Antarctica [Quenched]

[Evil DIMwit]

Yeah, I think 7 would work better.

[isaiah40]

I don't know. Maybe this map would be quite playable with troops as a scarce resource. But I think it would go very slowly and therefore be boring.

Kind of along the lines I was thinking. We wouldn't want people to be bored playing a map would we??

I discussed this with natty, I was thinking of having neutral 3's on normal territories, 4's on Safe Zones, and 5's on bases and airstrips. I want the progressive neutrals on theses territories to make it a little more challenging. Considering that holding all the bases is the objective, I want those to have the higher neutral count.

[Evil DIMwit]

Considering that holding all the bases is the objective, I want those to have the higher neutral count.

It is? You should really make the objective text more prominent.

[isaiah40]

Considering that holding all the bases is the objective, I want those to have the higher neutral count.

It is? You should really make the objective text more prominent.

NATTY!! You're right I even had to look for it.

[Victor Sullivan]

Considering that holding all the bases is the objective, I want those to have the higher neutral count.

It is? You should really make the objective text more prominent.

NATTY!! You're right I even had to look for it.

Sorry, that is kinda funny, though, gnat. And why did you post another draft and not update the +4 minimum troop bonus and the +3 auto-deploy?? What did you edit?? I think bases should be 6 neutral and airstrips should be 4 with the safe zones, but that's just my fiftieth of a dollar.

-Sully

[natty dread]

Considering that holding all the bases is the objective, I want those to have the higher neutral count.

It is? You should really make the objective text more prominent.

What are you talking about, it's in bright white letters... Don't blame me when you don't read the whole legend

Anyway I'll do something with it for the next update. Meanwhile, Isaiah, the thing I wanted your input on was this:

How about making the minimum territory bonus 4, and increasing the starting point autodeploy to 3? That'd give a total of 7 troops per turn.

[isaiah40]

How about making the minimum territory bonus 4, and increasing the starting point autodeploy to 3? That'd give a total of 7 troops per turn.

That will work I believe.

[Victor Sullivan]

Considering that holding all the bases is the objective, I want those to have the higher neutral count.

It is? You should really make the objective text more prominent.

What are you talking about, it's in bright white letters... Don't blame me when you don't read the whole legend

Anyway I'll do something with it for the next update. Meanwhile, Isaiah, the thing I wanted your input on was this:

How about making the minimum territory bonus 4, and increasing the starting point autodeploy to 3? That'd give a total of 7 troops per turn.

Found it! I think it should still be more obvious though... (the objective, just to clarify).

-Sully's gonna getchu

[natty dread]

v7

Click image to enlarge.

[Victor Sullivan]

Better...

[Industrial Helix]

Is it me or does this gameplay seem incredibly convoluted?

I think its the safe zones and the decay that take it over the edge. Plus there's two types of impassables... mountains and that penguin region. Why is the penguin region impassable again?

I kind of just want a standard gameplay antarctica map, maybe hang on to the south pole thing and the bases.

[Victor Sullivan]

Is it me or does this gameplay seem incredibly convoluted?

I think its the safe zones and the decay that take it over the edge. Plus there's two types of impassables... mountains and that penguin region. Why is the penguin region impassable again?

I kind of just want a standard gameplay antarctica map, maybe hang on to the south pole thing and the bases.

I think the auto-decay is completely called for and it makes 215% sense. If you think it's convoluted, then only drop the safe zones and nothing more.

-Sully

[natty dread]

We're trying something new here. Let's face it, CC already has umpty-zillion standard gameplay maps. What new can another one give, except a new order of territories and continents, and new graphics?

With this map we wanted to experiment with the gameplay more. Create something different. I think we can make it work.

Heck, people said the same thing about Lunar war, and look at it now; people are loving it - not everyone of course, but it certainly has gained a fan base in a short time.

Lastly, there are way more complicated maps in CC, not naming any names, but you probably know which ones I'm talking about - and lots of those maps are also very popular.


Ps. personally I think dropping the safe zones would do more harm than good. But let's see what Isaiah thinks of all this.

[isaiah40]

We're trying something new here. Let's face it, CC already has umpty-zillion standard gameplay maps. What new can another one give, except a new order of territories and continents, and new graphics?

With this map we wanted to experiment with the gameplay more. Create something different. I think we can make it work.

Heck, people said the same thing about Lunar war, and look at it now; people are loving it - not everyone of course, but it certainly has gained a fan base in a short time.

Lastly, there are way more complicated maps in CC, not naming any names, but you probably know which ones I'm talking about - and lots of those maps are also very popular.


Ps. personally I think dropping the safe zones would do more harm than good. But let's see what Isaiah thinks of all this.

I think the auto-decay is completely called for and it makes 215% sense. If you think it's convoluted, then only drop the safe zones and nothing more.

-Sully

As natty stated we wanted to try something unique on a map (besides isn't that we are supposed to do?). The Safe Zones help to offset the killer neutrals a little, just think of these areas like this: You are traveling across the barren wasteland of Antarctica you find something that kind of resembles shelter, and does provide you shelter from the elements of the harsh environment.

So for now the safe zones will stay.

[Industrial Helix]

Well maybe its me but it doesn't appear to be all that original because Age of Realms 2 did the same thing with the frostbite. So this is why, in my mind, I'm not giving away creativity points on the decay.

