1944 Operation Overlord V8

[t-o-m]

Thanks Gilligan for your comment + Ian for your suggestion - I will try that.

Any feedback for the GP stamp?

[iancanton]

the first step is to ensure that the game engine can actually cope with the intended gameplay by testing it on the beta site. if not, then u'll have to remove the likely culprits one by one till u have something which results in a game starting successfully. we also need a small map image to check that it's actually playable at that size, otherwise major gameplay changes are forced.

the capital cities bonus appears to be far too small to be worth defending, especially with the -2 decay. i suspect they won't see any action at all unless u increase the bonus from +1 to +5 per complete square and remove the decay.

do u intend for this to be a conquest-type map, so that a player starts from only one side of the water?

ian.

[Gilligan]

do you still need assistance? but doesn't GP need to be stamped to avoid major overhauls of XML to avoid more work?

Hey Gilligan! Yes I still need assistance with XML! I believe you are correct, the GP stamp is necessary before XML for the reason you stated.

while the gp stamp is needed before the xml stamp, this does not prevent u from testing the xml on the beta site.

it seems that the map inspect tool works more reliably with smaller xml files. my specific suggestion here is to cut the map in half temporarily and use only the left side, eliminating all xml references to any region on the right side. obviously, keep a copy of the full xml before u do this. if the xml doesn't work, then remove the transform and try again.

ian.

that is my worry. i don't want to have to redo it many times just for the beta site and never see it live. whodunnit was in beta site for so long never to see light of day. i also have to check if i still have the program for finding coordinates......i may not any more.

[t-o-m]

Thanks for the comments. I plan to work on them next week when work is quieter.

[Fuchsia tude]

do you still need assistance? but doesn't GP need to be stamped to avoid major overhauls of XML to avoid more work?

Hey Gilligan! Yes I still need assistance with XML! I believe you are correct, the GP stamp is necessary before XML for the reason you stated.

while the gp stamp is needed before the xml stamp, this does not prevent u from testing the xml on the beta site.

it seems that the map inspect tool works more reliably with smaller xml files. my specific suggestion here is to cut the map in half temporarily and use only the left side, eliminating all xml references to any region on the right side. obviously, keep a copy of the full xml before u do this. if the xml doesn't work, then remove the transform and try again.

ian.

that is my worry. i don't want to have to redo it many times just for the beta site and never see it live. whodunnit was in beta site for so long never to see light of day. i also have to check if i still have the program for finding coordinates......i may not any more.

To be fair, the creator of whodunnit has said recently he's not sure what changes he wants to make to it. It's not an administrative holdup there, I don't believe.

[t-o-m]

To be fair, the creator of whodunnit has said recently he's not sure what changes he wants to make to it. It's not an administrative holdup there, I don't believe.

Hi, thank you for your comment. You give me hope

[iAmCaffeine]

It's nice to see how far this map has come since I was last posting here. I've got a few points to raise:

1. Are basic regions not owned by a player going to begin as a neutral three? Deploying 4 with the possibility of making that 8 after one turn, nearly every game, seems a little first turn sided.

2. Will it be coded so a player cannot control all regions within a square from drop alone? Again, looking for a balanced game from the drop.

3. I find it hard to distinguish what qualifies as a battleship and what doesn't based on the legend. I assume it can't be all the silver ships because +3 for one of those just seems ridiculous.

4. What will the starting neutral numbers for towns, tanks, artillery and battleships be?

5. I find it rather heard to discern the separate regions on the beaches in I and J.

6. Some squares only have three regions (M and Y), whereas others have five (T and Z), but they both give the same bonus for holding the entire square. What's the reasoning behind that?

7. Do all the boats start neutral?

[t-o-m]

...

1. I don’t know if it’s possible for randomly-selected naturals to start +/- 3… if it was possible, what do you suggest? Perhaps every region, including player starts, could start with 4 troops?

2. I'm open to having a starting neutral in each square. On the map, there are only 8 squares out of 36 without any special region (town, airfield, decay, etc.) – those would start neutral regardless. So it's just a small adjustment.

3. You're absolutely right – that's a great point. At the moment, battleships have a yellow outline around them, whereas the other ships don't. It isn't clear enough.

