Fractured China - [Quenched]

[Victor Sullivan]

Wait as long as you can to upload it. I'm holding that bonus in a game!

Jk

-Sully

[thenobodies80]

Updated XML with Russian Federation knocked down to 4:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/14 ... China8.xml
Small image with Russian Federation changed to +4
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/8857 ... vsmall.png
Large image
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/4882 ... inav3v.png

Sent to the Turtle.

[JustCallMeStupid]

Ive read through some of the prior pages comments on changing the stars to 3 neutrals instead of 2. I disagree. I find obtaining bonuses make maps more fun, and making bonuses more difficult makes a map less fun. I would rather see the neutral stars left to 2 units and the bonus structure changed to +1 for 2 capitals, +2 for 3 capitals or something or even +2 for 2 capitals, but +3 for defending 2 somewhat easy to obtain spots seems high. Alternatively increase the number of capitals to get for a bonus to 3 capitals instead of 2 capitals. I like that they are easy enough to take, but feel the benefit of taking them in correlation with continent bonuses makes them a little overpowered.

Mongolia bonus @ +4 is too high. Considering the dynamics of the bonus, all 4 components are touching making it easy enough to defend by stacking solely on one territory and retaliating anyone who brakes it anywhere. Bonuses structured like this usually should be a +3 unless they are surrounded by multiple +2 bonuses which is not the case here.

EDIT: I dont see a point in having the east china sea? Why not get rid of that location and go straight to yellow sea. (this isnt really an issue though, just a thought)

[isaiah40]

Ive read through some of the prior pages comments on changing the stars to 3 neutrals instead of 2. I disagree. I find obtaining bonuses make maps more fun, and making bonuses more difficult makes a map less fun. I would rather see the neutral stars left to 2 units and the bonus structure changed to +1 for 2 capitals, +2 for 3 capitals or something. I believe that a +3 is an extremely high bonus especially considering u need to take a capital for a region bonus anyways.

Mongolia bonus @ +4 is too high. Considering the dynamics of the bonus, all 4 components are touching making it easy enough to defend by stacking solely on one territory and retaliating anyone who brakes it anywhere. Bonuses structured like this usually should be a +3 unless they are surrounded by multiple +2 bonuses which is not the case here.

EDIT: I dont see a point in having the east china sea? Why not get rid of that location and go straight to yellow sea. (this isnt really an issue though, just a thought)

The neutrals are staying as they are. As for the capitals, I think they will stay as they are as they give an added attraction to take them early on. Compare the capital structure to Fractured America where they don't really come into play a whole lot to here where they do. In the games I've played, the player who goes for the capitals first has ended up the last to get a bonus region, thereby making him the weakest on the board. So really you are forced to make a choice, go for the capital bonus, or go for the larger bonuses? What I am seeing is a very balanced map.

Does anyone else think Mongolia is too high? We'll wait and see if anybody else comments on it before I make any changes.

East China Sea is there to come out with one of the golden numbers after you take the total # of territories and subtract the territories that start neutral. Which in this case is 52, If I take out East China Sea then the next golden number is 44 so I would have to add in some more starting neutral territories = not good.

[AndyDufresne]

I think Mongolia could be knocked down to 3. In fact, sometimes I think Manchuria is undervalued, since Beijing, which is an auto-deploy, often has an ability to pick away at Manchuria.

Hm, you could always nudge the one-way assault to Mongolia--which would make it more like Uygurstan having to defend a one-way assault for 4 troops, instead of Manchuria defending a one-way assault for 3.

Random thoughts.


--Andy

[isaiah40]

I think Mongolia could be knocked down to 3. In fact, sometimes I think Manchuria is undervalued, since Beijing, which is an auto-deploy, often has an ability to pick away at Manchuria.

Hm, you could always nudge the one-way assault to Mongolia--which would make it more like Uygurstan having to defend a one-way assault for 4 troops, instead of Manchuria defending a one-way assault for 3.

Random thoughts.


--Andy

Ok that's two for Mongolia.

Anyone for moving the one way attack to Mongolia? Then maybe we can keep Mongolia at 4? Just my $0.02 worth of random thoughts.

