Antarctica v9 [I, Gp, Gr]

[e_i_pi]

Each of the ships starts with 3 armies, autodeploys 2. This is pretty much set in stone.

So, why set in stone? Depending on how thickly you pour on the starting neutrals, you may need to autdeploy more than two per turn.

Why set in stone? I was working from the assumption that the couldn't cancel the +3 armies per turn (which you have now said you can), and also that I wanted to work from one solid 'known', and iron out the unknowns. But...

Should there be the usual automatic 3 armies per turn? (I think this is actually a minimum anyhow, so may be a moot point)

With the (relatively new) reinforcement tag you can adjust it up or down, and change the rate at which one picks up new armies. You could also eliminate it all together, and just go with the auto-deploy on the ships. This would kinda make sense, since no nation is going to be going around recruiting new armies anywhere in this continent. Armies of penguins maybe?

[/quote]
...this changes everything. If I can get rid of the armies, which does make sense (why would one nation commit citizens directly into the armies/colonists of another nation??), then I can up the autodeploy. With all this in mind, here's a tentative proposal:

No starting armies, +3 autodeploy on ships.

The neutrals on land represent the harshness of conditions. So,...

2 on the landing points (the favourable bays / ports / harbours)
6 on the South Pole (still is the southernmost point of the earth, and therefore the least affected by global warming)
5 on Recovery, Support Force, Dominion, Barrier (as they are still close to the pole)
4 on Byrd, Lambert, Berkner, Slessor, Filcher (one more step away from the pole)
3 everywhere else

...OR...

2 on the landing points (the favourable bays / ports / harbours)
7 on the South Pole (still is the southernmost point of the earth, and therefore the least affected by global warming)
5 on Recovery, Support Force, Dominion, Barrier (as they are still close to the pole)
3 everywhere else

[e_i_pi]

Actually I just thought of something...
What if instead of territory bonuses (coninent bonuses are fine), you increase the # of autodeploy a little and make that ur only source of reinforcements until a continent is conquered. That might add realism in that it's kind of difficult to maintain a barracks in Antartica, and if in real life, people were invading the Antarctic, they would be doing it almost solely by shipping troops in. Then once they had captured an area (like the coninents on this map) they would begin using that area for resources, which would count as troops in this game. Just an idea, of course it's up to you.

So disregard my previous post that said I think there should be territory reinforcements, truth is I rarely know what I'm thinking.

Yep, I answered this in oaktowns post. Definitely going to be done. I love the idea of each player having to stand on their own two feet. In team games, you will have to support each other through good communication, solid strategy, and coordinated tactics, not by the simple "all stack on one and terminate another player" approach that I see a lot (yes, a lot) of high ranked players get away with.

[joe cool 360]

i like the second option for neutrals, but only 7 on the south pole?
that's a pretty crucial point, i'd make it like, 10 or (maybe) 15.
it sounds like ur gonna add the only autodeploy and continent bonuses idea, sounds great, imho that sounds like a great way to change strategy.

i'm relatively new to this game, so i'm still learning, but has killer neutrals ever been a consideration (I don't know if it would upset gameplay beyond the point of no return, just bouncing around ideas), my thinking on this would be like predatory animals or really bad weather conditions idk.

uh, can't think of anything else right now...
keep up the good work!

[e_i_pi]

i like the second option for neutrals, but only 7 on the south pole?
that's a pretty crucial point, i'd make it like, 10 or (maybe) 15.

Remember that the only armies you will be getting are the autodeploy, and any continent bonuses, nothing for territories. This means for large parts of any game, people will be getting 3 armies that they will have to fortify to their front each round.

it sounds like ur gonna add the only autodeploy and continent bonuses idea, sounds great, imho that sounds like a great way to change strategy.

i'm relatively new to this game, so i'm still learning, but has killer neutrals ever been a consideration (I don't know if it would upset gameplay beyond the point of no return, just bouncing around ideas), my thinking on this would be like predatory animals or really bad weather conditions idk.

uh, can't think of anything else right now...
keep up the good work!

Yeah, on the South Pole you will lose 1 army per turn. If I apply that to other provinces, it will simply be too difficult to get anywhere, as you'll be constantly reinforcing your 3 autodeploy, only to see one die the next turn, so you will almost always be attacking with only 2 armies, not 3.

[e_i_pi]

Actually, I've just been thinking about this...

If there are only armies from autodeploy on ships, and continents, then as soon as someone gets their ship knocked out, unless they have a continent, they are essentially out of the game. I'm thinking maybe 2 autodeploy on ships, and 1 autodeploy on landing points. The landing points would require some sort of icon on them to distinguish them as +1 autodeploy points, but I think it will be better gameplay overall

[yeti_c]

With the (relatively new) reinforcement tag you can adjust it up or down, and change the rate at which one picks up new armies. You could also eliminate it all together, and just go with the auto-deploy on the ships. This would kinda make sense, since no nation is going to be going around recruiting new armies anywhere in this continent. Armies of penguins maybe?

