Das Schloß [QUENCHED #2]

[oaktown]

I like the general layout of the map now, so we're down to little things. there's probably a lot that I'll catch when I have time to look at this more closely, but here's what I've got for you right now...

• Whoever starts in Das W.C. has one more territory to break through to get into the castle than the other castle starts.
• The C.P. line does need to be better explained.
• The Park Platz could be wider to make it clear that it's the path to the runway... Kontrolturm can be smaller since it doesn't really do anything other than provide part of the Flughafen bonus.
• Call me nuts, but isn't it impossible to hold 12 Flughafen territories? One is a killer neutral. And even if you could, why bust through a 12 army neutral to get an extra army? That bonus seems unreasonable and completely unnecessary.
• I'd say make Offiziere a 4 or 6 army neutral start and make the attack two way. Otherwise there's absolutely no reason to ever take it. It would be interesting to create a second route from the soldiers to the runway, to create some intrigue.
• Does FS3 hit both "Wache In" territories? because the arrow points only to one.
• More space around Komm Willhelm would be nice to make it clear that it's surrounded on all sides by the one territory. It's a better location you've found there, by the way.
• "AA can attack P1-P3 through C1-C2" - would it be possible to alphabetize the soldiers so it's C through Y rather than P through C?

OK, more later. 'nite.

[Lufsen75]

Still dont see how this will have a winner in the cases of several players. Espessially when it is escalating.

[barterer2002]

I see, And here I thought I had the simple solution. I'll admit I don't understand the code but let me ask a question.

My assumption is that when I start my turn the program looks to see if I hold all the objectives and if I do the game is over.

Is it possible to have the code look to see if ANYONE holds all the objectives?

Essentially what this will mean as a practical matter is that I won't win the game when I grab the fifth objective but rather as soon as the next turn begins?

Is that not the same thing?

You are just delaying the winning turn til the next player.

But No - I disagree with the concept of getting objective winning...

If you play mission cards in Risk - except for "eliminate player X" - all the missions require you to hold the objectives til the beginning of your next turn!!

C.

No its not the same thing at all. The way it currently plays you have to hold the objective through 8 turns, My contention is that in an 8 man escalating the only way you're going to be able to do that is with poor play from your opponents. As it currently stands the game that BaldAdonis referenced Game 2500904 is in a stalemate area. Any player that makes a run at an endgame will be hammered by all 7 players for the next round. I could probably create a situation that would allow another player to win the game but not one that would allow myself to win (suciciding on most of the others at a time when they have 1 or 2 cards each).

To me this is the problem, the objects become impossible to hold without poor play from an opponent. As a result, it doesnt even make sense for the players to make a run at the objectives because they know they're not going to be able to hold them and will just make themselves easy targets.

I was trying to suggest a change in the gameplay that would encourage players to try to reach the objectives. My thought was that if you held them at the end of your turn it would encourage players to at least try to attack. I was informed that the code wouldn't allow you to program a victory in such a situation. I was asking then if the code would allow a search to see if any player had the objectives at the start of the turn which would allow you to work around the coding issue and still encourage game play based on the mission at hand with a possibility of success.

The difference between what I'm suggesting and what is currently in place then is this. If the red player succeeds in grabbing all the objectives he wins the game. Since the code doesn't allow a search for that in the middle of his turn, his turn ends and when green clicks begin turn, Red is declared the winner. The only reason I would do it that way and not do it immediately when the red player got all the objectives is that you all have indicated that it isn't possible to code that way. So if you're asking if what I'm proposing is the same thing in practical matters here, then, of course it is, I'm trying to find a way to work with the restrictions the code places upon you to reach the same objective.

On the other hand, if you're asking if its the same thing as what occurs now, then no it isn't the same thing. Currently the Red player has to withstand challenges from Green, Blue, Yellow, Orange, Teal, Pink and Silver.

As far as the idea of "this is how its always been with mission based play" I would reject the notion that it has to be that way. One of the greatest things about the maps that you all as mapmakers have created is the diversity. There are tons of new ideas that have been implimented in CC that are not in the board based games and I would contend that you could do it here as well.

