Berlin 1961 [Quenched]

[WidowMakers]

I like it. Looking good.

[DiM]

oaktown, use this tutorial here to make it look like the map is part of an article in an old newspaper.

http://www.tutorialized.com/view/tutorial/Torn-Newspaper-Effect/3830

[oaktown]

1. do the airfields connect?

It was not my intention... it'll be hard enough holding the American bonus as it is.

2. as far as the airfield bonuses, you might want to decrease it to +1 for 2 and +2 for all three, unless they're going to start neutral...

Right, it's been my intention all along to start them neutral. I've also toyed with the idea of allowing them to bombard rather than giving them a bonus, but historically they played a more important role as a source of supply than as military installations.

3. I think you might be able to do a better background than the diagonal lines... it would be nice if the extra territory could somehow look like a map of the adjoining suburbs without looking like said suburbs are part of the playing area

Yeah, I actually swiped this background from an old 1950s Berlin map I've been staring at, but I can probably come up with better.

4. this is a small graphic thing, but you might want to start thinking about futzing with mitte in anticipation of having to place an army there

Several of the territories along the river are a bit small... the army placement stage will take a bit of work, esp. in Moabit and Tiergarten. When the map was all grey I thought I could do w/o army circles, but I'm not sure now.

5. the russian sector seems a bit desolate. Since we're presuming some sort of non-nuclear conflict in the city of berlin, why not have an artillery piece or two in the russian sector that can bombard the airfields? Maybe even give them a bit of a bonus? With the majority-country bonus system you have going, using said artillery won't necessarily be able to break bonuses, but they might come in useful.

The Russian Sector isdefinitely the ugly, unloved stepchild of this map... much like East Berlin was the ugly, unloved sector of the city. Something needs to be done to make it more attractive to engage in conflict there, especially along the north eastern side. A piece of artillery might be a nice addition, or maybe the giant Fernsehturm radio tower in Prenzlauer Berg can bombard as a propaganda tool?

Another way to go is to give the Russian sector a +1 that started neutral - supply via train, perhaps. It means Mitte no longer starts neutral, which is fine.

[oaktown]

As per Incandenza's suggestion, I've tried to make the Russian Sector more attractive with the addition of the tank, which can bombard any western zone. I honestly think that given the ease of holding the largest single bonus on the map players will go after the Russian sector... the trouble may be that there's no place to go once you own it. (The Australia conundrum.) It would mean Hohenschönhausen begins neutral, and mitte starts the game in play.

edit: I misunderstood the use of the bombard tag to mean that you could knock a territory down to one defender, not one neutral army. As such, having a tank that can hit anything is WAY too strong, and I will rethink this. Leave your suggestions below!

No other substantive changes in this version.

[jako]

so the tank can bombard any western terr? so in order to hold a bonus par ur legend, u would now have to fortify every single terr of that bonus that u hold in order to keep the bonus.

that makes the bonuses worthless as someone can just take the tank, and break every single bonus on the whole of the western side.

i think u need to specify where the tank can bombard as in key terrs on the western side, otherwise the game play will be ruined

[yeti_c]

Loving the map... (First time I've seen this topic)...

Really good idea - and good usage of the new features...

C.

[yeti_c]

so the tank can bombard any western terr? so in order to hold a bonus par ur legend, u would now have to fortify every single terr of that bonus that u hold in order to keep the bonus.

that makes the bonuses worthless as someone can just take the tank, and break every single bonus on the whole of the western side.

i think u need to specify where the tank can bombard as in key terrs on the western side, otherwise the game play will be ruined

Yes and No - the enemy still needs to have sufficient armies on the Tank to bombard... although I do agree that perhaps it is a bit strong...

Perhaps the Tank can bombard the Airports? Or the three border territories?

C.

[Incandenza]

so the tank can bombard any western terr? so in order to hold a bonus par ur legend, u would now have to fortify every single terr of that bonus that u hold in order to keep the bonus.

that makes the bonuses worthless as someone can just take the tank, and break every single bonus on the whole of the western side.

i think u need to specify where the tank can bombard as in key terrs on the western side, otherwise the game play will be ruined

Nah, that's the beauty of it... you only have to hold a majority of a given territory. And the artillery will itself be fought over, giving the person that holds it less incentive to just spend his armies trying to break continents... It's an interesting concept.

One place where I can see how it might be a bit unbalancing is in escalating games, where you can cash a big set and pick off western armies at will, thus negating the whole blocking concept.

Hmmm.... perhaps if the armor could only bombard western territories within 2 spaces of the Wall? I'm not sold on this, just throwing it out there.

[edbeard]

I think the tank being able to bombard the airports and western checkpoints is good enough. You don't want it to be super powerful. It gives the east a way to combat the power of the west. Those airports will be a big part of the western bonuses so being able to bombard them is a smart way to go.

[oaktown]

so the tank can bombard any western terr? so in order to hold a bonus par ur legend, u would now have to fortify every single terr of that bonus that u hold in order to keep the bonus.

