions?

If no one says nothing I'll go ahead and make these changes.

[greenoaks]

So, with some further thought, here's what I propose:

- bases attack at range 2
- max. starting positions are increased to 6
- autodeploy is kept at +2 for now, if this doesn't work out it can be changed later
- standard territory bonus is removed, replaced with +3 for any (you still get the +2 for 2 for bonus areas)

Any comments? Objections? Suggestions?

If no one says nothing I'll go ahead and make these changes.

that is worth trying, go for it

i have 16 players in a tourney league, hopefully some of them can also provide feedback

[Herbas]

Although I'm late for discussions about 2 range base attacks, but I think that it wouldn't be a good change.

Yes, it would let escape opponent's lock easier (actually lock element would disappear at all), but on the other hand it will make games crazily back and forth. I had a few games of such type and they were really boring to play: you get troops and go for killing opponent's bonuses (because you can't do anything else as he is going to gain A LOT more than you), then pass the turn and the opponent does exactly the same as he is in the same position like you before. Ultimately such games are decided by dice rolls (who lost the least troops by conquering 1s).

Although being in the lock and having extremely little chances to get back in to games is really not fun, but at least you know that it was largely your fault that you got locked. While in the games like I described above you are just praying for good rolls and it really needlessly extend games.

[natty dread]

Although I'm late for discussions about 2 range base attacks, but I think that it wouldn't be a good change.

Yes, it would let escape opponent's lock easier (actually lock element would disappear at all), but on the other hand it will make games crazily back and forth. I had a few games of such type and they were really boring to play: you get troops and go for killing opponent's bonuses (because you can't do anything else as he is going to gain A LOT more than you), then pass the turn and the opponent does exactly the same as he is in the same position like you before. Ultimately such games are decided by dice rolls (who lost the least troops by conquering 1s).

Although being in the lock and having extremely little chances to get back in to games is really not fun, but at least you know that it was largely your fault that you got locked. While in the games like I described above you are just praying for good rolls and it really needlessly extend games.

Thanks for feedback. You say you don't like the proposed changes... so, what do you think we should do with the map? Do you have any suggestions for changes to the map? Or do you think it works as it is?

[SirSebstar]

what i would like to so is see is either more bases have acces to a shelf or none... and on both side of the continent, and pref not given to the same team/player.
if the game stays with 1 range, +2 autodeploy, no bonus for regionstotals (or even if there is a bonus) then acces to shelfs makes all the difference

[natty dread]

Moving the bases at this point is not really feasible. That's why I suggested the range 2 option.

[SirSebstar]

Moving the bases at this point is not really feasible. That's why I suggested the range 2 option.

I understand. I think the map is lacking in that respect. I do not think the range of the bases is an issue. I think i kinda like the if you attacked from your base, you loose an advantage thingie... I think the placement is key and therefore lacking

[Herbas]

I kinda like that different bases have slightly different ways to go out. This forces players to adapt their starting strategies according to the drop instead of having one drilled starting strategy.

I played this map 30 times (although almost strictly 1v1 or dub v dub) and I noticed that base drops are quite important and can give quite noticeable advantage to some player. I mean that it is a lot easier to start gathering those +2 bonuses if you have 2 bases nearby and the closest opponent's base is quite far away from these bases. If, unfortunately, one of the players doesn't have such setup (his opponent has bases nearby all of his bases), then there is quite a big inequality between players as one can start gathering bonuses quite safely, while the other one has to be extremely careful with his expansions as there are opponent's bases nearby.
But anyway, I think that removed starting positions limit will fix this problem quite well.

I hadn't played this map when it had +1 autodeplay, but in theory it seems that +2 autodeploy slightly reduces importance of rolls? I mean if you are ****ed by dices on the first turns, then +1 autodeploy can take too much time for giving you another chance to go off.

In any way, I really like this map, well done!

[SirSebstar]

+1 or +2 matters little is my experience, except it drags the game into a waiting game.. and it makes having acces to a ice shelf extremely important...!! extremely.
after all it resets every turn, so you can always have a card if you need one. you are no longer locked up behind your own troops.. this is very important

[natty dread]

What if we change the shelves so they reset to 3, then they wouldn't be so easy to use for cards, which would make the bases more equal - and discourage stacking and staying on the base, forcing players to move?

Or we could put a really high decay on them, like -100, so in practice it would always reset to 1 but wouldn't go neutral... ?

[SirSebstar]

What if we change the shelves so they reset to 3, then they wouldn't be so easy to use for cards, which would make the bases more equal - and discourage stacking and staying on the base, forcing players to move?

Or we could put a really high decay on them, like -100, so in practice it would always reset to 1 but wouldn't go neutral... ?

if you make them shelves with decay (-1 or -100 makes no difference) they are basicly equal to normal countries in the map.
decay - 100 would seriously screw with the one base that is totally enclosed by one shelf.

Setting the reset to 3 would… not solve anything. It would still be an card possibility, however if the autodeploy gets to +1 then you might need the drop as well.

Best solution is still to add a few more shelves to the map even if they only connect with the base only. Or

New suggestion: The area just around each base is always an ice shelf.
Pro, would solve the get a card problem, you cannot be blocked any more.would give more equal begin positions
Con, would give advantage to the quick attacking player., would disrupt the amount of regions you can get (is bonus regions), visual chance to map needed.
Result: might be a thought, but adding more area’s to map (ice shelfs) even to half the bases, would be better

[natty dread]

Best solution is still to add a few more shelves to the map even if they only connect with the base only. Or

New suggestion: The area just around each base is always an ice shelf.

Sorry, but that's just not feasible at this point.

How about if the ice shelves start as neutral 1:s but have a -100 decay? That way they wouldn't screw the player that has to go through them but would still maintain the feature of troops getting blasted there, and couldn't be used for cards.

