Classic Cities :Pot Mosbi [Quenched]

[Iron Maid]

Game 12012330

First game on the map. My esteemed opponent has no Tribes anymore. But is still alive.

Guess it will be repaired soon, and then the bastard turns in a set and wipes all tribes out?

[isaiah40]

Game 12012330

First game on the map. My esteemed opponent has no Tribes anymore. But is still alive.

Guess it will be repaired soon, and then the bastard turns in a set and wipes all tribes out?

Didn't you know, cairns had the xml fixed so that the mapmaker was exempt form the losing condition!

[thenobodies80]

It should be ok now....

[cairnswk]

It should be ok now....

Yes seems it is OK from the logs i examined.

however, there seems to be another situation where the person who goes first has best advantage in 1V1. how do we overcome that?

[nolefan5311]

It should be ok now....

Yes seems it is OK from the logs i examined.

however, there seems to be another situation where the person who goes first has best advantage in 1V1. how do we overcome that?

I should start off saying that first turn in most 1v1 games is going to have the advantage, especially on a map this size, but there are several potential fixes to even things out a bit.

We can either significantly lower the amount of starting positions distributed at the drop (which is going to require a ton of positions to be coded), decrease the region bonus (1 army per 4 or 5 regions instead of the standard 3), and in doing this, this would also allow us to lower the amount of troops defending the tribe. In 1v1 right now, people are receiving 10 troops for 32 regions in addition to having 4 stacks of 7 men to attack with. If we do it per 4 regions, we will need to fix it so that only 31 regions are dropped, but first turn a person would only drop 7 armies instead of 10. Increasing it to 5 I think would affect larger games too much.

We could also code a maximum of two tribes per player for 2 and 3 person games, reducing each players army count by 36 and taking out of play two of those four 7 stacks.

Just throwing some ideas at you. What do you think?

[thenobodies80]

however, there seems to be another situation where the person who goes first has best advantage in 1V1. how do we overcome that?

Set a limit to positions given out, with underlying neutrals for those not given, and it's done.

[dexterdexter]

The first turn in 1v1 is advantaged on 95% of the maps(if you're not into trench mode), the rest 5% of maps being fair since by the time you meet your opponent, his 6 extra troops won't matter.
This is an exquisite map. Great work! I recommend freestyle fast games for lots of laughs and amazing dynamic.
I only played it once so far and there are no issues that I've encountered. Foggy trench adiacent manual assasin is epic on most of the maps, but this one is a pinnacle.
See you on the battlefield!

[greenoaks]

i am in favour of not giving out all the starting territories in 1v1's

we don't in

Age Of Realms 1
Age Of Realms 2
Age Of Realms 3
Feudal War
Feudal Epic
Middle Ages
Kings Court
Kings Court 2


strategy would have more of an impact if we had to learn how to play this map based on our different starting positions and the starting positions of the other player. this would increase the map's playability or longevity.

[nolefan5311]

i am in favour of not giving out all the starting territories in 1v1's

we don't in

Age Of Realms 1
Age Of Realms 2
Age Of Realms 3
Feudal War
Feudal Epic
Middle Ages
Kings Court
Kings Court 2


strategy would have more of an impact if we had to learn how to play this map based on our different starting positions and the starting positions of the other player. this would increase the map's playability or longevity.

I would tend to agree. I much prefer not knowing where all my opponents starting positions are (and him now knowing mine).

[cairnswk]

...
I should start off saying that first turn in most 1v1 games is going to have the advantage, especially on a map this size, but there are several potential fixes to even things out a bit.
We can either significantly lower the amount of starting positions distributed at the drop (which is going to require a ton of positions to be coded),

not really in favour of creating lots of xtra code

decrease the region bonus (1 army per 4 or 5 regions instead of the standard 3), and in doing this, this would also allow us to lower the amount of troops defending the tribe. In 1v1 right now, people are receiving 10 troops for 32 regions in addition to having 4 stacks of 7 men to attack with. If we do it per 4 regions, we will need to fix it so that only 31 regions are dropped, but first turn a person would only drop 7 armies instead of 10. Increasing it to 5 I think would affect larger games too much.

OK, i think i understand that.