My fear here is that you've got a good idea for a different type of gameplay which I think is creative and terrific but the idea is drowning because as currently implimented the play is impractical and because of that will become one of the least used CC maps and will discourage others from making similar maps due to the wild unpopularity.

I don't think it has to be that way and that's why I'm here. I'll admit that I'm not much in the foundry because I don't understand drawing and don't understand coding. I do, however, understand gameplay and it seems to me that rather than redrawing the map for Das Schloss, it is the gameplay that needs to be rethought.

[cairnswk]

Yeti_c....i'd like to know if this objective goal in this map is that same as that of Gazala.
Because i don't recall that on the games i won in Gazala, i had to hold the objective for one turn.
EDIT* I just checked those games and I won those by elimination of opponents without achieving all the objectives.

So my question is: why does the objective have to be held for one turn. Why can't a winner be declared when the objective is reached. I guess this is simply xml coding, and somewhere along the line i am thinking that this objective business got screwed.

[Halmir]

My main grumble was that it wasn't clear that to win you had to take the 4 territories THEN hold them for one round. That has been made clear now (cheers!) so I'm happy (even if it did cost me the game the first time I played this map... sobs!).

I don't know about the other changes, but they look interesting. Well done for caring enough to listen and being prepared to make changes!

[barterer2002]

Looking at the games that have been played

6/7/8 player games. 40 games played-7 finished 6 of those are freestyle and the other Game 2486226 is characterized by players who don't understand the map or that they need to take one of the objectives away from teal.

5 player games. 16 games played 7 finished all seqential

4 player games. 28 games played 19 finished (16 standard, 3 freestyle)

3 player games. 13 games all finished

1v1 games 220 games all finished.

I don't know how this compares to other maps but I think it may be significant to note that none of the standard games with more than 5 players who have a basic understanding of the map have finished.

[barterer2002]

Yeti_c....i'd like to know if this objective goal in this map is that same as that of Gazala.
Because i don't recall that on the games i won in Gazala, i had to hold the objective for one turn.
EDIT* I just checked those games and I won those by elimination of opponents without achieving all the objectives.

So my question is: why does the objective have to be held for one turn. Why can't a winner be declared when the objective is reached. I guess this is simply xml coding, and somewhere along the line i am thinking that this objective business got screwed.

I didn't even realize there was an objective in Gazala until I read this.

[brandoncfi]

maybe you could make the parachutes available for attack but put a 200 nuetral army blocking them. This would do a few things. For most settings being able to break thru 200 armies would take a long time and going after the objective a much better option. However for those Esc games during later rounds this might be a good option to win the game...break thru the 200 army barrier take out a player and get his card/bonus and the game can be won by elimination. Either way the objective is still an option because breaking thru a 200 army wall is not easy but at least there will still be a way to end the game

[oaktown]

maybe you could make the parachutes available for attack but put a 200 nuetral army blocking them. This would do a few things. For most settings being able to break thru 200 armies would take a long time and going after the objective a much better option. However for those Esc games during later rounds this might be a good option to win the game...break thru the 200 army barrier take out a player and get his card/bonus and the game can be won by elimination. Either way the objective is still an option because breaking thru a 200 army wall is not easy but at least there will still be a way to end the game

this isn't a bad idea. If AA could hit the parachutes (which makes more sense anyway since AA/Anti-Aircraft should be shooting crap int he sky) you'd have a possible out in games tat can't be completed via the objective. Make it a giant starting neutral value and you guarantee that it wouldn't happen until you get to the point that the game is a deadlock anyway.

Currently the AA can attack the guys in the field again... did I miss how this is now different from the Killing Fields problem that kicked off this whole redesign?

[yeti_c]

Yeti_c....i'd like to know if this objective goal in this map is that same as that of Gazala.
Because i don't recall that on the games i won in Gazala, i had to hold the objective for one turn.
EDIT* I just checked those games and I won those by elimination of opponents without achieving all the objectives.

