Wales [Quenched]

[yeti_c]

Yeah I think Bonuses need to be discussed...

However - continents with higher territories are at an advantage - as you get +1 per double (english/welsh) territory?

So for instance... top left - has +5 + +3 = +8 for a 10 territory continent with 6 borders.

Whereas english has +3 + +6 = +9 for a 6 territory continent with 6 borders.

C.

[MrBenn]

I did put the numbers into one of the bonus spreadsheet calculators, and then reduced the region bonus by the 'shire' bonuses that you would also get. I think I then changed a 5 to a 6 for the sole reason of making fog games a bit more confusing

I haven't got any burning anger/desire to be inflexible... any serious suggestions about bonus values will be considered

[yeti_c]

I did put the numbers into one of the bonus spreadsheet calculators, and then reduced the region bonus by the 'shire' bonuses that you would also get. I think I then changed a 5 to a 6 for the sole reason of making fog games a bit more confusing

I haven't got any burning anger/desire to be inflexible... any serious suggestions about bonus values will be considered

Consider dropping both 6's to 5's then?

C.

[MrBenn]

Consider dropping both 6's to 5's then?

Sounds reasonable...

[MrBenn]

[shameless bump]

[yeti_c]

[shameless bump]

That's outrageous behaviour!!!

C.

[RjBeals]

Click image to enlarge.

I still think the big image is way too big.
I think the blue and purple regions are too similar in color.

There needs to be some more inspiring gfx. Now it's just a beige map with some speckled glow around the borders. Is this suppose to resemble an old parchment feel? If so, you need some grunge texture to dirty it up a bit. It's too flat now - how about some rivers, hills, mountains or some blemishes on the map, so it doesn't look so digital. I know - it's easier said than done, unless your WM, but I hope you understand what I'm saying.

[oaktown]

Hey benn, I am ignoring this map (and all the others around here) no longer.

Call me colorblind, but southwest and midlands look the same to me. South and English are also similar, but not as bad. Maybe swap the English and midlands colors?

First post says there are 32 territories and 18 pairs... seems like the math is off there.

The double territory bit is interesting, though it obviously presents the problem of having twice as many borders to hold to control a region. Any calculation of bonuses should take this into account, but also needs to take into account the addition pair bonuses. As such, the +3 for the South seems a bit high, as that's a total of +5 for securing four well-connected territories.

Giving a +1 for every pair makes for a nice compromise and should take the emphasis off of securing bonus regions and instead put it on gobbling up Shires, but it will lead to some really terrible starts. In two and three player games, the player who goes first is going to be certain to have at least two or three pairs, and by starting with a drop of five or six (or more) armies on a 32 territory you should be able to quickly put your opponent in a world of hurt from round one.

Anglessy and Caernarfon are separated by a narrow strip of water, yet I assume they can attack each other. Cardiganshire and Merioneth are separated by a similar strip of water, yet I would guess that they can't?

[yeti_c]

1v1 games could be rectified with some starting positions?

C.

[oaktown]

1v1 games could be rectified with some starting positions?

C.

Sure, but do you start position tag the entire map, in sets of two? Seems like that's the only way you can guarantee that nobody starts the game out with a pair.

Let's say Benn codes every pair of territories within a county as start positions, so no player can ever start with both... 16 start tags. And I'm wondering if setting up every pair as start positions might have unintended consequences - maybe yeti can set me straight on how this works, but here are my questions:

• In a two player game, are all 16 start territories are distributed among the two players, leaving no neutral territories? Or are all start territories split up between the two players and a third, neutral "player?"

• I know that in cases where there are more territories in a start tag than there are players the extra territories go neutral, but what happens when there are fewer territories in a start tag than players? Two territories split up evenly among three to eight players? I would assume that everybody ends up with the same # of territories, but the start tags just keep anybody from owning a pair, but I thought it was worth asking.

[yeti_c]

1v1 games could be rectified with some starting positions?

C.

