Geometry: Hexagon [Version 1.4]

[plurple]

Map Name: Geometry: Hexagon
Mapmaker(s): Plurple
Number of Territories: 91
Special Features: Transforms
What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made:
New maps and a display of how transforms work! Each territory will look at it's neighbours gain 1 for each friendly neighbour and loses 1 for each enemy neighbour. In team games your teammates will count as friendly and non teammates will be enemies and the same for poly games.

I have also set up starting positions so that you won't get any regions on the edge and will limit you to getting 25 regions in 2 player etc. 25,19,14,11,9,8,7,6,5,5,4 for each number of players. Currently a bug with 1vs1 where 1 player will get 25 regions and 1 will get 24 more info regarding this is welcome

To negate going first advantage all player regions will start as 1's then the adjacency transforms happen and then all regions that are still 1's will be set to 3. So this will make the first players regions start with between 2 and 7 and everyone else's will be on 3's

Map Image:

Version 1.4 Neutrals

Click image to enlarge.

Version 1.4

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Version 1.3

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Version 1.1

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Version 1

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

XML:

[plurple]

Saved for updates.

Update 1:
Ok looks like I will need to add the start transform to the map key somehow basically on turn 1 all players regions will be 1's player 1 will then get the bonuses added to their territories based on friendly neighbours. Then any player territory that is still a 1 will be set to 3. TODO: Add this to the key on the map. As well as this it can be very unbalanced at times so going to take another look at reducing the change per territory. If I can figure that out might be able to remove the start transform.

Release Update:
This is probably my favourite of the 4 geometry maps Though I am thinking that maybe the outside ring of territories is unnecessary It may also be better to cap the amount added or subtracted to each territory the original plan was 3 to -3 but was a mess to code into the xml but I can have another look if it is felt to be to much I am looking for feedback on how the map plays and make adjustments to the balance or the graphics as it comes in Also this is the one most likely to have a mistake in the coding as it has 182 transforms that need to reference the territories by their number index not name and so I probably have messed up somewhere

[Iron Maid]

Thanks for creating new maps.

As you might know I like to play all maps for cross-mapping, but personally I'm not keen on playing maps that are non-geographical or non-historical. And I have a feeling that a lot of players have the same. Maps like Pi-School (although it has some nice features), Chinese Checkers, Conquer 4, Knights, Conquer Man and Hive don't trigger me.

What I like is that you introduce the feature of transforms, which I think brings a nice new dimension in gameplay.

Maybe it is an idea to create a poll to ask what people want to see in a new map:
1 - Do you want to play these Geometry maps? (Which for me would be a No)
2 - Do you want to see the feature of Transforms? (Which for me would be a Yes)

Hopefully this input is useful for you.

[plurple]

Thanks for creating new maps.

As you might know I like to play all maps for cross-mapping, but personally I'm not keen on playing maps that are non-geographical or non-historical. And I have a feeling that a lot of players have the same. Maps like Pi-School (although it has some nice features), Chinese Checkers, Conquer 4, Knights, Conquer Man and Hive don't trigger me.

What I like is that you introduce the feature of transforms, which I think brings a nice new dimension in gameplay.

Maybe it is an idea to create a poll to ask what people want to see in a new map:
1 - Do you want to play these Geometry maps? (Which for me would be a No)
2 - Do you want to see the feature of Transforms? (Which for me would be a Yes)

Hopefully this input is useful for you.

Thanks for the feedback I chose the simple geometric shapes as not much of an artist and so was easy for me to produce. I didn't even think about that making them unappealing as I personally don't care what the theme of the map, am happy to try anything And then how they play making them fun or not for me. I am curious if others feel the same as you do I think a lot of the time geographic and historical battles are easy things to base a map on.

But if we were to take one of the non geographically inspired maps 4 star meats it doesn't really play that different to a geographical map. it could just as easily have been slapped onto America or Europe and the star and special offer territory being a plane and boat to explain the non contiguous borders. In fact it not being another country map makes it stand out from the crowd

I do hope that you will give them a go at least before you write them off entirely

[SoN!c]

I love the transforming part. It's fun and addictive!

I only think the map is too small to counter the advantage of going first. Going first is huge. If played well and on normal dice the opponent needs to trail the entire game (without much chance of winning).

If this map was a lot bigger - like 3 more "outer rings" - that advantage would be way less? Or the first 2-3 opening rounds the deploy should be limited, like max 3.