4. I will have a think about this.

5. As same with the battleships, you’re absolutely right. I will make this clear.

6. Good point, it’s an oversight. I suppose when you work on something for a while you lose sight of what’s right in front of you. That should be balanced out.

7. Only the battleships start neutral. Boats are just like other standard land regions. I think this is fine, what do you think?

Thanks iAmCaffeine for your highly constructive feedback. It may or may not be clear that I’ve been busy with real life in the past year, but I don’t give up on things. This will get finished. And it’s also down to the sustained feedback and support that I continue to receive from you and others in the foundry. Thank you. I mean that.

[iAmCaffeine]

1. I believe it's entirely possible to allocate starting troop numbers for neutral regions. I don't really see the point in making all of them 4 if player controlled regions also start at 4. I think having them start at 3 should work well enough.

2. That's good. Nothing worse than a fun map being ruined by bonuses in the drop.

3. Okay, I did wonder if it was just those three, but wasn't entirely sure.

4. Considering things like parachutes and reinforcements are in the same square, I think special regions should start with a 4 or 5 neutral.

5. Cool. It should only need a little tweak.

6. Aye, I did think it was strange.

7. I agree, no worries.

I remember commenting on this map not long after you first made the thread, then kinda ducked out with the constant futile arguing about which way around the map should be. Now things are coming along I'd like to see this make beta.

[iancanton]

1. Are basic regions not owned by a player going to begin as a neutral three? Deploying 4 with the possibility of making that 8 after one turn, nearly every game, seems a little first turn sided.

1. I don’t know if it’s possible for randomly-selected naturals to start +/- 3… if it was possible, what do you suggest? Perhaps every region, including player starts, could start with 4 troops?

1. I believe it's entirely possible to allocate starting troop numbers for neutral regions. I don't really see the point in making all of them 4 if player controlled regions also start at 4. I think having them start at 3 should work well enough.

1. although u can code starting neutrals with a number of troops that isn't 3, this is not possible with random neutrals; letting all non-neutral regions start with 4 troops makes things worse by increasing the first player's advantage in 1v1 games to unacceptable levels, since he can simply use his troops to attack with 3 dice wherever he borders his opponent.

ian.

[iAmCaffeine]

Yeah, I agree just starting them at 3 is the best way. Thanks for clarifying.

[iancanton]

t-o-m, since photobucket has started to block free forum access to images hosted on its servers, u'll either have to pay to let us see the map images or, preferably, find another site to host them.

ian.

[t-o-m]

t-o-m, since photobucket has started to block free forum access to images hosted on its servers, u'll either have to pay to let us see the map images or, preferably, find another site to host them.

ian.

Thanks for the heads up, Ian. I'll get it sorted.

I can't believe how quickly time is going by. As I keep saying, this is still on my to-do list!

[iancanton]

looking again at the last visible map image, it strikes me that the gameplay, while packed with features, is missing something rather obvious: ships are currently the same as land in all respects, even though they are visually completely different.

my specific suggestion here is that ships can conditionally assault land, but only if they are supported by a chain of friendly troops to any land region, to simulate invasion, for example battleship martinez can assault ship savoy and ship nimrod and can conditionally assault land magnet if the same player holds martinez plus, for example, ship savoy and land salem.

is something like this feasible, either additional to or instead of the paratroop bonus, or too difficult to explain pictorially in the legend?

an alternative is for there to be conditional assaults from ship to land only if supported by an airfield on the opposite side of the water from the land being attacked (instead of by a chain of friendly troops), which is more in line with ur existing airfield bonuses.

ian.

[t-o-m]

Thanks to all for your continued support. I've finally found the time to make an update... apologies for taking such a long time. I've moved countries and started a new job – I hope they're good enough excuses.


Version 7

Click image to enlarge.

https://i.imgur.com/cfcS2wc.png

Changelog:
V7 (gameplay + graphical changes)

