Age of Realms: Mayhem [Quenched]

by **sanosuke** on Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:14 am

DiM wrote:
sanosuke wrote:
Mr_Adams wrote:so, if you get hit by one of these minus x per turn for such and such a territory, will that territory become a neutral 1 if it has less than the set number of armies on it?

nah, to see how the neg. effect works, play AoR: Magic. What happens is if you leave more than 1 army on that territ that decays X amount of armies, then you lose that many on that territ....X territ decays 1 army per turn...if you have 10 armies on that territ, your next turn you have 9, if you leave 9 on said territ, next turn you have 8 etc.

I have the worst luck and mainly dead beats join my AoR:Magic games, so I have yet to see if the decay effects your entire bonus (ie. in BOB "Armies Due 30, you own 1 territ that decays 1 per turn you only get 29 instead of the 30)

As long as you leave 1 army sitting on that decaying area (thats ideal) then you lose no armies (unless said example above is true) and it will never revert to neutral... Maybe DiM can clean up some of my explanation ^_^

the decay kills X troops per turn. if you have just 1 troop then you won't lose anything.

Exactly! What DiM said

by **bryguy** on Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:25 pm

im giving this a bump, but not calling it a bump, im calling it a bunch of smilies

by **gimil** on Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:07 pm

bryguy wrote:im giving this a bump, but not calling it a bump, im calling it a bunch of smilies

Well how about we dont do that again yeah? Next time bump posts will be getting deleted

by **bryguy** on Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:09 pm

okey dokey

by **gimil** on Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:15 pm

bryguy wrote:okey dokey

You dont want me o become an ass hole do you

by **Herakilla** on Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:33 pm

gimil wrote:
bryguy wrote:okey dokey

You dont want me o become an ass hole do you

you arent already?

by **oaktown** on Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:20 pm

Hey DiM, sorry this map hasn't been getting my attention... I'm going to remedy that starting right now.

First quick question: can you clarify in the first post what the start will look like? Which terits start with players/neutrals, and how many armies per terit? Thanks.

by **DiM** on Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:54 am

oaktown wrote:Hey DiM, sorry this map hasn't been getting my attention... I'm going to remedy that starting right now.

First quick question: can you clarify in the first post what the start will look like? Which terits start with players/neutrals, and how many armies per terit? Thanks.

the six castles and the sanctuary are starting points. everything else is neutral. i shall post some neutrals as soon as i have time.

by **rustlemania** on Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:20 am

I'm not sure if anyone else thinks this, but it seems to me that whoever starts at the sanctuary has a disadvantage, in bonuses, attacking, and fortification.
i'll admit, i'm new to the foundry and haven't kept up with the thread, and don't have time to read all 31 pages right now... so i don't know if this has been mentioned.
maybe i'm wrong, but i wouldn't want to start there.

map looks great though, which isn't a surprise.

by **Herakilla** on Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:54 pm

rustlemania wrote:I'm not sure if anyone else thinks this, but it seems to me that whoever starts at the sanctuary has a disadvantage, in bonuses, attacking, and fortification.
i'll admit, i'm new to the foundry and haven't kept up with the thread, and don't have time to read all 31 pages right now... so i don't know if this has been mentioned.
maybe i'm wrong, but i wouldn't want to start there.

map looks great though, which isn't a surprise.

i agree entirely, its way to easy to attack the sanctuary, and everyone can do it! basically the player there is forced to leave his army on the sanctuary because should he leave any on the blood waters which are his only bonuses the armies will rapidly decay. but if he leaves nothing then any1 can attack from any dock and easily take a 1. so other players can expand and keep this player at 3 armies a pop with a relatively low cost. as such i am against allowing one way attacks into the blood waters and increasing their neutrals OR make them part of a continent bonus along with a couple of "death runes"

by **Coleman** on Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:20 pm

Well sanctuary can directly (one way) attack all his blood waters. Any players that go for a dock are opening themselves up to conflict by doing so.

I think a good sanctuary player will need to leave their main force on sanctuary and try to keep as many blood waters as possible (all but one actually), once a weak player opens up a dock you can rush down the remaining blood water and take their stuff.

