Oasis [Quenched]

[rocky mountain]

thats "last person standing"

[bryguy]

how else would you win then, if there are no other players then it would just be your turn all the time untill you take the grand oasis - that is if the game went on after there was only one player left.

no games end if

A. the objective is reached
B. your the last person standing
C. its freestyle and everyone gets kicked for missing to many turns at the exact same moment

You can win by being the only non-deadbeat in any game type, no matter if they do it all at once...

no im saying if NOBODY ever takes a turn, including u

[InkL0sed]

no games end if

A. the objective is reached
B. your the last person standing
C. its freestyle and everyone gets kicked for missing to many turns at the exact same moment

You can win by being the only non-deadbeat in any game type, no matter if they do it all at once...

no im saying if NOBODY ever takes a turn, including u

That's interesting... how would it decide who wins? Is Red the default or something?

Anyway, let's get back on topic!

[bryguy]

You can win by being the only non-deadbeat in any game type, no matter if they do it all at once...

no im saying if NOBODY ever takes a turn, including u

That's interesting... how would it decide who wins? Is Red the default or something?

Anyway, let's get back on topic!

idk how it would decide, we should test it!!

ok back to the map now, we shouldnt hi-jack this thread! (yet, maybe after its quenched )

[oaktown]

my first real look at this map, and I have to say I like it.

You mentioned that the small oases will have 3-4 neutrals depending on "how important they are" - what do you see making them of differing importance?

Territory names - my apologies for not reading the entire thread, but what's the naming plan for the desert territories? North 1 and South 1? Why not just number them 1-91 to avoid any potential mis-deployments? (I am the king of mis-deploying!)

Not sure how wild I am about the Grand Oasis losing you three armies per turn - it won't matter when you hold all three, but it seems like it would make the process of taking the oasis pretty frustrating. You can't build up armies in the desert because they drop armies as well, so the only way to take the objective would be as a result of a pretty major build-up of armies and hitting the entire thing in one round.

I'm not trying to make the objective too easy, but in the other objective maps we have playable it's nearly impossible to actually hold the objective, so everybody just goes for a conventional take-out. I'd love to play a map where I thought that good strategy - not just brute force - could actually score me a win.

[bryguy]

my first real look at this map, and I have to say I like it.

You mentioned that the small oases will have 3-4 neutrals depending on "how important they are" - what do you see making them of differing importance?

Territory names - my apologies for not reading the entire thread, but what's the naming plan for the desert territories? North 1 and South 1? Why not just number them 1-91 to avoid any potential mis-deployments? (I am the king of mis-deploying!)

Not sure how wild I am about the Grand Oasis losing you three armies per turn - it won't matter when you hold all three, but it seems like it would make the process of taking the oasis pretty frustrating. You can't build up armies in the desert because they drop armies as well, so the only way to take the objective would be as a result of a pretty major build-up of armies and hitting the entire thing in one round.

I'm not trying to make the objective too easy, but in the other objective maps we have playable it's nearly impossible to actually hold the objective, so everybody just goes for a conventional take-out. I'd love to play a map where I thought that good strategy - not just brute force - could actually score me a win.

aww u ruined my comments that i was gonna do tonight hehe jk jk

and if your the king, i must be your loyal knight

[sfhbballnut]

I like the oasis eating your armies, makes it tough to defend, might actualy turn it so that someone can't win just because they turn in and take it over.

[AndyDufresne]

I'm liking this objective map...it's going in a good direction I feel. I'm a fan of the visuals--it has a distinct Oasis feel, which I like. Just a few minor comments:

In response to Oaktown, it might be worthwhile to number the territories straight through like he suggested. But I also wouldn't mind seeing north, south, east, west divisions of the numbers either.

And as Oaktown mentioned, I'm somewhere near his camp in regards to the Grand Oasis -3...something I'll have to think about more.

Also visually, the legend looks wonderful, except for the extended black blox...I know you added it to make the color choices stand out, but I'd rather have alternate text color than the extended box.


--Andy

[rocky mountain]

wcaclimbing, did you have to put ur map on the web before posting it to get the picture to show? just asking...

[InkL0sed]

wcaclimbing, did you have to put ur map on the web before posting it to get the picture to show? just asking...

Yes, that is how you have to do it.

[bryguy]

update yet?

[jetpac]

What all is there still left to do on this besides the XML? The graphics look ready to play on to my untrained eyes.