So my question is: why does the objective have to be held for one turn. Why can't a winner be declared when the objective is reached. I guess this is simply xml coding, and somewhere along the line i am thinking that this objective business got screwed.

Yes - ALL objectives - be it Das Schloss, Fuedal war, Gazala, AOR1 & 2 are worked the exact same way... this isn't new.

C.

[cairnswk]

My main grumble was that it wasn't clear that to win you had to take the 4 territories THEN hold them for one round. That has been made clear now (cheers!) so I'm happy (even if it did cost me the game the first time I played this map... sobs!).

I don't know about the other changes, but they look interesting. Well done for caring enough to listen and being prepared to make changes!

Halmir....this is something that has been lost along the way, and is partially my fault. As far back as version 2 below, there was this stated objective of taking and holding terts, but it didn't specify for one turn, and on my first win on this map after gaining the objectives, i also had to question this holding for one turn business. Sorry.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... r_V02S.jpg

[cairnswk]

Yeti_c....i'd like to know if this objective goal in this map is that same as that of Gazala.
Because i don't recall that on the games i won in Gazala, i had to hold the objective for one turn.
EDIT* I just checked those games and I won those by elimination of opponents without achieving all the objectives.

So my question is: why does the objective have to be held for one turn. Why can't a winner be declared when the objective is reached. I guess this is simply xml coding, and somewhere along the line i am thinking that this objective business got screwed.

I didn't even realize there was an objective in Gazala until I read this.

Yes there always has been, but in that game you can win first by taking out your opponents, which obviously everyone is doing including myself.

[cairnswk]

maybe you could make the parachutes available for attack but put a 200 nuetral army blocking them. This would do a few things. For most settings being able to break thru 200 armies would take a long time and going after the objective a much better option. However for those Esc games during later rounds this might be a good option to win the game...break thru the 200 army barrier take out a player and get his card/bonus and the game can be won by elimination. Either way the objective is still an option because breaking thru a 200 army wall is not easy but at least there will still be a way to end the game

this isn't a bad idea. If AA could hit the parachutes (which makes more sense anyway since AA/Anti-Aircraft should be shooting crap int he sky) you'd have a possible out in games tat can't be completed via the objective. Make it a giant starting neutral value and you guarantee that it wouldn't happen until you get to the point that the game is a deadlock anyway.

Currently the AA can attack the guys in the field again... did I miss how this is now different from the Killing Fields problem that kicked off this whole redesign?

Thanks oaktown and brandoncfi for this input.

Firstly to oaktown, i haven't forgotten your suggestions above...just haven't got to them.
This whole killing fields problem was kicked off by players complaining about how unfair it was in 1vs1 games, that the 2nd player has a very distinct disadvantage after the 1st player has wiped him out.
The solution was to reduce the number of starting position generated bonuses from 2 to 1 effectively halving them so that the second player at least has a chance of getting a look in on the 1st and 2nd round.
I also undertook to redesign the airport so that someone couldn't be wiped out there immediately by the 1st player receiving too may bonuses.
The second part of that solution for me after much thought was to reduce the number of those AA batteries from three to one, causing a battle over it affect, and also taking away the main focus of removal of someon'es generated starting bonuses from the objective....player just landed on the AA batteries and chocked them up with large armies. That will still happen but at least there is only one of them and players can fight over it.
Now also there are:
1. more bonuses allocated for the roads etc so that you can gain armies to use in removal of the player on the AA battery.
2. it is easier to conquer the cable cars and there is another route to the castle from the village even though the helipad from the village has been removed.

Secondly, about the 200 neutrals on the parachutes.....i applaud the thinking, but am not in favour of this.
Even though AA batteries should be able to shoot something out of the sky, effectively working in with the story line -> the guys who got killed in the story didn't get wiped out by the AA battery from town, they got shot by their colleagues, and the survivors escaped at the airport.