And the bases and the safe zones, to me, pretty much do the exact same thing in providing shelter from the decay. Though something can be said for the base autodeploy, it's just the safe zones seem a bit redundant. Why waste time and men taking a safe zone when a round or two will give a better shot at a more rewarding base.

[Victor Sullivan]

Well maybe its me but it doesn't appear to be all that original because Age of Realms 2 did the same thing with the frostbite. So this is why, in my mind, I'm not giving away creativity points on the decay.

And the bases and the safe zones, to me, pretty much do the exact same thing in providing shelter from the decay. Though something can be said for the base autodeploy, it's just the safe zones seem a bit redundant. Why waste time and men taking a safe zone when a round or two will give a better shot at a more rewarding base.

They have the bases as having a higher neutral count than the safe zones:

I discussed this with natty, I was thinking of having neutral 3's on normal territories, 4's on Safe Zones, and 5's on bases and airstrips. I want the progressive neutrals on theses territories to make it a little more challenging. Considering that holding all the bases is the objective, I want those to have the higher neutral count.

If you don't think the difference is large enough, they just up the base neutrals to 6 or something, IH. Would that solve the problem for you? And would natty and isaiah get "creativity points" for 86ing the auto-decay? I don't understand why you're being extra critical of this map.

-Sully

[natty dread]

Well maybe its me but it doesn't appear to be all that original because Age of Realms 2 did the same thing with the frostbite. So this is why, in my mind, I'm not giving away creativity points on the decay.

And the bases and the safe zones, to me, pretty much do the exact same thing in providing shelter from the decay. Though something can be said for the base autodeploy, it's just the safe zones seem a bit redundant. Why waste time and men taking a safe zone when a round or two will give a better shot at a more rewarding base.

Oh no, some other map has an all map decay. We better scrap that then. But wait! Oh no, there's another map that has bonus areas and starting points! We better scrap those too. But there's more! There's over 160 maps with territories in them. We better get rid of them too - maybe then we can be called original and creative.

Regardless, I think it's safe to say this map is nothing like AOR2. For one thing, unlike most conquest maps, in this one everyone starts from the center and moves to the edges, not the other way around like other maps.

We could introduce some kind of bonus for the safe zones if that would help with the gameplay? Like +2 for every 2 safe zones or something like that.

[natty dread]

Legend reorganizing & stuff:

Click image to enlarge.

[Industrial Helix]

With this map we wanted to experiment with the gameplay more. Create something different. I think we can make it work.

My comment that this map wasn't terribly original basically stemmed from this argument which natty gave in defense to my comment I think the map is convoluted. I wasn't saying this map isn't original enough, which I think the continent alone secures originality. But now that I think about it, it is a lot like AoR2. The castles are like bases, the safe zones are like the resource areas save for no collection bonus. Frostbite... except you're not starting on bases and you have to capture bases and there is the whole south pole dynamic. I'd say the gameplay isn't original but it uses a successful concept in a different way.

So, that said. I think both bases AND safezones are totally unecessary. The two can be successfully combined and they ought to be combined.

And I'm not trying to be extra critical. I think the gameplay is too bungled up, would you rather I lied?

[natty dread]

You forget that the bases have the function of assaulting the south pole. Thus they are the only way to eliminate other players. So there's already functionality there that separates them from safe zones.

I wouldn't rather you lie, of course I want to hear all opinions, positive or negative. But I'm just saying there are far more complex maps at CC. People who like simpler maps are not forced to play the complex ones, and I don't see any unnecessary complexity in this map - all the elements have a purpose of their own.

[Industrial Helix]

Well, I think if you ditched the safe zones and made the bases more accessible then it would still retain a complex strategy but not a complicated strategy. Even two types of bases would be preferable.

[Victor Sullivan]

Even two types of bases would be preferable.

Hmm... Not a bad compromise (though, IH isn't the mapmaker...) I wonder how you could make them different? Here are some of the characteristics of the current bases:
1. auto-deploy
2. 5 neutrals
3. hold all to win
4. can assault the South Pole
5. (goes without saying) no auto-decay
You could split these traits up, share them, or add new ones to separate the two kinds.

-Sully

[natty dread]

The bases are not supposed to be accessible. You do realize the bases are separate territories from the territories they are on, right?

If we were to convert the safe zones to "another type of base" that would clutter the map with too many territories.

Really, I haven't yet heard a good reason for changing the current system. I don't buy the "it's too complicated" argument... not when there are maps like Cricket and Stalingrad - which both are liked and played by many players.

[Victor Sullivan]

The bases are not supposed to be accessible. You do realize the bases are separate territories from the territories they are on, right?

If we were to convert the safe zones to "another type of base" that would clutter the map with too many territories.

Really, I haven't yet heard a good reason for changing the current system. I don't buy the "it's too complicated" argument... not when there are maps like Cricket and Stalingrad - which both are liked and played by many players.

No offense to them, but I tend to shy away from those kinds of maps, and I think this map make sense and is not complicated at all. Complex, maybe.

[Industrial Helix]

No no, I'm not saying add more bases I'm suggesting divide the existing bases into two groups. Some with South Pole privileges and others which serve as shelters.

Furthermore, no one explained why the penguin shelter area is impassable... can't you just put mountains there? I mean, the penguin is cute and all but I just don't understand why that region is impassable. Is it like a wildlife preserve or something?