New York 1695 v15

[plurple]

I don't think making them drop neutral will make a huge difference.

I think we should probably:

1. Remove the connection between yard A and yard D
2. Remove the connection between yard C and yard B
3. Up the neutral start on the castle.

Which would effectively split the bonus into 3 sections C, D and BA though C and BA connect through the castle.

With those changes I think it would be more balanced and less of an issue if a player drops in the yards

[SoN!c]

I don't think making them drop neutral will make a huge difference.

I think we should probably:

1. Remove the connection between yard A and yard D
2. Remove the connection between yard C and yard B
3. Up the neutral start on the castle.

Which would effectively split the bonus into 3 sections C, D and BA though C and BA connect through the castle.

With those changes I think it would be more balanced and less of an issue if a player drops in the yards

I agree, in my game Game 22895369 one entrance was neutral and the other entrance was held by the opponent. He just needs to defend one entrance. Game is pretty much lost. So the unbalance is the fort and the connections / yard bonus.

The yard itself is a +4 bonus that you can take without having to go through the street. So from the fort you can grab the yard and game over.

A autodeploy of +2 on the fort would be more balanced? (and yes remove the connection between yard A and yard D + between yard C and yard B).

Perhaps the 2 yards that hold an entrance to the fort should be neut aswell?

Then the batteries are too hard to take (2 neuts on wall street and 3 neuts on a battery = 5 neuts and you have to leave a troop on wall street before you can start bombing).
So 2 neuts on the batteries and the batteries can bombarb the fort but the fort cannot bombard back? (no autodeploy on batteries, just the bomb function)
Fort could bombard the harbor and the harbor autodeploy +1 (or +2) because it does not seem to have a function right now?

But still GREAT AWESOME map

[plurple]

I don't think making them drop neutral will make a huge difference.

I think we should probably:

1. Remove the connection between yard A and yard D
2. Remove the connection between yard C and yard B
3. Up the neutral start on the castle.

Which would effectively split the bonus into 3 sections C, D and BA though C and BA connect through the castle.

With those changes I think it would be more balanced and less of an issue if a player drops in the yards

I agree, in my game Game 22895369 one entrance was neutral and the other entrance was held by the opponent. He just needs to defend one entrance. Game is pretty much lost. So the unbalance is the fort and the connections / yard bonus.

The yard itself is a +4 bonus that you can take without having to go through the street. So from the fort you can grab the yard and game over.

A autodeploy of +2 on the fort would be more balanced? (and yes remove the connection between yard A and yard D + between yard C and yard B).

Perhaps the 2 yards that hold an entrance to the fort should be neut aswell?

Then the batteries are too hard to take (2 neuts on wall street and 3 neuts on a battery = 5 neuts and you have to leave a troop on wall street before you can start bombing).
So 2 neuts on the batteries and the batteries can bombarb the fort but the fort cannot bombard back? (no autodeploy on batteries, just the bomb function)
Fort could bombard the harbor and the harbor autodeploy +1 (or +2) because it does not seem to have a function right now?

But still GREAT AWESOME map

Ok I like the feedback but I think I don't want to make all the changes at once will start with splitting up the bonus and see how it feels then. Have asked Shannon to make the art change once that happens will make the xml change and upload to beta for testing.

If it still unbalanced can add some more changes But would rather do it a little at a time

[Minister X]

I just checked and 300 games have been completed. Just via eyeballing, it seems the average game length is about 10 turns, half longer, half shorter. One game went 61 turns but that was a real oddity. Few went more than 20. Many were 7 or less.

Are y'all happy with that? Fixing the Fort and Yards should result in longer games. Using "game finder" to look at finished games on ALL maps, I see that many exceed 20, 30, even 40 turns. I have no idea what might be optimal and so merely bring these stats to your collective attention.

I find it odd that though 300 games have been finished, few players comment here or offer suggestions. It would be useful if they did.

[Shannon Apple]

Those changes you wanted plurple, I'll get them done probably next week. I am just swamped atm. After 23rd Jan, I should have some breathing room.