Just to point out - that min reinforcements can only go as low as 1.

Lack did this to avoid games stalemating - I have asked for this restriction to be removed and placed as a foundry restriction upon the Cartos (i.e. Oaktown) to ensure games cannot stale out...

In this instance a game *Could* stale out - as say a dominant player wiped out all but two players and left them with no bonuses - then deadbeated... - the game would be decided by which of the remaining 2 players deadbeat first...

Other examples of games possibly becoming stale are.
a) Conquerman -(Hold all ghosts) - only 1 player can hold 3 ghosts - and thus remove their bonus to 0 - thus no stale can occur.
b) Supermax - (Hold Gas Chamber and/or 3,4,5 hole members) - only 1 player can hold the -5 gas Chamber but another player could hold 3,4,5 hole members - and therefore a stale could happen here. (possibly should be addressed?)
c) Poker - (If min reinforcements were 0) - No stale can happen on this map due to the "High Card" bonus - which is given for the holding of any territory in the game.

C.

[e_i_pi]

Version 8.11 is up. Major change to the texturing on the land, now all borders should be crystal clear. Also, I added little anchor icons next to the provinces that have landing points. It now looks far less busy, and is back to the good ole pastel shades it had originally.

Colour-blindness is not an issue, except for achromotopia (the balck & white colour blindness), but the mini-map is handy for working out continent borders anyhow.

Click image to enlarge.

[joe cool 360]

Yeah, on the South Pole you will lose 1 army per turn. If I apply that to other provinces, it will simply be too difficult to get anywhere, as you'll be constantly reinforcing your 3 autodeploy, only to see one die the next turn, so you will almost always be attacking with only 2 armies, not 3.

My noob is showing. I always thought killer neutrals were neutrals that attacked you (like an ai), alright so never mind, I like the killer neutrals staying on South Pole.

Actually, I've just been thinking about this...

If there are only armies from autodeploy on ships, and continents, then as soon as someone gets their ship knocked out, unless they have a continent, they are essentially out of the game. I'm thinking maybe 2 autodeploy on ships, and 1 autodeploy on landing points. The landing points would require some sort of icon on them to distinguish them as +1 autodeploy points, but I think it will be better gameplay overall

I agree, especially after what yeti_c said about the stalemate possiblities. The only problem I can see is if someone is pushed away from the landing points and bombarded off the ship... they would not have any source of troops. Unfortunately I can't offer any suggestions, I very much like the autodeploy only reinforcements, but gameplay might not work so well with that. On the other hand, there are sixteen landing points, so you would think that someone might be able to maintain a grip on atleast one...

Version 8.11 is up. Major change to the texturing on the land, now all borders should be crystal clear. Also, I added little anchor icons next to the provinces that have landing points. It now looks far less busy, and is back to the good ole pastel shades it had originally.

The anchor icons was a smart idea, i like it, good thinking. I like the pastel look too, it looks..... colder.

[joe cool 360]

Oh, I almost forgot,
what are starting positions in games with less than 8 players?
Obviously if it's a multiple of 8, u can divvy up the starting positions evenly, but what if it's 3, 5, 6, or 7?

[e_i_pi]

I agree, especially after what yeti_c said about the stalemate possiblities.

Apparently there's a 1army per turn minimum deployable amount, which I can live with. That will ensure no stalemates.

Oh, I almost forgot,
what are starting positions in games with less than 8 players?
Obviously if it's a multiple of 8, u can divvy up the starting positions evenly, but what if it's 3, 5, 6, or 7?

3 you start with 2 each, and 2 are neutral.
5,6,7 you start with 1 each, and the rest are neutral
The mapmaker has absolutely no control over the way they are divvied up. This map is designed mostly for 8 player games, though other game types should still work fine.

[oaktown]

hmm, so let me catch up...

• There's a minimum of 1 deployment per turn, which in light of the stalemate possibility is a good thing.

• You're leaning toward the minimum deployment (1 army), and a deployment on the ships... of 3 still? Just 2? Yes, anybody who loses their ships will be effectively knocked out of the game unless they already hold a region, but I think this was the idea behind the map. Hold your fleet, wipe out everybody else's by controlling the pole.

• Starting neutral values will be highest near the pole, lower on the coast. It will be much easier to see what this means for the map if you could put the proposed neutral values in the army circles on your next update. Once we see them, we may need to rethink some bonuses - the Peninsula will be all 2s and 3, which will make that a much easier capture than the regions that have inland territories and thus mean an advantageous start for the player/s who start over there. I think 6 on the pole will be fine, what with the surrounding territories being hard to take. T

The first few rounds of this game will move pretty slowly and see little action after rounds 1 and 2 - like somebody said above, with most of the armies being auto-deployed on the ships you won't have them to attack with after round 1, and you'll have to move them up at the end of your turn. This will be especially frustrating in adjacent fort games, in which armies will stack up on your boat as you try to get the previous group out one slow territory at a time.