Sure, but do you start position tag the entire map, in sets of two? Seems like that's the only way you can guarantee that nobody starts the game out with a pair.

Let's say Benn codes every pair of territories within a county as start positions, so no player can ever start with both... 16 start tags. And I'm wondering if setting up every pair as start positions might have unintended consequences - maybe yeti can set me straight on how this works, but here are my questions:

The way I would do it with starts would be to create just 2 starting positions. (Thus only affecting 1v1 games).

Those starts have a list of territories in that stop the pair bonuses.

This would have to be balanced properly though - and would also mean *ALL* 1v1 games would start the same.

e.g.

Code: Select all

<positions>
       <position>
          <territory>Welsh 1</territory>
          <territory>English 2</territory>
          <territory>Welsh 3</territory>
          <territory>English 4</territory>
          <territory>Welsh 5</territory>
          <territory>English 6</territory>
          ...
       </position>
       <position>
          <territory>English 1</territory>
          <territory>Welsh 2</territory>
          <territory>English 3</territory>
          <territory>Welsh 4</territory>
          <territory>English 5</territory>
          <territory>Welsh 6</territory>
          ...
       </position>
</positions>


This could remove all the starting pairs for 1v1 games. - other game types self level - if 1 player starts with more bonuses - then the other players will attack them!

• In a two player game, are all 16 start territories are distributed among the two players, leaving no neutral territories? Or are all start territories split up between the two players and a third, neutral "player?"

Starting tags have no *Neutral* player (for 1v1 games).

• I know that in cases where there are more territories in a start tag than there are players the extra territories go neutral, but what happens when there are fewer territories in a start tag than players? Two territories split up evenly among three to eight players? I would assume that everybody ends up with the same # of territories, but the start tags just keep anybody from owning a pair, but I thought it was worth asking.

This doesn't make sense. Do you mean - Fewer "positions" than players?

If that is the case - then NO positions are used... in the example above - as you only have 2 positions - these are only *dealt* out for 1v1 games.

C.

[LinK89]

the british isles are almost totally mapped out
looks good
future possibilities could be the Orkneys, or the isle of Man maybe?

[MrBenn]

There needs to be some more inspiring gfx. Now it's just a beige map with some speckled glow around the borders. Is this suppose to resemble an old parchment feel? If so, you need some grunge texture to dirty it up a bit. It's too flat now - how about some rivers, hills, mountains or some blemishes on the map, so it doesn't look so digital. I know - it's easier said than done, unless your WM, but I hope you understand what I'm saying.

Hmmm... I've been working on some mountains, but they look baaaaaad

I've tried some background texture but for the most part I think it looks too obviously digital

By blemishes, I'm guessing you mean stains on the paper... that sort of thing... you were right when you said it was hard - nothing I do seems lo look right

Anyway - upwards and onwards

[Qwert]

rjbeals
I still think the big image is way too big.
I think the blue and purple regions are too similar in color.

There needs to be some more inspiring gfx. Now it's just a beige map with some speckled glow around the borders. Is this suppose to resemble an old parchment feel? If so, you need some grunge texture to dirty it up a bit. It's too flat now - how about some rivers, hills, mountains or some blemishes on the map, so it doesn't look so digital. I know - it's easier said than done, unless your WM, but I hope you understand what I'm saying.

Agree with these.
Also you have some small countries who dont have any barriers and must defend all.
You have ony 16 territory,its possible to add more? Or wales have only 13 terrotery

[Qwert]

I check in Wikipedia,and wales have 22 unitary authorities,and when you add 3 english,these give you number of 25.

[MrBenn]

I check in Wikipedia,and wales have 22 unitary authorities,and when you add 3 english,these give you number of 25.

I've used the ceremonial/historical boundaries... the Unitary authorities are purely administrative, and not cultural...

I'll look at shifting some of the colours around, and will be adding in some mountains etc in a couple of spots.