[plurple]

I just checked and 300 games have been completed. Just via eyeballing, it seems the average game length is about 10 turns, half longer, half shorter. One game went 61 turns but that was a real oddity. Few went more than 20. Many were 7 or less.

Are y'all happy with that? Fixing the Fort and Yards should result in longer games. Using "game finder" to look at finished games on ALL maps, I see that many exceed 20, 30, even 40 turns. I have no idea what might be optimal and so merely bring these stats to your collective attention.

I find it odd that though 300 games have been finished, few players comment here or offer suggestions. It would be useful if they did.

I don't think the length of games in rounds is really all that important, more about not giving a player a big advantage and so games being decided by the drop alone, as it is never fun to be stuck in a game with no real shot of winning.

More user engagement would be good but not a lot can be done about that just need to gather any feedback we can from those engaging with the process.

Those changes you wanted plurple, I'll get them done probably next week. I am just swamped atm. After 23rd Jan, I should have some breathing room.

no worries Shannon just let me know when you have so I can make the xml change and post it to beta

[Minister X]

Eyeballing a bunch of non-fog games it seems that something that's been nagging at me from the beginning has become manifest. The antique base map showed those two little forts north of Wall Street and they look pretty cool. (Other maps show six!) But clearly, based on location and shape, they are meant to be part of the defensive wall protecting against attack from the north. (The Dutch feared the English, rightly as it turned out.) What to do with these outward-facing cannon? Erase and forget about them? Or give them some purpose and value? I chose the latter and said they could bombard the fort. But I realized from the start that they'd rarely be used for that and so their real value would simply be to build up one's tert count. I kept them, if you will, as gimmicks.

Ditto for the maritime connection. The map had a harbor and I couldn't erase it but didn't want it to be irrelevant so I created the connection to a mild-mannered tert on the Hudson River. Has it ever been used in any of the 300+ games that have been played? Surely not often, if at all. I didn't expect it would be. This is just another gimmick. (I had considered including some naval warfare but chucked that idea when the "mean streets" concept occurred to me and seemed intriguing.)

So you have these two somewhat irrelevant features on the map. You might want to consider tweaking things so they become more involved in play. For instance, holding both Batteries could mean a bonus. That would give The Fort more reasons to bombard them (and thus vice-versa).

Holding The Harbor and 2 B'Way B would mean having a chokehold on incoming shipments of food and ammo and whatnot. A small note to that effect and a nice bonus for holding both??

It's in your hands. These are just suggestions. But this is the point in time in game development when tweaks like these are possible and worth considering.

Historical note: just four years after this game's base map was made the substantial wall for which the street is named was demolished because the city had expanded well beyond it.

[SoN!c]

Holding The Harbor and 2 B'Way B would mean having a chokehold on incoming shipments of food and ammo and whatnot. A small note to that effect and a nice bonus for holding both??

.

Yes, i'd like that.! I also like the "gimmick" bombard batteries but they are hard to use and the key part of the map is still the fort (+3 autodeploy) + adjacent yard bonus.. once you hold these firm the game is almost won.

Make the fort + Yard 1 bonus region?

Anyway awesome effort and a great map!

[Tin Trumpet]

just set up a game, and we dropped a bonus. i think i remembered reading you were trying to avoid that. just giving feedback as requested....

[Shannon Apple]

Here are the changes Plurple asked for.

[plurple]

just set up a game, and we dropped a bonus. i think i remembered reading you were trying to avoid that. just giving feedback as requested....

Thanks for letting us know I assume it was 1 of the 3 region bonuses? I will have a look and may make a few regions neutral in the smaller bonuses depending on the number of regions in my xml change over the weekend

[plurple]

Here are the changes Plurple asked for.

much appreciated Shannon I will make some xml changes and get it onto beta this weekend for the change to get live asap

[Tin Trumpet]

looks like we lost the game anyway, so it wasnt a killer!

just set up a game, and we dropped a bonus. i think i remembered reading you were trying to avoid that. just giving feedback as requested....