We could also code a maximum of two tribes per player for 2 and 3 person games, reducing each players army count by 36 and taking out of play two of those four 7 stacks.

OK, ....

...Set a limit to positions given out, with underlying neutrals for those not given, and it's done.

OK.

Can we simply do the minreinforcements...nolefan5311? and in doing so, does this have to be noted on the map anywhere?

[nolefan5311]

...
I should start off saying that first turn in most 1v1 games is going to have the advantage, especially on a map this size, but there are several potential fixes to even things out a bit.
We can either significantly lower the amount of starting positions distributed at the drop (which is going to require a ton of positions to be coded),

not really in favour of creating lots of xtra code

decrease the region bonus (1 army per 4 or 5 regions instead of the standard 3), and in doing this, this would also allow us to lower the amount of troops defending the tribe. In 1v1 right now, people are receiving 10 troops for 32 regions in addition to having 4 stacks of 7 men to attack with. If we do it per 4 regions, we will need to fix it so that only 31 regions are dropped, but first turn a person would only drop 7 armies instead of 10. Increasing it to 5 I think would affect larger games too much.

OK, i think i understand that.

We could also code a maximum of two tribes per player for 2 and 3 person games, reducing each players army count by 36 and taking out of play two of those four 7 stacks.

OK, ....

...Set a limit to positions given out, with underlying neutrals for those not given, and it's done.

OK.

Can we simply do the minreinforcements...nolefan5311? and in doing so, does this have to be noted on the map anywhere?

Yeah, I will do it tonight. It should be mentioned somewhere on the map...maybe you can shorten the explanation of the killer neutral and stick it somewhere in there?

And do you not want to code in a max of 2 start positions?

[cairnswk]

...
And do you not want to code in a max of 2 start positions?

yes please...if that will limit the extra numbers on 2 & 3 player games.
can you post the xml code in here in thread with explanantion of what it actually does so i can translate that to the map please.

[nolefan5311]

...
And do you not want to code in a max of 2 start positions?

yes please...if that will limit the extra numbers on 2 & 3 player games.
can you post the xml code in here in thread with explanantion of what it actually does so i can translate that to the map please.

Will do. Give me about 7 hours or so.

[LOTRrisk]

You may want to change the bonus for Baruni, as it has the same amount of territories and defense points as Mails, except half the bonus

[nolefan5311]

...
And do you not want to code in a max of 2 start positions?

yes please...if that will limit the extra numbers on 2 & 3 player games.
can you post the xml code in here in thread with explanantion of what it actually does so i can translate that to the map please.

Code: Select all

<minreinforcement>3</minreinforcement>
<reinforcements>
   <reinforcement>
      <lower>1</lower>
      <upper>102</upper>
      <divisor>4</divisor>
   </reinforcement>
</reinforcements>

What this does is changes the normal +1 bonus for every 3 regions gained to +1 for every 4 regions gained. The minimum is 3, and it does not reach 4 troops until a player possesses 16 territories.

Code: Select all

<positions max="2">
   <position>
      <territory start="12">Highland Tribe</territory>
      <territory start="7">Waigani Ponds</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory start="12">Asaro Tribe</territory>
      <territory start="7">Nain Mail</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory start="12">Huli Tribe</territory>
      <territory start="7">Saraga Quarry</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory start="12">Iwan Tribe</territory>
      <territory start="7">Kila Kila</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory start="12">Enga Tribe</territory>
      <territory start="7">Gerehu Faiv</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory start="12">Chimbu Tribe</territory>
      <territory start="7">Atlas Steel</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory start="12">Jiwiki Tribe</territory>
      <territory start="7">Napa Napa Rot Fo</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory start="12">Motu Tribe</territory>
      <territory start="7">Paga</territory>
   </position>
</positions>

All this does is limit the amount of Tribes distributed to players in 1v1 games, from 4 to 2. It will take 2 regions and 24 armies off the board for each player (though two of the regions bordering the tribes will be placed in the random drop, and will be distributed as regular territories of 3, since these regions are not coded as underlying neutrals).