Also, they would be different from other land areas, since they wouldn't be giving a bonus.

[SirSebstar]

Best solution is still to add a few more shelves to the map even if they only connect with the base only. Or

New suggestion: The area just around each base is always an ice shelf.

Sorry, but that's just not feasible at this point.

How about if the ice shelves start as neutral 1:s but have a -100 decay? That way they wouldn't screw the player that has to go through them but would still maintain the feature of troops getting blasted there, and couldn't be used for cards.

Also, they would be different from other land areas, since they wouldn't be giving a bonus.

No bonus? They still count for total country's, unless that has changed.

-100 decay, would still screw the 1 guy who has to his base enclosed. Also, it would not fit in with the map that well AND it would make the 2 shelf border thingie near impossible to take.. sorry, i dont see that as a solution. I have to say i never found the map to be totally unbalanced with +1 to begin with.

with the map as it is (+2 auto deploy, not all bases have a shelf, full count for country's/3) it gives an advantage to the player who waits. It is that simple, and it is evident in the game we are playing now. if that is what you want. thats okay, bt it will never draw full crowds that way. Once the trick is known, people will stop playing. The +1 gives less incentive to wait, but also sucks once you encounter bad dice since you can move forward so much more slowly... and gives great imputus to the player who is attacking quickly and succesfully and is not countered.....
much quicker gameplay. Not adventagious to the first player mind you, but adventagious to the first player who eeps the bonus, and that is not always the same thing.

[natty dread]

o bonus? They still count for total country's, unless that has changed.

The plan is to remove the standard territory bonus.

The +1 gives less incentive to wait, but also sucks once you encounter bad dice since you can move forward so much more slowly... and gives great imputus to the player who is attacking quickly and succesfully and is not countered.....
much quicker gameplay. Not adventagious to the first player mind you, but adventagious to the first player who eeps the bonus, and that is not always the same thing.

Sounds to me like it just gives advantage to whomever has the best dice..

[SirSebstar]

o bonus? They still count for total country's, unless that has changed.

The plan is to remove the standard territory bonus.

The +1 gives less incentive to wait, but also sucks once you encounter bad dice since you can move forward so much more slowly... and gives great imputus to the player who is attacking quickly and succesfully and is not countered.....
much quicker gameplay. Not adventagious to the first player mind you, but adventagious to the first player who eeps the bonus, and that is not always the same thing.

Sounds to me like it just gives advantage to whomever has the best dice..

al least there is less advantage to waiting, and more to going for it. makes more intense and active games

[Herbas]

What types of games are you playing in Antarctica, Sebstar? I really didn't feel that the game was going too slow in my games (1v1 or doubles).

[SirSebstar]

What types of games are you playing in Antarctica, Sebstar? I really didn't feel that the game was going too slow in my games (1v1 or doubles).

The current concern seems to look at teamgames more then 1vs1. antartica is already unbalanced in 1 vs 1. +2 bases or not

[nebsmith]

have to say i don't like the idea of changing the attack range of the bases, the ability to block is one of the interesting things about the map and there are ways to counter blocking.
I also don't see that sitting on your bases and building without taking territories, or taking an ice shelf for cards, is viable. by the time 2 or 3 rounds have passed your opponents who have left all or some of their bases are getting a big enough bonus to counter your build up.
I haven't noticed that the map is particularly unbalanced. Yes some bases are closer to the Pole, but as the extra distance, at worst, amounts to 6 men in 3 territories and you need around 50 men to take the pole, it isn't a big handicap. And that 50 is just to take the Pole, you need more to do anything useful once there.

I like this map. It seems to me that you need to put more thought, than is the norm, into the placement of any stacks, whether on the board or the bases, to counter possible moves by opponents or to deter them from making those moves.

Congratulations to the map makers for coming up with something a bit different.

[Dibbler]

If you do increase the base attack range then you will have to address base P. Since the base has direct access to the Ronne Shelf a +2 attack range will give that one base access to 13 territories. Base B would access 10 and Base C 7. This will increase the power of the player or team that gets those bases in the initial drop. On the flip side poor bases N and L only get access to 3 territories with one of those being a shelf for L.

Now I have mostly played 4 player doubles games on the map and I love it. I have 3 or 4 different strategies depending on whether my team goes first or second and whether the other team stacks or attacks. I like the map in its current state but I will adapt to whatever you decide.

I think the +2 auto deploy is fine. It gives a team a chance to come back if they get poor rolls on their first round. However if you increase the attack range of the bases to 2 then you would have to eliminate the ability of some bases to attack directly into the ice shelves. I think this limits some of the bases more than others and will unbalance the game in other ways. It would really hurt Base P as the shelf reverts to neutral each round.

[natty dread]

Ok, after taking in consideration everything posted here... I don't think the range 2 will be a viable option.

I think we'll just remove the starting position limit and that's it. (And the std. territory bonus).

[Herbas]

When could we expect the changes to take place? (eager to test the new rules)

[natty dread]

Update time!

New XML

antarctica4.xml

(55.11 KiB) Downloaded 351 times

New Images

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Changes:
- visual change in legend, losing condition is easier to notice
- max. starting positions removed: 1v1 starts with 8 bases/player, 3 player starts with 5 per player
- +1 per 3 territory bonus removed - you get +3 for any amount

[SirSebstar]

that should make a difference natty. It has become a stay back kind of map now, but with interesting gameplay. sweet!

[Herbas]

Um, started a new 1v1 and we got just 4 bases each?

[SirSebstar]

Um, started a new 1v1 and we got just 4 bases each?

this is correct.
at a certain point there was a base restriction. that part never got lifted (edit: the lifting of the baserestiction has not gone live yet. But see below, this will happen soonisch)