Mr B

[MrBenn]

OK... It's been a little while, but here is my first attempt at a grunged-up version...
I've taken a picture of some scrumpled of paper and added that to the background as a feint texture
There is a bit of 'weathering' to the edges, but I've also sprinkled some over the map at random
I'm not wholly convinced by the fold I've put across the middle, but I'll see what others think.
After much playing around, I have learnt a bit about custom brushes and drawn some mountains I am happy with. I'm using PS6, which doesn't have a 'jitter' feature, but I think they look good regardless.

I haven't swapped the colours around as I flattened the colours layer, and will need to see if I can get an untangled copy from an early version
Which order do people think would be better for the colours?

My final comments are about image size; my working copy is bigger than the large image will be - I'll put up the correct size images once I've sorted out the colour-shift

Click image to enlarge.

[asl80]

looks good, and looks like it might provide some interesting gameplay. well done so far, good luck.

[The Wyvern]

Tell me, how does the two clans work? Do they both function as their own territories, or do you need to capture both in order to possess the territory?

[gimil]

Sorry I haven't read up on this benn so I don't really know 100% what is going on, but the shire/clan stuff really does confuse me I don't have a clue what it is on about.

Could you enlighten me please?

[The Wyvern]

Oh! I get it now; each clan essentially is a territory, and when you control both clans of a shire you get a continent bonus!

But what if you own all shires of a region? do you get an additional bonus?

[MrBenn]

Here's another update...

I have taken out the 'fold' across the middle as I wasn't really that keen on it.
The colours have been swapped around, and I've made the band of colour thicker to make it easier to distinguish. I think the colours are better placed now, but am tempted to rethink the thickness...
The large image has been made a bit smaller (even if only to appease RJ!)
I've also added a burn-mark. The hole is very slightly off-white, to match the colour of the background on the play-a-game screen.
I have changed the shapes of the region bonuses, picking out a shape from the corresponding region area instead of the previous blobs!

Click image to enlarge.

To clarify some of the gameplay issues, there are two territories (clans) in each geographical area(Shire). You get a +1 bonus for holding both territories/clans in each area/shire. The Shires are grouped into regions, which will yield an additional bonus. I have attempted to explain this through the medium of poetry, so some of the finesse may be lost?? In any case, the gameplay will be standard (ie no bombards/one-ways etc), except for the multiple armies per territory...

[ZeakCytho]

I love the new look!

[MrBenn]

I forgot to mention that I've made the large image a bit smaller (even if only to appease RJ!)
I've also added a burn-mark. The hole is very slightly off-white, to match the colour of the background on the play-a-game screen.
I have changed the shapes of the region bonuses, picking out a shape from the corresponding region area instead of the previous blobs!

[edited in to earlier post]

[edbeard]

the look is great except I'm not fond of the hole. I'd rather it'd just not be there as it doesn't seem to add to the image. it feels quite random and gimmickish to place it there.


one thing I don't like is the bottom left section of your bonus legend. Gogledd, North, and 3 aren't that readable on top of the dark blue



I think the main concern is the gameplay at this point. Like people have pointed out, you're going to have people starting with +1 bonuses all over the place. the drop and going first will be that much more important on this map. I've been trying to figure out a 'solution' but I'm not sure there's anything that makes sense that's possible with the current XML. You could say you need to hold two shires to get a bonus but that's four territories to defend so that's stupid. You could say attacks can only occur inside a shire or from same language adjacent territories but that doesn't really do anything but limit the openness of the map which has nothing to do with what we're talking about. One thing that I thought could be interesting would be to make holding the shire a conditional autodeploy. You hold Sir Fynwy and Monmouth and each get a +1 bonus on the territory. It limits the power of holding a shire, in that, it only helps you locally. you can't hold three shires from the drop and place 6 armies in one spot. the problem is that it gives you double the armies for holding a shire so that makes it that much stronger and will probably making getting shires from the drop that much more important. furthermore, it's not currently possible with this XML and who knows if/when it will be.


I think we're all going to have to live with this gameplay you've got because there doesn't appear to be any way around it. the only good thing is that even if someone else drops a shire, you can gain them with one attack.