[nolefan5311]

http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/5/13/3303803/Mosbi10Dec2012.xml

I think there might be an issue that underlying neutrals aren't coded for the regions that border the tribe, but I'm not really sure. I also noticed an error or two that I've fixed (misspelling of a region and a mixup in the coding of a neutral starter). Also, the golden numbers don't apply here since we're dealing with a troop for every 4 regions instead of for every 3 regions, so I'm not really sure how many regions will be dropped. It's late here and I'm getting tired though.

[cairnswk]

You may want to change the bonus for Baruni, as it has the same amount of territories and defense points as Mails, except half the bonus

and nolefan5311...what about this?
my calcs say Baruni should be +5, but i don't beleive it was ever fully examined in the discussion.

[iancanton]

my calcs say Baruni should be +5, but i don't beleive it was ever fully examined in the discussion.

the baruni bonus looks as if it ought to be worth more, instead of less, than napa napa rot because of the extra border and more central location: +5 instead of +3.

OK, I understand, if M7 is made a neutral, will that still require Baruni to be +5?

however u look at it, baruni is more difficult than napa napa rot. i like the way the maunten area restricts access from east and west except at the m1, m5 and m6 points. however, the internal arrangement of maunten is too much of rail pot mosbi. instead of making m7 start neutral, why not merge away two maunten regions (m1 with m2 and m3 with m4) to a total of 5, obviously with a reduced bonus? combined with the viles n1, this gives 88 starting regions, which is also a golden number.

a major problem at the start seems to be caused by the stacks of 7 in front of each tribe. instead of 12 on each tribe and 7 on the tribe buffer region, how about 12 and 3, so that no attack is advisable from the buffer region on turn 1 unless troops are added? the reinforcement divisor being 4 will also help greatly by reducing the starting deployment from scary to chunky.

both regions of each start position ought to be coded as underlying neutral to avoid potential bonus drops.

do we still have 88 starting regions for large games? if so and if we implement a maximum of 2 start positions per player, then there are 72 random starting regions plus 8 2-region start positions for large games (22 regions per player, deployment of 5 in 4-player games; 14 regions per player, deployment of 3 in 6-player games), 72 regions plus 6 2-region start positions for 3-player games (28 regions per player, deployment of 7) and 72 regions plus 4 2-region start positions for 2-player games (28 regions per player, deployment of 7). this is a bad number for 2-player games because player 1 can reduce his opponent's deployment by gaining just one of his regions, so i recommend a maximum of exactly 3 2-region start positions per player. 3-player is a special case where this doesn't matter so much, since a starting advantage can lead to the other two players ganging up on player 1.

ian.

[cairnswk]

my calcs say Baruni should be +5, but i don't beleive it was ever fully examined in the discussion.

my error, it was covered, and i have now found that discussion, apologies Ian.

the baruni bonus looks as if it ought to be worth more, instead of less, than napa napa rot because of the extra border and more central location: +5 instead of +3.

OK, I understand, if M7 is made a neutral, will that still require Baruni to be +5?

however u look at it, baruni is more difficult than napa napa rot. i like the way the maunten area restricts access from east and west except at the m1, m5 and m6 points. however, the internal arrangement of maunten is too much of rail pot mosbi. instead of making m7 start neutral, why not merge away two maunten regions (m1 with m2 and m3 with m4) to a total of 5, obviously with a reduced bonus? combined with the viles n1, this gives 88 starting regions, which is also a golden number.

So going forward, i failed to change the Baruni bonus to +5....nolefan5311, can you adjust that please, and i will attend the gfx..

a major problem at the start seems to be caused by the stacks of 7 in front of each tribe.

instead of 12 on each tribe and 7 on the tribe buffer region, how about 12 and 3, so that no attack is advisable from the buffer region on turn 1 unless troops are added?

the reinforcement divisor being 4 will also help greatly by reducing the starting deployment from scary to chunky.

ian, i can cope with 12 and 3 if the divisor is 4, as long as this change is not going to allow any player to wipe someone out too early.

both regions of each start position ought to be coded as underlying neutral to avoid potential bonus drops.