That's what I'd try to do anyway.

by **Herakilla** on Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:55 pm

Coleman wrote:Well sanctuary can directly (one way) attack all his blood waters. Any players that go for a dock are opening themselves up to conflict by doing so.

I think a good sanctuary player will need to leave their main force on sanctuary and try to keep as many blood waters as possible (all but one actually), once a weak player opens up a dock you can rush down the remaining blood water and take their stuff.

That's what I'd try to do anyway.

blood waters cant take or see docks, only the one dock that sanctuary island has can but the thing is sanctuary is unable to defend the bloodwaters SHORT OF owning and holding all the docks and if you can do that youve likely won lol. so if sanctuary wants to attack they either need to leave everything on sanctuary and go offensive the minute they lose their bloodwaters (attack dock and keep going, this means the player DID NOT take the dock yet) OR split their army between sanctuary itself and the dock, both options are horrible. the first forces you to attack blindly the second forces you to cut down on your standing army since you need to defend the sanctuary since any1 can go dock>bloodwater>island>sanctuary without touching ur'l.

i just dont like sanctuary's disadvantage

by **Mr_Adams** on Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:15 pm

he's right, you should make sanctuary always start as neutral, and just make it 6 player max like the last 2...

by **Mr_Adams** on Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:57 pm

my post didn't kill the map did it?

by **wcaclimbing** on Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:01 pm

Mr_Adams wrote:he's right, you should make sanctuary always start as neutral, and just make it 6 player max like the last 2...

I agree.

and I want to see more updates. its been a long time since the most recent one.

by **fireedud** on Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:06 pm

these updated are a lot differetn than AoM, then you had sooo many updates, now you only have 5 (or 6, I don't feel like checking right now).

by **DiM** on Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:20 am

sorry i haven't been able to do anything lately. busy at work and especially busy with a project for a phd scholarship. i haven't been posting or visiting CC lately

when i'll have more time i'll do something

by **rustlemania** on Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:44 am

i still love the idea of the sanctuary as a starting point, but there's got to be a way to even things out for whomever starts there.

by **Mr_Adams** on Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:20 pm

One last map improvement suggestion... HURRY UP AND FINISH, I WANNA PLAY IT NOW!!!!! :lol:

by **DiM** on Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:36 pm

Mr_Adams wrote:One last map improvement suggestion... HURRY UP AND FINISH, I WANNA PLAY IT NOW!!!!!

i have one important interview on friday to decide if i get a positive answer on my phd scholarship and after that i'm back on the map.

when i applied for the scholarship i didn't really expect to qualify so this wasn't planned and i really had to study a lot.

right now after the preliminary reviews and after the exam i'm 252nd on the list and there are 300 scolarships. so if my interview goes well i keep my rank and get the scholarship.

by **Coleman** on Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:50 pm

Alright, maybe the sanctuary disadvantage would be solved if they could attack out of their blood waters as if they were docks. As that's what I thought they could do when I looked at this anyway.

by **DiM** on Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:51 pm

Coleman wrote:Alright, maybe the sanctuary disadvantage would be solved if they could attack out of their blood waters as if they were docks. As that's what I thought they could do when I looked at this anyway.

yep that's what i was thinking also. i will give it more thought when i have time

by **Coleman** on Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:55 pm

DiM wrote:
Coleman wrote:Alright, maybe the sanctuary disadvantage would be solved if they could attack out of their blood waters as if they were docks. As that's what I thought they could do when I looked at this anyway.

yep that's what i was thinking also. i will give it more thought when i have time

Time is the enemy of us all. :roll:

Good luck.

by **InkL0sed** on Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:02 pm

Coleman wrote:
DiM wrote:
Coleman wrote:Alright, maybe the sanctuary disadvantage would be solved if they could attack out of their blood waters as if they were docks. As that's what I thought they could do when I looked at this anyway.

yep that's what i was thinking also. i will give it more thought when i have time

Time is the enemy of us all. Good luck.

Coleman, you're a poet.

by **Herakilla** on Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:52 am

even allowing attacks out of docks would still be a huge disadvantage because sanctuary has no way other than holding ALL the docks to defend its bonus. if i were not not in sanctuary and i had my bonuses all i would have to do is keep the guy at three armies a turn by taking each water and not advancing since they will have 1's on them because of the decay

Age of Realms: Mayhem [Quenched]

Who is online