[InkL0sed]

So I was looking (really more like staring) at this and the division between the north and south desert made me think for a second that it was impassable, and that one of those oases that is in between the division (I forget which one now) was the only way besides the Grand Oasis itself to get across.

Then I thought, that wouldn't be such a bad idea! Maybe there should be some kind of cliff dividing north and south.

Reasons:

1. It would justify the seemingly random division of the desert
2. If you added/moved more oases that broke up this cliff (like the one mentioned earlier), then the gameplay could be even more interesting.

2a. The desert would still be pretty wide open, but with a few pseudo-bottlenecks adding a little more, shall we say, flavor
2b. The Fertile land wouldn't become completely irrelevant, as it would be one way to get around the cliff

What do you think? Just a thought, really.

[Torter_of_Worlds]

I agree with Ink - I like the overall idea; however, I think a few bottlenecks are needed for defensive/advancement purposes. The current set up will allow (in freestyle) anyone whom ends their turn before the others because all the attacker has to do is take an easy detour around the big stack of ended turn player...

[rocky mountain]

so when do you think this map will go into the final forge? hopefully soon .

[wcaclimbing]

Ok guys, I have my internets back now.
I'm gonna try to comment on all the stuff thats been posted, but if I miss a post or two, I appologize in advance. theres lots of stuff here....

My comments in BLUE

my first real look at this map, and I have to say I like it.

You mentioned that the small oases will have 3-4 neutrals depending on "how important they are" - what do you see making them of differing importance? I think I need to go back and change that in the first post. It should be "outer oases have 3, inner have 5 neutrals because they are more important in taking the Grand Oasis.

Territory names - my apologies for not reading the entire thread, but what's the naming plan for the desert territories? North 1 and South 1? Why not just number them 1-91 to avoid any potential mis-deployments? (I am the king of mis-deploying!) Read a few pages back (page 15 or 16, I think). Lots of posts on the topic of territory names. I can easily change it to 1-91 numbers, I just chose N and S because it was a compromise between straight 1-91 and North South East West ### system.

Not sure how wild I am about the Grand Oasis losing you three armies per turn - it won't matter when you hold all three, but it seems like it would make the process of taking the oasis pretty frustrating. You can't build up armies in the desert because they drop armies as well, so the only way to take the objective would be as a result of a pretty major build-up of armies and hitting the entire thing in one round. Well, that was originally done so the Grand Oasis doesn't turn into a build game whenever its split between two people, and the decay would help control that. You would have to keep your armies on a nearby oasis and then bring them in.
Or I could get rid of the decay and make it safe like the rest of the oases. That makes a bit more sense with the rest of the map.

I'm not trying to make the objective too easy, but in the other objective maps we have playable it's nearly impossible to actually hold the objective, so everybody just goes for a conventional take-out. I'd love to play a map where I thought that good strategy - not just brute force - could actually score me a win.

I'm liking this objective map...it's going in a good direction I feel. I'm a fan of the visuals--it has a distinct Oasis feel, which I like. Just a few minor comments:

In response to Oaktown, it might be worthwhile to number the territories straight through like he suggested. But I also wouldn't mind seeing north, south, east, west divisions of the numbers either. North South East West would give people (especially Oaktown, I think) even more trouble. Cause there would be more divisions, more confusing, and more mis-deployments (waaaa I deployed on North 1 instead of West 1 and It cost me the game!!!) I think it would just cause too much trouble for some people out there.

And as Oaktown mentioned, I'm somewhere near his camp in regards to the Grand Oasis -3...something I'll have to think about more. I think I'm sort of leaning towards removing the -3 also. I'll need a few more posts on the topic to help me deicde, though. (and it would be nice to get rid of it because it would give me some extra space on the map key. It would allow me to make the rest of the stuff bigger )

Also visually, the legend looks wonderful, except for the extended black blox...I know you added it to make the color choices stand out, but I'd rather have alternate text color than the extended box.
The black box behind where it explains the bonuses (the +1 and the two decays) ? That can go away. I'll see what I can do.


--Andy

update yet? Update in a few days. I haven't had access to the internet this week.