If it is imperitive that there is "an out" in this game so that stalemates don't block games....then i would be in favour of the escape aircraft being able to take out the parachutes after the aircraft has been captured, but there would be at least 20 neutrals or more on the aircraft.
But also following that, the airport would be configured so that the starting positions at the airport would have to battle into the village and out again to reach the aircraft, and the helipad would remain a killer neutral.

Solution to stalemate proposed is:
1. Escape aircraft starts with 20 or more neutrals
2. After Capture, the escape aircraft can conquer the parachutes
3. So that the escape aircraft is not captured too early in the game, the airport road would be re-configured so that players would have to battle into town and back out again
4. The helipad remains a killer neutral.

Howver, I would also be in favour of (thanks barterer2002) having this hold for one turn xml condition re-configured so that once the player achieves the objective, game won...it's over....you wouldn't have to hold the objective through 8 other players turns in order to win the game.

[cairnswk]

Current Version for discussion.

[AllReadyDead]

So....can K1 attack the escape pod right on.....because it looks that way...

[cairnswk]

So....can K1 attack the escape pod right on.....because it looks that way...

No, there is a gap between those two terts, and i will have to extend that brick wall.

[cairnswk]

Feedback from Game2486226 Das Schloß

I think the map was very unclear on the winning objective. I also think that the bonuses are not deployed in a fair way as one player started with an immediate bonus that made the the strongest player form the start.

[barterer2002]

thanks Cairns, I think its going to turn out very interesting. The question I have in the upper corner the bonus states that it excludes the starting positions. The map you present clearly shows that the K labeled terts are starting positions but if you've never seen it and are playing a 4 player game you might think that the other K terts, the ones that start neutral in a less than 8 player game, would be included in the bonus. If, instead of stating that it is "not including starting positions" it stated "not including K territories" it would be clearer in those situations.

[cairnswk]

thanks Cairns, I think its going to turn out very interesting. The question I have in the upper corner the bonus states that it excludes the starting positions. The map you present clearly shows that the K labeled terts are starting positions but if you've never seen it and are playing a 4 player game you might think that the other K terts, the ones that start neutral in a less than 8 player game, would be included in the bonus. If, instead of stating that it is "not including starting positions" it stated "not including K territories" it would be clearer in those situations.

Done...working on this right now.

Can you comment on my proposal:

Solution to stalemate proposed is:
1. Escape aircraft starts with 20 or more neutrals
2. After Capture, the escape aircraft can conquer the parachutes
3. So that the escape aircraft is not captured too early in the game, the airport road would be re-configured so that players would have to battle into town and back out again
4. The helipad remains a killer neutral.

This i realise falls outside of the voting just done in the poll. I would like to think that we can make this map an objective only map (where assassin and terminator games aren't effective -> they become normal games because no one can be eliminated).
But the solution above is an answer that is acceptable to me if this stalemate situation cannot be resolved.

[cairnswk]

I like the general layout of the map now, so we're down to little things. there's probably a lot that I'll catch when I have time to look at this more closely, but here's what I've got for you right now...

• Whoever starts in Das W.C. has one more territory to break through to get into the castle than the other castle starts.

OK can deal with that..somehow. In Version 29, all castle terts have been re-arranged so that everyone has equal chance to get the objective terts.

• The C.P. line does need to be better explained.

Mmmm...seeing what i can do there.

• The Park Platz could be wider to make it clear that it's the path to the runway... Kontrolturm can be smaller since it doesn't really do anything other than provide part of the Flughafen bonus.

Fixed.

• Call me nuts, but isn't it impossible to hold 12 Flughafen territories? One is a killer neutral. And even if you could, why bust through a 12 army neutral to get an extra army? That bonus seems unreasonable and completely unnecessary.

Ah...i would be the one who is nuts there for not thinking of that.
Changed that to +2 for 11 (excludes K territories and Helipad A)

• I'd say make Offiziere a 4 or 6 army neutral start and make the attack two way. Otherwise there's absolutely no reason to ever take it. It would be interesting to create a second route from the soldiers to the runway, to create some intrigue.

