WWII Pearl Harbor - [Quenched]

[cairnswk]

Why is the map closed?

It will be re-launched with slightly different plane bonus on 7 Dec. so that the plane bonus avoids a large advantage on the drop.
This has been requested by many players, but i can say that if is not successful, i am willing to change it back to the original after an appropriate amount of played games.

[Mr_Adams]

I was actualy going to go join one of these games... and the thing said "closed" on game finder! so, tommorow it comes back? cool.

[cairnswk]

4 games still in play when it changed over, and only one of those was a tournie.
Nice going, thanks to MrBenn,
We'll see what all the little elves have to say about this change.

[Aalmeida17]

i hate this map , to many start bonus

[captainwalrus]

I once saw someone start off the game by getting 12 troops a turn while I was only getting 3. That is hardly balanced. It needed to be changed.

Making a 2 or 3 player game on a large map that has many continent bonuses in play is the real problem there, not the map itself.

It was a 4 player game, the one person just beat all of us. Maps should try to be as balanced as possible for all settings though, not just 8 player games.

I wanted to see this game, so I took a look at your game records,

According to the list, you've only played 2 Pearl Harbor games, one a doubles with 6 people, January of 2008, and one with 6 people in Nov 2007.

What's up with that?

This map is fantastic as is- please do a poll before the change- I think you'll see the haters are in the minority.

I got some of the details messed up, but in game Game 1195760 one person started deploying 8, one deploying 12, and a few deploying 4. That was unbalanced. Now it is not umbalanced

[nudge]

I always liked this map as it was... it reflected the power the japanese had from the sky and the key to winning was holding and taking the planes.

I think that should be the intention of the maps that are based on history.. the advantages during game play should be as per the historic event. Now the player that holds the AAs will have the advantages... not quite how it really happened.

Oh well thats my two pennies worth on this...

Will still play it to see if noticeably different

[jman10012]

Yeah. I actually live in Ewa Beach. Ask me a question about Pearl Harbor and i can answer it. Except for names. No naming ships and things. BUt i cant believe it just passed December 7th and i didnt even realise it. And i agree with the post above. There should be a little more airpower for the Japanese aircraft. And about 8 American aircraft did get off the ground, now thats not a lot but it might be worth something to add there since its still in Beta.

[cairnswk]

Yeah. I actually live in Ewa Beach. Ask me a question about Pearl Harbor and i can answer it. Except for names. No naming ships and things. BUt i cant believe it just passed December 7th and i didnt even realise it. And i agree with the post above. There should be a little more airpower for the Japanese aircraft. And about 8 American aircraft did get off the ground, now thats not a lot but it might be worth something to add there since its still in Beta.

jman10012... thanks for your comments, but this is the second time in BETA for this map, and it's only there while the new bonus for aircraft is played out for a while.
The American aircraft were largely ineffective in this battle, i had considered it is the initial devlopment two years ago, but it wasn't worthwhile. Besides, where you you put them on this map, it is crowded enough already.
The japanese aircraft did have more airpower in the previous version but too mamny players complained of an unfair drop in 1v1 and other smaller games.
So for now the map will likely remain as is.

[legionbuck]

3 planes should be 2 bonus troops !!!!!

[4red]

yep. new map sucks

[cairnswk]

3 planes should be 2 bonus troops !!!!!

yep. new map sucks

care to expand on why you guys think that

[Keredrex]

got to agree with some people here.. it was great as it was. we mostly played a 2 vs. 2 because of the map just like certain maps lend themselves to certain game types better than others.

but if you are gonna change it Why not continue the scale of bonuses for the planes.
+1 any 2 aircraft, +2 any 3, +3 any 4, etc.
or maybe make every plane a +1 you can always scale other bonuses to reflect this change in the planes

[aspalm]

first reaction:
as predicted (and I am writing this mid-game, so I'm not biased based on win or lose), both teams in a quads game are simply going for AA's. No one is even attempting to take any other bonus- especially the planes. Whoever controls the AA's controls half the board, and there's no way to get a plane bonus without being subject to attack from AA's.

perhaps the changes make it a better board for 1v1, but aren't there plenty of other boards out there? why ruin a great trips/quads board just because it's less than ideal for 1v1. I just don't get it.

I predict once everyone tries the map for a month or two, utilization will plummet.