Put divisions/bottlenecks in the desert to:
justify N/S divisions.
Add to gameplay.
Make fertile lands more useful.
I'm gonna have to disagree with this one. There are no divisions anywhere on the map, and I don't want to just drop them in there. This map is unique in having no divisions anywhere, and I would like to keep it that way. (well, except for the river in the corner, that is technically a division.......) Divisions would also limit possible strategies on the map, I want to keep it with many, many possibilities of play so everyone has a chance at winning.

so when do you think this map will go into the final forge? hopefully soon
Read the "Gameplay Stamp" and "Graphics Stamp" section of this page:
CLICKY
Thats everything thats required. I have done most of the stuff listed (but I still need to post the small version, which I will do after the large is finished.

What all is there still left to do on this besides the XML? The graphics look ready to play on to my untrained eyes.
I think graphics are pretty much set for the map section (the key still needs a ton of work, though.) The remaining things are:
The -3 decay on Grand Oasis (should it be removed?)
Divisions for North, South, etc in the desert? (or just number 1-91 w/ no divisions?)
Fix the map key.
Recruit someone to make the XML (Or I will ahve to learn how to make XML and it will be a disaster for whoever tries to check it....)
And then the things I have quoted above this.

I think thats everything I needed to comment on. If I missed anything important, just quote it and repost it here.Next update will come in a few days.

[bryguy]

What all is there still left to do on this besides the XML? The graphics look ready to play on to my untrained eyes.
I think graphics are pretty much set for the map section (the key still needs a ton of work, though.) The remaining things are:
The -3 decay on Grand Oasis (should it be removed?)
Divisions for North, South, etc in the desert? (or just number 1-91 w/ no divisions?)
Fix the map key.
Recruit someone to make the XML (Or I will ahve to learn how to make XML and it will be a disaster for whoever tries to check it....)
I can do the XML

ill make some comments while im here

I think the -3 should be removed
I think it should be changed to desert numbers 1-91 w/ no divisions
START WORK ON THE SMALL

[MrBenn]

I've just been reading the last few pages of posts, and have thought of a compromise for numbering... You could combine a directional label with a number between 1-91, so you'd have 1-23 (North), 24-46 (East), 47-69 (South), 70-91 (West), or something??

Actually, now I've written it down, I'm not so sure that's such a good idea... ho hum...

[rocky mountain]

I think the -3 should stay. It makes it more challenging and it makes sense for the treasure to be booby trapped. you wouldn't have to build up as much as other objective games because of the surrounding oases and its -3 instead of -10 (like in age of magic)

I've just been reading the last few pages of posts, and have thought of a compromise for numbering... You could combine a directional label with a number between 1-91, so you'd have 1-23 (North), 24-46 (East), 47-69 (South), 70-91 (West), or something??

maybe if its just North 1-46 and South 47-91? it would take away the deployment issues...

[wcaclimbing]

I've just been reading the last few pages of posts, and have thought of a compromise for numbering... You could combine a directional label with a number between 1-91, so you'd have 1-23 (North), 24-46 (East), 47-69 (South), 70-91 (West), or something??

maybe if its just North 1-46 and South 24-91? it would take away the deployment issues...

That could work.

North Desert 1
....
North Desert 46
South Desert 47
...
South Desert 91

Best of both worlds, maybe?
It works for me.

[rocky mountain]

Looking at the stamp requirements, it looks to me like its done, but of course i'm not an expert cartographer...
It should be soon anyway

[yeti_c]

OK - loving this map - and reackon it's gonna be a blinder...

1 small thing - you spelt "Honour" wrong.

C.

[MrBenn]

I've just been reading the last few pages of posts, and have thought of a compromise for numbering... You could combine a directional label with a number between 1-91, so you'd have 1-23 (North), 24-46 (East), 47-69 (South), 70-91 (West), or something??

maybe if its just North 1-46 and South 24-91? it would take away the deployment issues...

That could work.

North Desert 1
....
North Desert 46
South Desert 47
...
South Desert 91

Best of both worlds, maybe?
It works for me.

That looks more like I was imagining it in my head, with the advantage that North is before South alphabetically, so they would appear in the correct numeric order in the deploy/attack lists...

[wcaclimbing]

OK - loving this map - and reackon it's gonna be a blinder...

1 small thing - you spelt "Honour" wrong.

C.

whats a blinder?

and Honor is the .... american? .... way to spell it?
I'm not quite sure how to explain...
Its kinda like color vs colour.
Two different ways to spell the same word.

[t-o-m]

whats a blinder?

a shocker or basically meaning that its gonna take us all by suprise and its going to be great!