Thanks for letting us know I assume it was 1 of the 3 region bonuses? I will have a look and may make a few regions neutral in the smaller bonuses depending on the number of regions in my xml change over the weekend

[plurple]

ok so after a short delay I have made the xml changes and put them on beta. I have a few games up if anyone is able to go over there and join to test.

The changes:
- Have reduced the batteries to 1 neutrals from 3 each.
- Have upped the Fort to 8 neutrals from 5.
- Have removed the connection between yard A and yard D.
- Have removed the connection between yard B and yard C.
- Have made Four B'way A, Five King St B and One Whitehall C start as Neutral 3 to reduce the starting with a bonus to a minimum. Which also makes the number of region that are handed out 44 which is a better number as is a golden number

New York 1695 v1506.xml

(22.42 KiB) Downloaded 84 times

[Votanic]

ok so after a short delay I have made the xml changes and put them on beta. I have a few games up if anyone is able to go over there and join to test.

The changes:
- Have reduced the batteries to 1 neutrals from 3 each.
- Have upped the Fort to 8 neutrals from 5.
- Have removed the connection between yard A and yard D.
- Have removed the connection between yard B and yard C.
- Have made Four B'way A, Five King St B and One Whitehall C start as Neutral 3 to reduce the starting with a bonus to a minimum. Which also makes the number of region that are handed out 44 which is a better number as is a golden number

New York 1695 v1506.xml

In what sense is 44 a golden number?
It's not part of the Fibonacci seqence.
44 can be a component of the golden ratio, but so can any number.

[plurple]

ok so after a short delay I have made the xml changes and put them on beta. I have a few games up if anyone is able to go over there and join to test.

The changes:
- Have reduced the batteries to 1 neutrals from 3 each.
- Have upped the Fort to 8 neutrals from 5.
- Have removed the connection between yard A and yard D.
- Have removed the connection between yard B and yard C.
- Have made Four B'way A, Five King St B and One Whitehall C start as Neutral 3 to reduce the starting with a bonus to a minimum. Which also makes the number of region that are handed out 44 which is a better number as is a golden number

New York 1695 v1506.xml

In what sense is 44 a golden number?
It's not part of the Fibonacci seqence.
44 can be a component of the golden ratio, but so can any number.

Golden numbers for mapmakers with 3 troop reinforcements:

show: Territory counts

[Minister X]

Golden number. Excellent. Quite a bold set of changes to reduce the fort's importance. Just be alert to it becoming irrelevant. Eight may be too many. Testing will hopefully show one way or the other rather quickly.

I'm looking at your game #21275637. A few minor suggestions:
1) "The Fort" is not identified in the inset map. It's mentioned in the blurb and it's pretty obvious what it is, but should be labeled. It's labeled on older maps.
2) See those little ships in the harbor? Consider copying and pasting one over to the waters next to the other port tert.
3) Neutral 3 in the Harbor makes little sense and requires a special few words in the blurb. Maybe simplify it to 2 like all other "streets"?

And finally a wild idea which may or may not be possible via XML: if you own the fort and both batteries you can then bombard ANYTHING!

[plurple]

Golden number. Excellent. Quite a bold set of changes to reduce the fort's importance. Just be alert to it becoming irrelevant. Eight may be too many. Testing will hopefully show one way or the other rather quickly.

I'm looking at your game #21275637. A few minor suggestions:
1) "The Fort" is not identified in the inset map. It's mentioned in the blurb and it's pretty obvious what it is, but should be labeled. It's labeled on older maps.
2) See those little ships in the harbor? Consider copying and pasting one over to the waters next to the other port tert.
3) Neutral 3 in the Harbor makes little sense and requires a special few words in the blurb. Maybe simplify it to 2 like all other "streets"?

And finally a wild idea which may or may not be possible via XML: if you own the fort and both batteries you can then bombard ANYTHING!

1) just checked it is labeled on the small not the large so will ask Shannon about it
2/3) Yeah I think you may be right and the harbour is wierd that it isn't like the other streets.

