edbeard wrote:you can wail away at people in the fertile lands all you want. I'll grab some oases and get 3 armies for each one and wail on you right back
YES!
cicero wrote:wcaclimbing wrote:New graphics. good or bad?
First impression is that the roofs that you can see at the bottom of the map are bigger than those on the sides. They now look 'too big' to me. Those on the sides are already at the upper limit of 'big enough' I think.
I can change that. They will be a bit smaller on the next update.
t-o-m wrote: a few - of the oasis terit names looking a bit weird becasue theyre resting the tops of the name on the oasis terit line
also, on the oasis of freedom i dont like the fact that some of the grass is leaked on to oasis 27, i know its meant to be there but i dont like that particular bit becasue its the only bit of grass leakage on that oasis
I can fix both of those.
oaktown wrote:Right, every fertile territory needs to hit at least three dead areas to reach the grand oasis, while Besk can get there in two. If you had 68 and 69 wrap under Oases of Liberty and border each other it would eliminate the border between Liberty and 76 and restore the balance.
I'll do that.
oaktown wrote:And Ed is absolutely right about grabbing an oases for the bonus and wailing on his opponents, but that's just the problem: everybody will treat this as a normal map, you grab a cheap bonus and eliminate your enemies. If something can be done to make the objective a more attractive route to victory I think it would make games on this map (and any map with an objective for that matter) more interesting.
I'll decrease the army count on the grand oasis even farther. I'll put it all the way down to 4 on each. So then it would be really easy to take, and nearly irresistible because it would be such an easy target to take over. That would nearly gurantee the use of the objective.
t-o-m wrote:i think that the neutral army count is WAY too low,
theres a +3 bonus for each oasis, and quite a few of the oasis's are about 1 terit away (or between them) so you can easily get quite a few small oasis's in a turn, making your army re-enforcements quite high en-ableing you to capture the Grand Oasis easily and forting everything you got into there at the end of a turn; so i think the neutral armies need addressing
Thats the point. If you play it well, you should have at least the number of armies your opponent has at that time. Then you can get in there and break him. All you have to do is take out one of the 3 areas, and then he doesn't win and the next turn the army decay will take 3 off of each of his armies, which would hurt his forces a lot.
yeti_c wrote:
Could move the grand oasis up - to where "Oasis of freedom" is?
Also - Now that we've lost a couple of other oases... could we swap out "Honor" with one of the ones that aren't so controversially spelled?
C.
I would like to have the grand oasis stay where it is. that is because the closeness to the grand oasis is balanced out by the threats from the side. with people coming in from both east and west fertile lands, the center would be more difficult just because its where everyone ends up.
sfhbballnut wrote:
No complaints on the graphics, except maybe move Woal's territory name to the top of the territory rather than the bottom, it looks out of place there. And it remains to be seen, based on numbers, but it looks like the name Grand Oasis 2 is gonna need to move up and over, but we'll see.
I can change that.
And I am going to change "Honor" to something that has a less controversial spelling.
I still am standing strong against the idea of adding impassables to the map. I think it would hurt the feel of the map a lot, and it wouldn't be as fun to play. Instead of impassables, I can just keep dropping the neutral army counts to encourage people entering the desert.