My sincere apologies!! This is the first time I've played with the notion of having a unit that can "bombard" and i misunderstood their use. I was under the impression that you could hit, but not entirely conquer, a territory and thus you'd leave one lone defender, but it seem you instead leave a lone neutral army.

That's not what i intended at all, so scrap the notion of armor that can attack everything.

I'll rethink this tonight or this weekend, based on any and all suggestions y'all leave. Thanks!

[Incandenza]

I think the tank being able to bombard the airports and western checkpoints is good enough. You don't want it to be super powerful. It gives the east a way to combat the power of the west. Those airports will be a big part of the western bonuses so being able to bombard them is a smart way to go.

I'd say this sounds like a good way to balance out the armor.

[oaktown]

I think the tank being able to bombard the airports and western checkpoints is good enough. You don't want it to be super powerful. It gives the east a way to combat the power of the west. Those airports will be a big part of the western bonuses so being able to bombard them is a smart way to go.

I'd say this sounds like a good way to balance out the armor.

Indeed, this should work. I will have to convert the tank to an anti-aircraft battery. Finding and creating a decent looking tank silhouette took a shocking amount of time... back to the drawing board!

Anybody have thoughts on where it should be? I stuck it where it is because I didn't want it in a border territory, yet I wanted a player who starts in the russian sector to be able to access it from a northern or southern position. Right now you can hold the southern zones (the easier half) for a bonus without holding the tank.

[unriggable]

Don't like the 'bridges'

[oaktown]

Don't like the 'bridges'

bridges, wall, and wall crossings are still on the "to-do" list.

I'm hoping for more feedback about playability, as this is harder to change later.

[Incandenza]

Let me just preface this discussion of gameplay issues by saying that I almost exclusively play 2000+ escalating singles and various shades of doubles, so I'm looking at the map with those game types in mind.

Since the artillery will be able to bombard the airfields, I don't think you need to start them neutral. I still think you might want to scale them down to +1 for 2 and +2 for all three (maybe even keep it at +3 for all three). Understand that part of my playing philosophy is to never, save under the most pressing circumstances, attack neutral armies. And to have to take down 9 neutrals for a +3 bonus that can be shelled from five territories away... no one will ever take them, save maybe in a protracted no cards situation. The cost-benefit analysis comes out shitty. It's even worse than the three cities in Eastern Front starting neutral, which itself I feel was not a great idea.

As far as the artillery itself, it could possibly be moved down to Marzhan, making it a bit closer to the south of the russian sector. It might also not be a bad idea for the artillery to have a +1 bonus that automatically deploys to the artillery (assuming, of course, that the required xml has been hashed out).

One thing that might be an issue are the number of dead ends at the periphery. This wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, except for the fact that the map radically constricts in the center, limiting the east-west invasion lanes. Again, not a bad thing, but the two in concert will really complicate things....

I don't have the bonus algorithm handy, but for handy reference:
French zone, 5 territories, 3 needed, minimum 2 borders, +1
British zone, 9 territories, 5 needed, min. 2 borders, +2
American zone, 11 territories, 6 needed, min. 3 borders, +3
Russian zone, 15 territories, 8 needed, min. 3 borders, +5

The one that worries me is the French zone. You can hold the whole thing with just two borders (heiligensee and wedding), and you could easily expand to take spandau, gatow, and kladow, thus picking up another airfield. And still you'd only need 2 borders. The solution might be a bridge from kladow to wannsee, which also eliminates a particularly egregious dead end...

[oaktown]

alright, lost the armor and turned it into an anti-aircraft battery which bombards the airfields. Too late to change anything else tonight.

[oaktown]

Whew, you threw quite a bit at me right before bedtime, Inc. Let's see what we have...

Since the artillery will be able to bombard the airfields, I don't think you need to start them neutral. I still think you might want to scale them down to +1 for 2 and +2 for all three (maybe even keep it at +3 for all three). Understand that part of my playing philosophy is to never, save under the most pressing circumstances, attack neutral armies. And to have to take down 9 neutrals for a +3 bonus that can be shelled from five territories away... no one will ever take them, save maybe in a protracted no cards situation. The cost-benefit analysis comes out shitty. It's even worse than the three cities in Eastern Front starting neutral, which itself I feel was not a great idea.

I agree; I've played 100+ round games in which we just dance around a neutral space. With Eastern front you need the armies to complete your region bonuses, which I think sucks. The difference with this map, obviously, is that you can hold the sector bonuses without having to take every territory, so you can leave the neutrals alone.

If they're going to be neutral, they need to be attractive to take and hold... likewise, if we're going to assign them a healthy bonus, they should be expensive to take in the first place. If I'm going to kill the idea of starting them neutral, then the bonus has to come down - it screws up the start of the game when somebody starts with extra bonuses (pearl harbor). Personally, I like the simplicity of giving each airfield a +1, with the trade-off being that they are costly to take and can be hit, though do not represent a capturable border and therefor do not need to be defended if you are willing to sacrifice the bonus.

Maybe this needs a new poll.

As far as the artillery itself, it could possibly be moved down to Marzhan, making it a bit closer to the south of the russian sector. It might also not be a bad idea for the artillery to have a +1 bonus that automatically deploys to the artillery (assuming, of course, that the required xml has been hashed out).