Also a win con would be nice - like holding a hexagon in the center.

But absolutely loving it.

[plurple]

I love the transforming part. It's fun and addictive!

I only think the map is too small to counter the advantage of going first. Going first is huge. If played well and on normal dice the opponent needs to trail the entire game (without much chance of winning).

If this map was a lot bigger - like 3 more "outer rings" - that advantage would be way less? Or the first 2-3 opening rounds the deploy should be limited, like max 3.

Also a win con would be nice - like holding a hexagon in the center.

But absolutely loving it.

I already think the map is to large at 91 territories adding 3 more rings would be 144 more territories :O

There is meant to be a transform before the game that sets opponents regions to 3 and yours to 2 if not transformed by surrounding territories but round 1 transforms are a bit broken

[Mageplunka69]

in please

[Swimmerdude99]

Thanks for creating new maps.

As you might know I like to play all maps for cross-mapping, but personally I'm not keen on playing maps that are non-geographical or non-historical. And I have a feeling that a lot of players have the same. Maps like Pi-School (although it has some nice features), Chinese Checkers, Conquer 4, Knights, Conquer Man and Hive don't trigger me.

What's funny is as a board game nerd, some of my favorite concepts are abstract and not geographical/realistic at all - some of them are, however.
- Photosynthesis is a cool game/theme that comes from an idea/concept in life, rather than a location or fantasy world
- Adding a theme to these like some kind of alchemy equation might be a cool addition, but geometric shapes turn me on - so I love it. (oops )

[Swimmerdude99]

Balancing transforms seems very difficult on such a wide scale - having it on small sections/strategic nuetrals on a map will DEFINITELY be an much desired addition.

To that end if there was someway to code it so you never started with any adjacent, and that was part of the calculations - finding the right neutrals to push, etc could be very neat. but that would require some sort of base deploy. Is there a base deploy of 3 on the map, or just a straight 1 for each 6? It still seems there is base deploy as per normal?

In response to Son!cs idea - I think making the map larger actually makes first turn matter even more - you steam roll more and have more chances of adjacency on drop without some sort of coding to prevent/limit it. I think the size should only shrink, if it is going to go some way, and not have coded nuetrals?

Also does [1/2] mean .5? or it can lose 1 and loses 2 more if a second is adjacent? I'm not understanding the legend (similar issues i mentioned on the triangles map, which I love!

[plurple]

Balancing transforms seems very difficult on such a wide scale - having it on small sections/strategic nuetrals on a map will DEFINITELY be an much desired addition.

To that end if there was someway to code it so you never started with any adjacent, and that was part of the calculations - finding the right neutrals to push, etc could be very neat. but that would require some sort of base deploy. Is there a base deploy of 3 on the map, or just a straight 1 for each 6? It still seems there is base deploy as per normal?

There is a base 3 at the moment as i didn't think about it not sure if that should change...

In response to Son!cs idea - I think making the map larger actually makes first turn matter even more - you steam roll more and have more chances of adjacency on drop without some sort of coding to prevent/limit it. I think the size should only shrink, if it is going to go some way, and not have coded nuetrals?

There is some coding to prevent excessive dropping next to your own territories I will have to make the example of which regions are neutral. but yeah I do think the map might be too large I also think it suffers at the moment of all the troops being auto deployed far from where they are needed which slows the game down though I am not sure how to fix or if I just redesign it to how sonic mentioned to me in a dm to make it a conquest map but not sure I will need to play a few more games to be sure.

Also does [1/2] mean .5? or it can lose 1 and loses 2 more if a second is adjacent? I'm not understanding the legend (similar issues i mentioned on the triangles map, which I love!

yes it means 0.5 I should change it to decimal. Each territory losses and gains between -3 and 3: if 1 enemy lose 1, if 2 lose 1, if 3 lose 2, if 4 lose 2 if 5 lose 3 if all 6 lose 3 and the inverse for your own territories

[Swimmerdude99]

That makes sense - based on explanation then, maybe mention "rounded up to the nearest gain, or rounded down to the nearesst loss"? (since it sounds like a net 1 enemy territory or net friendly will have affect on the territory's growth.

[plurple]

made a few changes for version 1.4:
Switched 1/2 for +0.5 and -0.5
attempted to make it clear that t is a rounded amount added or lost for each territory

Here are the starting neutrals:

[Swimmerdude99]

Thank you! This is easier to read, hope to try I out sometime!