• Designed a device to hold the region name and troop count
• Designed a ship icon. The previous photographic-style ships didn’t fit with the theme of the rest of the map – tanks, paratroopers, etc. are icons. Ships should be too.
• Made beach regions on [I] and [J] squares clearer as per
• Fixed ‘Indigo’ typo
• Made Artillery bombardments clearer through colour-coordination
• Added another region to [M] and [Y] squares so that all squares have minimum four regions
• Added attack line from ship Savoy to Yankee and from Vaughan to Verona which should help reduce bottlenecks and promote movement around the map
• Replaced ship attack line graphics
• Added 3 towns (Cactus, Fricton & Duckhole) – this serves two purposes: adds some easy goals to the map (and they’re quite ineffectual bonuses, +1 autodeploy), and adds a neutral region to those squares. Also changed the town’s colours from purple as the ships are now purple
• Redesigned capital cities
• Made grid darker
• Redesigned Town appearance
• Put a starting neutral in each square
• Re-arranged ‘How To’ items (still needs work)

To-do

• Add title to the map & improve 'how-to' section
• Create small map
• Review all bonuses – are capital cities worth it?
• Add subtle grunge texture to map
• What do you think?

ships are currently the same as land in all respects, even though they are visually completely different.

my specific suggestion here is that ships can conditionally assault land, but only if they are supported by a chain of friendly troops to any land region, to simulate invasion, for example battleship martinez can assault ship savoy and ship nimrod and can conditionally assault land magnet if the same player holds martinez plus, for example, ship savoy and land salem.

is something like this feasible, either additional to or instead of the paratroop bonus, or too difficult to explain pictorially in the legend?

Interesting suggestion, Ian – you're right in that they're pretty much the same as land regions. Your concept would be a lot of fun and would add another dimension to the gameplay, but I wonder if things would indeed get a little complex as you mentioned. For now I think I'm happy with the way it is, but I'm always open to ideas.



Here is Version 6 for reference:

Click image to enlarge.

If people want older versions uploaded, I can do that.



Thanks again for all your support.

Tom

[Robespierre__]

I should think Ian's idea could easily be logged in the legend with something like "All ships in a landing zone must be held for an amphibious assault to occur"

[t-o-m]

Hey Robespierre, thanks for your comment!

That's certainly a clear way of articulating Ian's idea. I think that overall there are currently lots of different dimensions to the map, and I feel that adding another element will make the map more complicated while not adding an appropriate level of enjoyment - i.e. the frustration would outweigh the fun. What do you think?

[Bruceswar]

this is looking sweet... keep going

[t-o-m]

Cheers Bruce.

Slow progress but progress all the same. We'll get there in the end.

[iancanton]

merry xmas, t-o-m!

before going any further, do a small map image quickly for size, to check that full-size troop counts will fit properly on it without obscuring vital text or falling off the right-hand edge. if not, then u might have to cut the number on regions on the large map.

to avoid confusion with real places in the uk and france, remove the following real uk and french place names and replace them by code names that are not real uk or french place names: boston, ermont, granby, newmarket, picardy, reims and danbury.

the troop counts for felix, lever and danbury are too close to the right-hand edge of the map. move them to the left, so that digits do not disappear if players start to build large stacks.

we still need a gameplay differentiator between land and sea, otherwise there is no sense of seaborne invasion. i suggest that battleships and normal ships start as neutral n5 and n1 respectively, while both have -1 decay to simulate the vulnerability of seaborne troops to both enemy actions and bad weather.

the no-go zones, which have -1 decay, ought to start as neutral n1, to be fair to all players.

the tanks and battleships are worth +3 for going through 5 neutrals, which is a good bonus. in contrast, no sensible player will go through 10 neutrals to take london and paris for a +1 bonus per complete square held, when it's likely that the number of complete squares held is 0, 1 or 2.

on such an open map, the +1 auto-deploy towns need to start as n2 instead of n4, otherwise they're doomed to remain permanently neutral in most games.

ian.

[t-o-m]

Hi Ian!

Merry Christmas to you too... and happy spring! Hope the weather is as beautiful where you are as it is here. As always apologies for the slow progress. I will absolutely make a small image as proof of concept.

I will change the region names as per your recommendations and take on board what you say about troop placements.

Red no-go zones will start 1 neutral.

I agree that the ship gameplay should be slightly different... a -1 decay would make the ships quite undesirable, so it would shift gameplay to the land and mean that if you wanted to traverse the map, the parachutes could be a less costly solution. I quite like that... but I think the ships should start with as 2 neutral, so as to make them less costly at the start. Consequently, I think Rozel should also start 2 neutral so as to not give an unfair advantage to the player who lands there.

Regarding Paris & London, the options are 1) Increasing the bonus from +2 per complete square...

