Rail Europe [Quenched]

[cairnswk]

can somebody plz explain why is M bonus +3? bcuz it has 2 borders and N and A have only 1? kinda makes P +2 with twice as many lands and also 2 borders ridiculous?

LOL was just thinking the same thing, B bonus can be broken much easier and it's also +3

Does every bonus have to be equal in this manner? I'm not saying this is the case here, but I would think that there are times when the map maker wants people to concentrate a lot on one area over another.

Well, ideally the map should be as balanced as possible.
It is not just the mapmaker who wants...
but it is the people who have gameplay input as the time the map is developed that want also...
and there are those who bother to provide feedback when the map is BETAd who want also...
I find it a little strange that when the map was quenched on 16 Apr 2008, a month after 1 person commented about these bonuses, then 2 yrs later, another, and then now...
my goodness go figure

[koontz1973]

I find it a little strange that when the map was quenched on 16 Apr 2008, a month after 1 person commented about these bonuses, then 2 yrs later, another, and then now...
my goodness go figure

And this alone should tell you to leave it alone. A vocal minority will always sound louder than a silent majority. But the silence is deafening about these bonuses.

[benga]

I find it a little strange that when the map was quenched on 16 Apr 2008, a month after 1 person commented about these bonuses, then 2 yrs later, another, and then now...
my goodness go figure

And this alone should tell you to leave it alone. A vocal minority will always sound louder than a silent majority. But the silence is deafening about these bonuses.

Or maybe it wasn't played enough cause it's unbalanced map?

And sorry I wasn't here in 2008 and I don't always see everything on first glance.

It doesn't mean it needs to be fixed, but like this is not balanced.

[koontz1973]

Over 9000 games is not a lot. It may not have the balance that the current maps have but so what. Not every map needs to be balanced. If this map needed more work, more people would of posted in the thread over the years asking for it, not just the recent weeks.

Classic is not balanced but I do not see post after post in that thread demanding a change. And that one has had 2699315 games finished on it.

[benga]

Over 9000 games is not a lot. It may not have the balance that the current maps have but so what. Not every map needs to be balanced. If this map needed more work, more people would of posted in the thread over the years asking for it, not just the recent weeks.

Classic is not balanced but I do not see post after post in that thread demanding a change. And that one has had 2699315 games finished on it.

Yes, but you are only backing up my argument, SA and AUS are equally valued,
whereas M and N are not and M and B are, if you look at the structure of bonuses
and the possiblity of holding/breaking them you will see the difference.

Protecting a map and map maker is nice,
but there are no real argumnets here not to make the change.

[koontz1973]

Over 9000 games is not a lot. It may not have the balance that the current maps have but so what. Not every map needs to be balanced. If this map needed more work, more people would of posted in the thread over the years asking for it, not just the recent weeks.

Classic is not balanced but I do not see post after post in that thread demanding a change. And that one has had 2699315 games finished on it.

Yes, but you are only backing up my argument, SA and AUS are equally valued,
whereas M and N are not and M and B are, if you look at the structure of bonuses
and the possiblity of holding/breaking them you will see the difference.

Protecting a map and map maker is nice,
but there are no real argumnets here not to make the change.

Argument to make the change is only to make the map more balanced. And IMO, this is a weak argument, made even weaker because of the length of time out of beta.
Arguments against it are as follows.
Not everyone believes it to be unbalanced. Evidence of this is that no one has really posted about this over the years.
Does every map need to have balance. No, it makes the options to choose a map slightly more risky. Why have 200+ maps if all turn out to be the same.
This was a part of the foundry process (as you say before your time) but the foundry personnel and players who commented on the map did not raise the issue then or did not think of it as such a big problem as to raise it.
With over 200 maps, no one is forcing anyone to play this map (unless it comes up as random map).
This issue is now well documented.

Their are 5 reasons for not having the change. But in the end, it will be down to cairnswk.

[chapcrap]

Wow there are many bonuses off...

Not that far off Gill once i re-calcaluted the table...meh...mistakes i make

He didn't say they were far off, just that there are a lot that are off. And there are!!

8 of 16 bonuses is a pretty high percentage.

[benga]

Just a note, I was against Dust Bowl changes, I like the unbalance that it gave,
cause the whole map idea is such that fits the theme.

This is just another thing.

And one other note, having a huge pool of maps from which X% of maps is not played or rarely played is just bad and if any balancing would help map to be played more, then why not?

Otherwise what's the point of that map being available for play.

Cheers!

p.s.
cairn do what you think it's best, just wanted to give my view

[cairnswk]

...
Their are 5 reasons for not having the change. But in the end, it will be down to cairnswk.

...
p.s.
cairn do what you think it's best, just wanted to give my view

there are a number of reasons that some of the bonuses were off, least of all adjustments that were made at time of mapmaking.
i have already given my opinion, and that is that i want to see evidence of a far greater majority of players coming in here and giving their opinion to vote in favour of making the changes to the bonuses. If they don't come and give their opinion then that to me is ample sign that no-one else is worried about this...so if you want the change...get your friends to come to post in favour of it happening. I am not going to make it happen just on the say-so of 5/6 players.

[DoomYoshi]

I would like to point out that Vilnius, not only is a good route, but it's also in a tough to get area. It is extra powerful. I think if only Vilnius was changed, the balance would be great on this map.