[Knight2254]

I play this map quite a bit as well and have had great success. As far as imbalanced -- I'm not so sure it is. Sometimes, but not everytime. I'm 16 for 19 with a rating of "equalitarian." If you exclude the 8 player free for all I just finished I'm 16 for 18 in team games so there must be something I do differently than everybody else because certainly I've had more than 2 "bad drops" yet I maintained a 88+% win percentage.

I could get on board with lessening the bonus, but the way you're doing it you are making the AA guns WAY too valuable. Now it's going to be very difficult to get a bonus aside from the AA guns so whoever gets those will simply reinforce those every turn and be able to shoot down enough planes to eliminate the plane bonuses.

If we do anything I think we should reduce the bonuses as suggested previously -- Something like +1 for 2, +2 for 3, +3 for 3. This would allow you, if you did not get the AA bonuses (then you're probably loaded with planes), to have a fighting chance.

Hate to say it... but I told you so.

[seekmeup41]

Ok, I agree that the map needed some revision as it gave first player too much advantage, but this revision have made the planes virtually useless; I am sure others have made the same comment. I suggest a subtle change. If you own X number of the same planes, you get a bonus of:

2 Planes: +1 bonus
3 Planes: +2 bonus
4 planes: +3 bonus
All of same planes: keep bonus as it used to be.

I have played several games of this revision. The upside is that I have never been dropped a bonus of more than 12 so it makes more of a challenge (I was once dropped a bonus of 22 in the previous version). But in only 1 of about 5 games did either player secure a planes bonus (4 of same plane) when the game was still undecided. I say either make another revision or go back to the old version; at least we knew what we were getting into with potential drops of +20 and that has its own unique appeal which can't be found on most other maps.

[Keredrex]

looks to me like most people agree with the last 3 posts... 2 planes +1, 3 Planes +2, etc. etc. can we get a version with this and get some play testing?

[jman10012]

I like the map but its not one of those thrill maps where things get very interesting. Like WW2 Europe.

[Absolute]

The new version of this map blows. I loved Pearl harbor as it was. Although the drop was crucial, it made things interesting. The new rules make it virtually impossible to hold a plane bonus the way the map is laid out. I do not intend on playing this again in its current state.

[king sam]

I haven't played on the new "improved" version, and don't really plan to but for the sake of putting my voice on the list I also look at the changes and feel the power has shifted too much towards gaining and controlling the AA's.

I'm a creature of habit and would tend to say I liked it the way it was, it was a very exciting map to play, and without mapranking myself I can presumably say I held my own on it. I don't feel there was too much of an injustice on the old drop, you could always battle back from it, but I also didn't play 1 vs's 1's on it.

I would say go back to old or take the suggestion of the plane bonuses above, it might help even out the board and the AA involvement.

Good Luck & Nice Job Overall (Love the original)

KS

[natty dread]

The new rules make it virtually impossible to hold a plane bonus the way the map is laid out.

Game 6067569

O rly?

[cairnswk]

The new rules make it virtually impossible to hold a plane bonus the way the map is laid out.

Game 6067569

O rly?

I is witching the dishcusshhion on theseses map....

I sink that eferyone is refereering to the drop of the Vats and kats and spats planes natty

[Steiner75]

After about 250 games on the "old" version and about 20 on the "new" version, I must conclude that the "old" version made for much better gameplay!

The problem of "concentrated" is not really an issue when playing trips or quad games. Yes, it was (and still is not, even with the revisions) a good map for 2 player single or 2 party double games, but there are heaps of other maps around for that kind of play.

As for the suggestions:

2) Preferred Option: go back to the old map!

2) Alternative, if changes required, then I concurr with the above mentioned idea of
2 Planes = 1 bonus
3 Planes = 2 bonus
etc.

Alternatively one could keep the 2 Planes = 3 Bonus, but have the planes start as neutrals with a value of 1.

[the.killing.44]

The new rules make it virtually impossible to hold a plane bonus the way the map is laid out.

Game 6067569

O rly?

I is witching the dishcusshhion on theseses map....

I sink that eferyone is refereering to the drop of the Vats and kats and spats planes natty

Drunk, cairns?

[cairnswk]

The new rules make it virtually impossible to hold a plane bonus the way the map is laid out.

Game 6067569

O rly?

I is witching the dishcusshhion on theseses map....

I sink that eferyone is refereering to the drop of the Vats and kats and spats planes natty

Drunk, cairns?

I was a little when i wrote that,,,so i played on it....

[natty dread]

post deleted.