Yeah the changes may be to much but we will see

And conditional bombardments I don't think are programmed into the xml from looking at the schema, so would need an addition from BigWham to work.

[Fuchsia tude]

The text has a nice glow on the big map. That helps keep it legible at these small pixel sizes. But considering text is even smaller on the small map, it should definitely have that glow there as well...

[uckuki]

I like playing the map,
thank you for the effort.

[Shannon Apple]

The text has a nice glow on the big map. That helps keep it legible at these small pixel sizes. But considering text is even smaller on the small map, it should definitely have that glow there as well...

I'm aware that there is some cosmetic tidying up to do on the small map. I edited it very quickly to get it up to date with the gameplay changes made to the big map. I'll fix it during the week. Have a lot happening IRL and have my Adobe software on a different computer than the one I use daily. (I'd have to pay a subscription to Adobe to use the software on the new machine. They lock you in for 12 months on a student sub - assholes lol)

[Pirlo]

I don't know if this was mentioned in the thread, but I think it would be better if the streets didn't revert. In trench, it's almost impossible to have your bonuses trenched. To get a bonus, sometimes you have to cross multiple streets, which makes it hard to have it. I return, it should be easier to hold such a bonus. When I play the map in trench, it doesn't feel like trench because you can access almost all territories in a single turn.

I like the map by the way, and have already played quite a few games on it - both trench and non-trench, but it really doesn't function well for trench.

[plurple]

I don't know if this was mentioned in the thread, but I think it would be better if the streets didn't revert. In trench, it's almost impossible to have your bonuses trenched. To get a bonus, sometimes you have to cross multiple streets, which makes it hard to have it. I return, it should be easier to hold such a bonus. When I play the map in trench, it doesn't feel like trench because you can access almost all territories in a single turn.

I like the map by the way, and have already played quite a few games on it - both trench and non-trench, but it really doesn't function well for trench.

I have not played it on trench as not a huge fan of that setting. It has been discussed a little but the street reverting is this maps unique feature and without it would be a lot like most of the other maps. Do you have any suggestions of what the streets should do instead to keep the dangerousness?

[Pirlo]

I don't know if this was mentioned in the thread, but I think it would be better if the streets didn't revert. In trench, it's almost impossible to have your bonuses trenched. To get a bonus, sometimes you have to cross multiple streets, which makes it hard to have it. In return, it should be easier to hold such a bonus. When I play the map in trench, it doesn't feel like trench because you can access almost all territories in a single turn.

I like the map by the way, and have already played quite a few games on it - both trench and non-trench, but it really doesn't function well for trench.

I have not played it on trench as not a huge fan of that setting. It has been discussed a little but the street reverting is this maps unique feature and without it would be a lot like most of the other maps. Do you have any suggestions of what the streets should do instead to keep the dangerousness?

Maybe lose 1 troop every round? Just like deserts in Oasis map. It's kinda unplayable on trench because you don't have to keep an eye on potentially trenchable regions / bonuses. There are always streets that allow you to go two steps away. I'm not solid about the losing 1 troops per round though. I think the main problem with this map is the lack of 'internal access' within the same block. For example, if you want to work on a bonus like Five B'Way, you will have to cross three streets because A, B, C and D cannot access each other internally.

another idea/suggestion is to make sidewalks that do not revert, and the streets will still revert to keep the map unique. I'm not sure if it's better to make those suggested sidewalks start a neutrals though. To be honest, I don't know if this is possible/doable because it may require too much effort, señor Plurple.

[Minister X]

Is it not true that as more features are added to XML and as the taste in maps evolves more toward the complex, that making an "acceptable" map that is eminently playable under ALL possible combinations of options becomes extremely difficult if not nearly impossible? I've offered any number of simpler maps than this but those who know the CC players best thought this one had the most potential, in part, I suspect, because of the unusual rules.

If the trench problem is unsolvable those in charge must decide whether all maps must satisfy all tastes in rules or not. I suppose a warning could be added to this map: "Warning: play with trench rules at your own risk."

PS: I know of no way to solve the trench problem but I understand little about trench games.