Can the XML do that? I'll read up on it, because if so that would be a nice way to temper the +1 of the airfields as well.

As for moving the artillery, I actually put it there before reading this... though I stuck it there by accident! I noticed the mistake when I uploaded it, but thought I'd let it ride and see what people said.

One thing that might be an issue are the number of dead ends at the periphery. This wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, except for the fact that the map radically constricts in the center, limiting the east-west invasion lanes. Again, not a bad thing, but the two in concert will really complicate things....

Yeah, I've considered adding another border crossing or two. To maintain historical accuracy there should be a crossing from Mitte into the French Sector, then another from Neukoln to Treptow, but I've left them out because visually Mitte is too busy already, and the southern crossing just adds borders to any attempt to hold the Russian or American sectors. Thoughts?

I don't have the bonus algorithm handy, but for handy reference:
French zone, 5 territories, 3 needed, minimum 2 borders, +1
British zone, 9 territories, 5 needed, min. 2 borders, +2
American zone, 11 territories, 6 needed, min. 3 borders, +3
Russian zone, 15 territories, 8 needed, min. 3 borders, +5

Actually the Russian Sector can be held with just two borders as well, plus as it is now you'd be in control of the artillery in such a scenario. I actually think the Russian sector has the most advantageous potential start, but most feel otherwise.

The one that worries me is the French zone. You can hold the whole thing with just two borders (heiligensee and wedding), and you could easily expand to take spandau, gatow, and kladow, thus picking up another airfield. And still you'd only need 2 borders. The solution might be a bridge from kladow to wannsee, which also eliminates a particularly egregious dead end...

OK, I see that. I'll think about the bridge, but my initial reaction is the the british-american border is already very long - four American zones currently make up the Brit border, and you're suggesting it go to five.

What I'd rather do is merge Gatow and Kladow into one territory and work another zone somewhere else in the british sector so we lose the dead end in the british zone. I've already been troubled by the idea of somebody starting in Kladow, trapped behind a neutral territory. On my original sketch I have a sector west of Charlottenburg, just north of Grunewald, called Westend. One could still head south from the French sector but this way they'd only pick up two territories. I should also add an attack route from Siemenstadt to Spandau to make it that much harder to expand further from there. And remember that a player could lose that part of the brit sector but retain the bonus if they hold five of the seven zones across the river.

Thanks for the input Incandenza. If everybody were this thorough we wouldn't be having all of these discussions about bad maps and the horrors of the Foundry process.

[Chirondom]

Quite a nice map.

[oaktown]

This one's for you, Incandenza... I've merged the two british territories that formed the most egregious dead end, and added an attack into Spandau to make it a bit less attractive to whoever holds the French Sector. Yes? No?

I'm still looking for gameplay feedback, especially if it is of the "tough love" variety of which some have written as of late.

I'm also starting to make changes with the as-yet-unseen small map in mind... type is a bit larger, tweaking borders a bit to make zones roomier, legend is less wordy, some text less grungy, etc. If you spy any potential trouble spots let me know - Mitte, Tiergarten, and Moabit are the most obvious.

[benjikat]

One of the comments that stood out most for me in foundry process discussion thread was oaktown saying that we should stop worrying so much about process and start commenting on maps more, so I thought I'd start with this one.

Loving the way this map is shaping up, especially its use of the new xml features, although I think you could go one further and have the +1 bonus for the airfields and a new one, as suggested above, for the artillery, applied directly to the relevant territory (not much of a change for unlimited forts), but for adjacent in particular it would reinforce the importance of the airfields to the Berlin airlift).

Being able to only bombard the airfields is also a good compromise.

My main issue with the graphics, which I largely like, are the background stripes, which are way to strong IMO, and still "zing" for me in a similar way that stripy clothes do on TV - a disconcerting and distracting effect.

Keep up the good work.

[Jesse710]

Nice map

[unriggable]

Bonuses are fucked.

[benjikat]

Bonuses are fucked.

Is this the kind of tough love you were after?

[oaktown]

Bonuses are fucked.

yes, I'll take that thoughtful feedback into consideration in my next update.

Several of you have suggested giving a bonus to the artillery or to the airfields that applies the bonus army directly to the territory that generates it. In reviewing the XML options, I'm uncertain if this is possible; the tutorial suggests this but isn't entirely clear. Can somebody give some clarification - does the <bonus> tag within a territory entry give a generic bonus, or is it automatically added to the territory?

You can also add some optional tags to a territory. If you want a bonus to be added to that territory each round, add a <bonus> tag. If you want the territory to be initialized with a certain number of neutral armies, add a <neutral> tag. This XML will make Alberta start off with 10 neutrals but you'll get a territorial bonus of 3 if you conquer and hold it.

[benjikat]

The XML tutorial isn't as clear as it should be, but I'm sure that the intention was to allow the bonus to be applied to the territory automatically - and I'm pretty sure this is what lack means by "territorial bonus". Note also that the <bonus> tag is within the <territory>, rather than within a <continent>.