Mmmm, i can change the neutral amount no worries, but i an not in favour of this taking the airport terts being too easy. The one way from Offiziere to the K terts is there so that there is a method of eliminating the K terts players if this doesn't happen early in the game.
But to make it the other way i think would make it too easy to take the objective early in the game.

• Does FS3 hit both "Wache In" territories? because the arrow points only to one.

Oops...fixed.

• More space around Komm Willhelm would be nice to make it clear that it's surrounded on all sides by the one territory. It's a better location you've found there, by the way.

Good....done!

• "AA can attack P1-P3 through C1-C2" - would it be possible to alphabetize the soldiers so it's C through Y rather than P through C?

Alpha changes done....good suggestion i didn't think of.

Version 29 below.

[barterer2002]

I'm not sure what this means

2. After Capture, the escape aircraft can conquer the parachutes

If you're saying that after a player takes the escape aircraft they can attack the parachutes, is that different than saying that the parachutes can be attacked only from the escape aircraft.

If instead you're saying that a player has to hold all the objectives to make the attacks I'm not sure that the statement is compatable with

Howver, I would also be in favour of (thanks barterer2002) having this hold for one turn xml condition re-configured so that once the player achieves the objective, game won...it's over....you wouldn't have to hold the objective through 8 other players turns in order to win the game.[/game]

I guess you're presenting an either/or situation.

One of the interesting factors of this map has been the inability to take out your opponents. I kind of like that idea as it makes the map totally different and because of that I'd favor (obviously from my earlier comments) the idea that holding the objectives at any point wins the game. I don't know if it eliminates all the issues. It doesn't make a map build proof but in reality most maps aren't. I'd like to play it this way and see how it works out. I do like the helipad neutral re-set.

[cairnswk]

I'm not sure what this means

2. After Capture, the escape aircraft can conquer the parachutes

If you're saying that after a player takes the escape aircraft they can attack the parachutes, is that different than saying that the parachutes can be attacked only from the escape aircraft.

If instead you're saying that a player has to hold all the objectives to make the attacks I'm not sure that the statement is compatable with

Howver, I would also be in favour of (thanks barterer2002) having this hold for one turn xml condition re-configured so that once the player achieves the objective, game won...it's over....you wouldn't have to hold the objective through 8 other players turns in order to win the game.[/game]

I guess you're presenting an either/or situation.

One of the interesting factors of this map has been the inability to take out your opponents. I kind of like that idea as it makes the map totally different and because of that I'd favor (obviously from my earlier comments) the idea that holding the objectives at any point wins the game. I don't know if it eliminates all the issues. It doesn't make a map build proof but in reality most maps aren't. I'd like to play it this way and see how it works out. I do like the helipad neutral re-set.

I understand what you say baterer2002. Thanks for that insight.
I am not sure we would be able to, even though i would like it also, to have a special "win the objective" where a player wins as soon as they capture the objectives just for this map.
It would be worth asking the question.
The voters clearly want an objective only map here, but if there is too much trouble with that for larger games with this new version, i guess i now have an option to change the xml in the future (by using the attack from escape aircraft to parachutes).

[pamoa]

I am not sure we would be able to, even though i would like it also, to have a special "win the objective" where a player wins as soon as they capture the objectives just for this map.
It would be worth asking the question...

You need to find a way to keep it an only objective map. It's his flavor and uniqueness! It would be pretty sad you you should move back to a "normal" game. But I understand that you have adress this multiplayer issue...

[cairnswk]

I am not sure we would be able to, even though i would like it also, to have a special "win the objective" where a player wins as soon as they capture the objectives just for this map.
It would be worth asking the question...

You need to find a way to keep it an only objective map. It's his flavor and uniqueness! It would be pretty sad you you should move back to a "normal" game. But I understand that you have adress this multiplayer issue...

Thanks pamoa....hearing what you say.

[fireedud]

When You write AA can bombard positions C1-C2 through to Y1-Y2. The "to" is an unnecessary word, possibly incorrect English.