Moderator: Cartographers
Arachnophobia wrote:One thing (dunno if it has been discussed before, too lazy to read the whole thread):
How do you attack the castle? There's walls around it (obviously), implying an impassable, but no way to get in, except for bombarding (which doesnt capture the towers). So just from looking at it, I see no way to attack the castle. Which is bad and should be corrected
lozzini wrote:Arachnophobia wrote:One thing (dunno if it has been discussed before, too lazy to read the whole thread):
How do you attack the castle? There's walls around it (obviously), implying an impassable, but no way to get in, except for bombarding (which doesnt capture the towers). So just from looking at it, I see no way to attack the castle. Which is bad and should be corrected
I belive, you can bombard from the catapults, or you can take the towers from where they connect with the outside, and then the towers can attack the castle
Lozz
hatchman wrote:I'm just tired of this recent trend of maps with a billion neutrals. Bogs ya down. And it's mainly to minimize a first-round advantage in 1vs1 games I believe? Too much catering to one style of play. Perhaps there should be two versions of each map: a 1vs1 version and an everything else version...
<territory>
<name>East Bridge</name>
<borders>
<border>Knight</border>
<border>Woodland</border>
</borders>
<coordinates>
<smallx>398</smallx>
<smally>250</smally>
<largex>529</largex>
<largey>327</largey>
</coordinates>
<neutral>2</neutral>
</territory>
<territory>
<name>North Bridge</name>
<borders>
<border>Earl</border>
<border>Oilseed</border>
</borders>
<coordinates>
<smallx>260</smallx>
<smally>143</smally>
<largex>349</largex>
<largey>184</largey>
</coordinates>
<neutral>2</neutral>
</territory>
<territory>
<name>South Bridge</name>
<borders>
<border>Bishop</border>
<border>Peak</border>
</borders>
<coordinates>
<smallx>285</smallx>
<smally>369</smally>
<largex>381</largex>
<largey>483</largey>
</coordinates>
<neutral>2</neutral>
</territory>
<territory>
<name>West Bridge</name>
<borders>
<border>Marquess</border>
<border>Savannah</border>
</borders>
<coordinates>
<smallx>144</smallx>
<smally>275</smally>
<largex>195</largex>
<largey>357</largey>
</coordinates>
<neutral>2</neutral>
</territory>
<positions>
<position>
<territory>Bishop</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Earl</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Knight</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Marquess</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Desert Tower</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Field Tower</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Forest Tower</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Mountain Tower</territory>
</position>
</positions>
<continent>
<name>Courts</name>
<bonus>6</bonus>
<components>
<territory>Abbot</territory>
<territory>Baron</territory>
<territory>Bishop</territory>
<territory>Duke</territory>
<territory>Earl</territory>
<territory>Knight</territory>
<territory>Marquess</territory>
<territory>Viscount</territory>
</components>
</continent>
pikkio wrote:with this changes the map will be balanced in our opinion. please tell us what you think about. ^_^
only a question: if we change those things, what will happen to the current opened games? do they continue with the last version or do the map rules change in the middle of a game?
hatchman wrote:Map Inspect revealed no doors to me...
Towers (4) | 4 |
Desert Tower <2> ==> Baron {3} Castle <4>
Field Tower <2> ==> Abbot {3} Castle <4>
Forest Tower <2> ==> Castle <4> Duke {3}
Mountain Tower <2> ==> Castle <4> Viscount {3}
<territory>
<name>Mountain Tower</name>
<borders>
<border>Castle</border>
<border>Viscount</border>
</borders>
<bombardments>
<bombardment>Ridge</bombardment>
</bombardments>
<coordinates>
<smallx>305</smallx>
<smally>293</smally>
<largex>406</largex>
<largey>382</largey>
</coordinates>
<neutral>2</neutral>
</territory>
<territory>
<name>Viscount</name>
<borders>
<border>Baron</border>
<border>Bishop</border>
<border>Duke</border>
<border>Knight</border>
<border>Mountain Tower</border>
</borders>
<coordinates>
<smallx>351</smallx>
<smally>282</smally>
<largex>469</largex>
<largey>367</largey>
</coordinates>
</territory>
hatchman wrote:Map Inspect revealed no doors to me...
pikkio wrote:in particular, i thought that if the towers don't start neutral, the +8 bonus of the courts is balanced, cause it's more difficult to hold it (many people to fight in the inner map..)
pikkio wrote:if the towers remain neutrals, conquer and defend the courts are too easy and +8 bonus is too much.
so in my opinion, if we keep the towers neutral we must reduce the courts bonus but if we make the towers starting positions the +8 bonus of the courts is ok.
Mr_Adams wrote:4. Four courts and four towers coded as starting positions
as in the only starting positions? like the castles in feudal?
iancanton wrote:or 5 coded starting neutrals (bridges and castle) if option 4 is chosen.
ian.
MrBenn wrote:The poll is fairly inconclusive at the moment... (as they always seem to be in the foundry )
I'd say to go with what your instinct is telling you.. reduce the bridges to 2 neutrals, and code the castle/4courts as starts. You can always leave the courts bonus as it is for now, and see how it goes after the change...
thenobodies80 wrote:I'm worried about the real power that a +12 bonus could have on the game (bridges and courts), but i have to see how towers will work against courts. Any comments about this?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users