[cairnswk]

So, at present....here is a summary of who does and does not want gameplay change in relation to Bonus M (and maybe other bonuses)
If there is to be any change there will have to be a much bigger majority on the side of wanting change than against it.

Against:

codierose
JBlombier
koontz1973
Industrial Helix
chiefsfan4ever

For:

BENJIKAT IS DEAD
fumandomuerte
nikola_milicki
benga
abel
chapcrap
IcePack
Gilligan

[cairnswk]

I would like to point out that Vilnius, not only is a good route, but it's also in a tough to get area. It is extra powerful. I think if only Vilnius was changed, the balance would be great on this map.

So Doom, are you for or against any changes being made to the bonuses??

[DoomYoshi]

Mainly, I want it open to discussion.

I think if P Warsaw connected directly to N Warsaw, that would probably balance it out. Also, N SPG is a deadend. It shouldn't be. I realize this will make the Ukraine bonus less attractive, but its not like anyone is ever going to fight for that bonus anyways.

I like uneven drops. I am a huge fan of Pearl Harbour. However, if there is an uneven drop, I want to at least have a chance to get to the area and try and take it. Because there is so little access, you don't have that on this map.

EDIT: To put it more specifically what I mean. If you start on P, you have to go all the way to Moscow and then back down along the O. If you start on I, you have to go to Berlin and then down the O. Only if you start on the O do you have any chance of hitting the Vilnius. Some continents are protected by a single deadlock zone (Australia is protected by Bangkok). Vilnius has 3 territories in a linear pattern. This means in trench, you have to deal with each one at a time. Then it has O Warsaw as a deadlock zone. Depending on how neutrals etc. it has a potential of 7 deadlock zones. In other words, this bonus is 7 times as defensible as Australia. The place is a fucking inpenetrable fortress.

Actually, the whole map is kind of like that though.

[agentcom]

OK, I'm leaning against the change, but it's based on some assumptions. If these assumptions are wrong, then I would change my vote.

1) The map is based on some sort of RL rail system.
2) The bonuses were not decided randomly, but based on some sort of RL importance.
3) In RL some places are just better/more advantageous than others.

Therefore, it is OK to have the strategic positions available in our CC "make believe" wars.

If (1) is not correct, then I suppose I don't mind changing the connections. If it is correct, then I am strongly opposed.
If (2) is not correct, then I suppose I would consider it OK to change the bonus structure (but see last paragraph). If it is correct, then I would strongly oppose changing the weight of bonuses.
If (3) is not correct, then I need to get my head checked out or I'm living in an alternate reality.

BUT overall, even if I'm incorrect on some of these things, I still don't think we need to make every damned detail of these maps "balanced" and "fair." Maybe the mapmaker thinks that these territs are more important for some reason. Maybe the mapmaker just wanted to put in a little "imbalance" to concentrate fighting in one region. Who knows? In a real war, there are positions of advantage. There are people who learn, know and exploit these facts. One of the cool things about learning a new map is figuring out which spots provide tactical and strategic advantages. And not only that, you have to learn when those advantages are outweighed by other considerations. If you want to play perfectly balanced, simple maps, there are plenty of options available to you.



[Afterthought: Could "Balance Issues" be a tag in the Foundry stuff? I think it would be interesting to note these things. They would clue you in that you should check the strategy guide or map description. Those documents would make note of and describe the issues. For this map, it would say something like "Some users have said that such-and-such bonuses are overvalued and such-and-such bonuses are undervalued. Therefore, it might be a could idea to watch and possibly go for the former." For other maps you might note that a player who drops territs in a certain position may be more likely to win because of whatever other factors. E.g. in the old Dust Bowl (instead of changing the map!) you could note that more decaying territs can make it very difficult to win.]

[chapcrap]

The problem with saying RL things are an ok reason to make a map unbalanced is that RL is not followed very often in mapmaking. Borders are made up or done away with, geography is altered, etc. and that is considered ok when making maps because the first priority is a good map. Making sure that things align with RL is secondary.

[codierose]

NO no no no no no leave alone why mess a map up for some one whos only played it 5 times bloody hell how many years has this map been here. hell whilst your at it lets go and change all the other maps that have been quenched

calm down codierose...for goodness sake
all i have done is updated the image..not the gameplay, the discussion of which is still in progress...thanks though for you input not to change the gameplay.

one thing with the image that i have always found confusing STK G and the route to HEL M.
it looks like you can attack STK G but you cant from HEL M. due to the little dots connecting them both.
caught me out a few times when i first started playing the map any chance moving the dots so it connects G to G either way nice new image

[chiefsfan4ever]

I'm against any gameplay changes. That's all.

[cairnswk]

I'm against any gameplay changes. That's all.

Thanks chiefsfan4ever...name added to list

[cairnswk]

...
one thing with the image that i have always found confusing STK G and the route to HEL M.
it looks like you can attack STK G but you cant from HEL M. due to the little dots connecting them both.
caught me out a few times when i first started playing the map any chance moving the dots so it connects G to G either way nice new image

codierose. i have already sent the image off for upload...i will keep it in mind if there is a next time for image changes.
in the meantime, a little more vigilance to what you are doing perhaps?

[cairnswk]

text deleted,,,refer below

[cairnswk]

The images with the new rails have been sent for the upload.

[IcePack]

I added myself to this list where did my name go?

[cairnswk]

I added myself to this list where did my name go?

Fixed

[Gilligan]

I am for this change

[cairnswk]

I am for this change

Added