OK, that can be done also, although is it too much! are we going for overkill here?

do we still have 88 starting regions for large games?

as far as i know we have.

if so and if we implement a maximum of 2 start positions per player,

...then there are 72 random starting regions
plus 8 2-region start positions for large games
-->(22 regions per player, deployment of 5 in 4-player games;

Agreed on divisor of 4.

-->14 regions per player, deployment of 3 in 6-player games),

Agreed on divisor of 4.

...72 regions plus 6 2-region start positions for 3-player games (28 regions per player, deployment of 7)

Agreed

...72 regions plus 4 2-region start positions for 2-player games (28 regions per player, deployment of 7).

Agreed

...this is a bad number for 2-player games because player 1 can reduce his opponent's deployment by gaining just one of his regions,
so i recommend a maximum of exactly 3 2-region start positions per player.

3-player is a special case where this doesn't matter so much, since a starting advantage can lead to the other two players ganging up on player 1.

ian.

OK, i understand that, sorry I had to break it up to get head around it.


So we have:
1. Divisor of 4
2. max of 3 x 2 region start positions/player
3. reduce the 7 (buffer) in front of tribe to 3....

Can we compromise on 5 buffer in front of tribe... because i am still not convinced that in 2 players games, the first player is going to have enough deployment if he gets a tert adjacent to the 3 buffer to be able to come very close to wiping that buffer out, thus immediately placing the opponent in a defensive position to have to countermand that almost wipeout.

[iancanton]

both regions of each start position ought to be coded as underlying neutral to avoid potential bonus drops.

OK, that can be done also, although is it too much! are we going for overkill here?

an underlying n10 and n2 on each tribe and buffer region respectively will be acceptable.

Can we compromise on 5 buffer in front of tribe... because i am still not convinced that in 2 players games, the first player is going to have enough deployment if he gets a tert adjacent to the 3 buffer to be able to come very close to wiping that buffer out, thus immediately placing the opponent in a defensive position to have to countermand that almost wipeout.

how about 15 and 3 on each tribe and buffer respectively? the 15 prevents someone from having to defend immediately against a possible wipeout, while the 3 forces all players to deploy or fort consciously to any regions from which they want to attack.

ian.

[cairnswk]

both regions of each start position ought to be coded as underlying neutral to avoid potential bonus drops.

OK, that can be done also, although is it too much! are we going for overkill here?

an underlying n10 and n2 on each tribe and buffer region respectively will be acceptable.

i see you changed your mind from 12 to 10.
OK, but this doesn't have to be mentioned in the legend.

Can we compromise on 5 buffer in front of tribe... because i am still not convinced that in 2 players games, the first player is going to have enough deployment if he gets a tert adjacent to the 3 buffer to be able to come very close to wiping that buffer out, thus immediately placing the opponent in a defensive position to have to countermand that almost wipeout.

how about 15 and 3 on each tribe and buffer respectively? the 15 prevents someone from having to defend immediately against a possible wipeout, while the 3 forces all players to deploy or fort consciously to any regions from which they want to attack.
ian.

the 15 is fine, although i still prefer 12.
the 3 is too low....it might force conscious deployment, but it doesn't stop someone in 1v1 from wiping that buffer out...i'd still like it to be 5 or 6.

[puppydog85]

Sorry if this has been mentioned but wary is misspelled as weary.

[cairnswk]

Sorry if this has been mentioned but wary is misspelled as weary.

Thank-you puppydog85, i have got that in the next update.

[koontz1973]

cairns, sure it has been discussed, but after having finished my first game (and won) on this fine map, can I please ask for a slight revision. For the Motu tribe, it took me a long time to find them. This was because I was looking for a tribesman, and not the boat. Any chance of getting rid of the sail and putting a tribesman into it instead so all the tribes have the same type of symbol?

[cairnswk]

cairns, sure it has been discussed, but after having finished my first game (and won) on this fine map, can I please ask for a slight revision. For the Motu tribe, it took me a long time to find them. This was because I was looking for a tribesman, and not the boat. Any chance of getting rid of the sail and putting a tribesman into it instead so all the tribes have the same type of symbol?

What you should have been looking for was something that said "Tribe", and considering this a clearly marked, i have to no to this request.
You simply didn't look hard enough.
Besides the Motu Tribe are seafaring peoples.