[JustCallMeStupid]

I agree that manchuria is more difficult to defend than mongolia. Jilin alone can attack all 4 of Manchurias borders, Manchurias has a one way attacked border and Manchurias territories are not all connected where the bonus can technically be defended by stacking one spot like mongolia. Being that it is in the corner of the map, it is a common starting point, so I am mixed as to whether the bonus should be increased or not. From a balance point of view Mongolia, is easier to take, and hold and pays a larger bonus. Lets see if we can get some more people to feedback on the map though so it isnt merely two opinions.

[AndyDufresne]

Thumbs up.


--Andy

[Victor Sullivan]

Two thumbs up.

-Sully

[isaiah40]

Anybody else?

[isaiah40]

Okay so if I move the one way attack to Mongolia, leave the bonus value the same but increase the value on Manchuria would that work?

[thenobodies80]

If it was my map, I would increase Machuria to +4 only. After all Mongolia has lot of different continents around it and a half central position on the map, so it's worth +4 imo.
The one way attack, I think it works fine as it is now, it gives something to think (be worried about) to the player who holds Manchuria, being Korea an easy target.

[The Bison King]

3 thumbs up. Perfect as is!

[talonz]

Looking at the map for the first time, joined a game withit.

Immediate concern is all the +2 autodeploys in the south east...someone gets ahold of those and they will be nealry impossible to dislodge.

And why no +1 for a single capital?

Change the autos to 1 and add the +1 for 1 capital and you may have a more mainland centric game, my first thoughts anyways.

[AndyDufresne]

I feel like adding a +1 for capitals would imbalance the play. From my own experience, autodeploys weren't a factor until a few rounds into the game, and even when they did come into play, there were held by a number of players and no single person managed to hold all or most of them.


--Andy

[isaiah40]

I feel like adding a +1 for capitals would imbalance the play. From my own experience, autodeploys weren't a factor until a few rounds into the game, and even when they did come into play, there were held by a number of players and no single person managed to hold all or most of them.


--Andy

This is true, I haven't seen a single person hold any more than 2 at a time in the games I've played. SO they bonuses will stay as they are. AS for the Manchuria/Mongolia bonuses, I have decided to just increase Manchuria from 3 to 4. The one way attack will stay where it is and Mongolia will stay as it is. I'll post the updates later today.

[isaiah40]

New images with Manchuria changed from +3 to +4. XML will come later tonight.

Large:
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/1001/fracturedchinav3w.png
Small:
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2561/fracturedchinav3wsmall.png
XML:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/14/2187148//FracturedChin10.xml

[Gilligan]

XML
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/14 ... Chin10.xml

[jaytorade]

Can you please make an arrow showing that Taiwan and fujian bombard each other.

It is not apparent from looking at the map layout. Thank you.

[isaiah40]

Can you please make an arrow showing that Taiwan and fujian bombard each other.

It is not apparent from looking at the map layout. Thank you.

Here:

[thenobodies80]

New images with Manchuria changed from +3 to +4. XML will come later tonight.

Large:
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/1001/fracturedchinav3w.png
Small:
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2561/fracturedchinav3wsmall.png
XML:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/14/2187148//FracturedChin10.xml

I've sent them yesterday, but I forgot to post here. Sorry

[Pirlo]

the font is not clear enough, especially with such unfamiliar names.

[isaiah40]

the font is not clear enough, especially with such unfamiliar names.

Which font and where? As far as I know you're the only one who has complained about it so I will wait to see if anyone else has the same complaint.

[DiM]

the font is not clear enough, especially with such unfamiliar names.

Which font and where? As far as I know you're the only one who has complained about it so I will wait to see if anyone else has the same complaint.

i think he's talking about the terit names. i do have some problems distinguishing "a" and "o" on the small map but it's nothing to worry about. i think the font fits the style very well and i would not change it.
also even if i misread an "a" for an "o" i doubt this hinders the gameplay in any way whatsoever.

[Pirlo]

the font is not clear enough, especially with such unfamiliar names.

Which font and where? As far as I know you're the only one who has complained about it so I will wait to see if anyone else has the same complaint.

terr names are unfamiliar, so I just think their font should be very clear?