Current: Paris & London +1 bonus per complete square held

Code: Select all

Complete square bonus-----Capital bonus-----Total bonus-----Plus +3 default deploy
-----------1---------------------1---------------2---------------------5
-----------2---------------------2---------------4---------------------7
-----------3---------------------3---------------6---------------------9
-----------4---------------------4---------------8---------------------11
-----------5---------------------5---------------10--------------------13


Paris & London +2 bonus per complete square held

Code: Select all

Complete square bonus-----Capital bonus-----Total bonus-----Plus +3 default deploy
-----------1---------------------2---------------3---------------------6
-----------2---------------------4---------------6---------------------9
-----------3---------------------6---------------9---------------------12
-----------4---------------------8---------------12--------------------15
-----------5---------------------10--------------15--------------------18


Options 2) Decreasing the starting neutral.

I think that increasing the bonus might be a bit dangerous... so I suggest lowering the starting neutrals of Paris & London to 3, making it an achievable early-game objective, even while it's hard to hold (-2 decay). It shoudn't be the main objective and shouldn't allow you a major advantage just by holding it.

Towns to 2 neutral sounds good to me.

I think I'll make the towns a light grey as the black isn't obvious.
I will also switch the Juba artillery colour + bombardments from yellow as the bombardment colour blends with the beaches.
Make xxxxx impassable backgrounds grey.
Try bringing impassable trees in front of the grid.
Tone down glow on trees. (these are just personal reminders).

I'll be working on an update. Thanks as always for your feedback!

[iancanton]

the ships should start with as 2 neutral, so as to make them less costly at the start.

do u mean n2 for the battleships, with n1 for the normal ships?

Consequently, I think Rozel should also start 2 neutral so as to not give an unfair advantage to the player who lands there.

whatever applies to rozel equally applies to market.

I suggest lowering the starting neutrals of Paris & London to 3, making it an achievable early-game objective, even while it's hard to hold (-2 decay). It shoudn't be the main objective and shouldn't allow you a major advantage just by holding it.

n3 is much better than n10.

try adding more clumps of trees wherever four land squares meet, to make it more obvious that these corners are impassable. u've done this already in some places, fairly successfully.

ian.

[t-o-m]

Long time no see

I've always been committed to finishing this map and would be so grateful if we could continue the development process. Recently I've had some time to update the map with fresh eyes and made several changes – the most notable one being making the overall map smaller which will hopefully make it easier to play.


Version 8

Click image to enlarge.

Changelog:
V8 (gameplay + graphical changes)

• Made the whole map smaller – removed one row from the top and one column on the sides). This is mostly so it’ll fit on people’s screens, and also because the extra regions didn’t add to the gameplay. For a visual comparison of the changes to the two versions, please see here: https://imgur.com/a/rBGES6x
• All borders/grid restructured
• Ships now 1 neutral
• Towns now 2 neutral
• Red zones now 1 neutral
• 'Offset' region now starts 1 neutral
• Added impassable to every place that 4 squares join
• Capital Cities bonus removed
• Some regions renamed as per Ian's feedback
• Changed bonus: "Reinforcement +2 autodeploy when held with neighbouring paratrooper". It used to be the Paratrooper receiving the autodeploy, but I felt it would make the other bonus (Airfield + Paratrooper + Reinforcement) too easy to defend
• Artillery bonus now +2 autodeploy (was +1). I felt that the map needed a bit more of something to fight over

Feedback/thoughts please
General gameplay:
My main concern is that the gameplay would be very slow as the bonuses aren’t very large and there are lots of decays to cap auto deploys being used. What does everyone think? Should we add 2 more tanks, or consider another deploy bonus somewhere?

Capital Cities
I removed this as it felt unbalanced (previously, holding Paris and London would give a +1 per complete square). Open to new ideas for a bonus here – it would be nice to acknowledge Paris and London as important landmarks and also give context to the map. Not that there’s much room on the map to include more instructions!


Small version

show

[iancanton]

welcome back, t-o-m!

630 x 600 is the maximum for the small map. i suggest cropping the top and bottom row of squares and moving london and paris slightly, which i believe doesn't harm playability, otherwise u will struggle to fit in every region.

for v4, i made the above comment about the size of the small map. if u cannot manage it with the current design, then u might be able to do it by using a grid similar to the one in hive.



ian.