[e_i_pi]

hmm, so let me catch up...

• There's a minimum of 1 deployment per turn, which in light of the stalemate possibility is a good thing.

Yeah I'd prefer to go with 1 army deployment to stop quads games becoming farcical.

• You're leaning toward the minimum deployment (1 army), and a deployment on the ships... of 3 still? Just 2? Yes, anybody who loses their ships will be effectively knocked out of the game unless they already hold a region, but I think this was the idea behind the map. Hold your fleet, wipe out everybody else's by controlling the pole.

I don't mind upping the boats to 3 autodeploy, which makes more sense I think. I was thinking of having the ports autodeploy 1 each, to encourage people lading on both ports.

• Starting neutral values will be highest near the pole, lower on the coast. It will be much easier to see what this means for the map if you could put the proposed neutral values in the army circles on your next update. Once we see them, we may need to rethink some bonuses - the Peninsula will be all 2s and 3, which will make that a much easier capture than the regions that have inland territories and thus mean an advantageous start for the player/s who start over there. I think 6 on the pole will be fine, what with the surrounding territories being hard to take. T

Yep, if we're not having army deployment (well, 1 army deployment) then that pretty much negates the reason I wanted extra armies on the pole. I simply thought of armies on the pole as a way to stop a round 3-4 clinch of the win on quads, justified by the pole being harsher conditions. I suppose if we're just doing autodeploy, we could get away with 4-5 on the pole.

Next update I'll put starting neutrals in.

The first few rounds of this game will move pretty slowly and see little action after rounds 1 and 2 - like somebody said above, with most of the armies being auto-deployed on the ships you won't have them to attack with after round 1, and you'll have to move them up at the end of your turn. This will be especially frustrating in adjacent fort games, in which armies will stack up on your boat as you try to get the previous group out one slow territory at a time.

I agree it will be slow on adjacent games, in fact all game types will be a little slower because of this, mostly because after you've taken the ports, you can't automatically attack at the start of your round necessarily. But I'm hoping that this will make people plan more, so that it is a more strategic map.
Look, I just finished my first game on Madagascar, which is quenched. The game ended in round 5 because the other side got 1 continent from the drop, and 1 continent on their first move before mine. It was a whitewash, with no demonstration of skill, tactics, or strategy. I don't begrudge the other team for it, they played perfectly, but every single move was completely straight forward, and the victory for them was guaranteed from round 1. I'm trying to make maps that encourage strategic thought, and if that means that round 5 wins have to be sacrificed, so be it.

[MrBenn]

Should there be the usual automatic 3 armies per turn? (I think this is actually a minimum anyhow, so may be a moot point)

With the (relatively new) reinforcement tag you can adjust it up or down, and change the rate at which one picks up new armies. You could also eliminate it all together, and just go with the auto-deploy on the ships. This would kinda make sense, since no nation is going to be going around recruiting new armies anywhere in this continent. Armies of penguins maybe?

...this changes everything. If I can get rid of the armies, which does make sense (why would one nation commit citizens directly into the armies/colonists of another nation??), then I can up the autodeploy. With all this in mind, here's a tentative proposal:

This is a fantastic idea
The regional bonuses would still be deployable in the usual fashion?? Heck, this map would be a prime candidate for conditional autodeploy functionality... [sigh]

If the deployable element is being reduced, then extra care needs to be taken to ensure that no single ship is overpowered.

[e_i_pi]

New version up:

Neutrals now added
Toned down the colours a little
Added new army circles (though I doubt you'll notice the difference)
Small version up as well

Gameplay simplified:
Ships start with 3, autodeploy 3
Ports start with 1 neutral, autodeploy 1 when captured
All other territories start with 3 neutral
South Pole loses 1 army per turn
1 deployable army per 3 provinces, minimum 1 (not 3)
All continent armies deployable

Shows typical game position for 8 player sunny game, Yellow having just started his/her turn

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[asl80]

looking good eipi.
legend reads fleets autodeploy +2, your last post says +3.

[e_i_pi]

looking good eipi.
legend reads fleets autodeploy +2, your last post says +3.

Thanks asl80, I'll fix that up next update. Nice spotting champ

[honeyspider]

I really think it's bit racist against gay whales. I mean, come on! Land rights for teh gay whales that surely had a stake in those claims long before human intervention. Go throw more plastic bags in teh ocean you german albino iclander Uraguayiain asexual noob.

I do like teh pretty colours tho.

[joe cool 360]

New version up:

Yay!

Neutrals now added

Yay!

Toned down the colours a little

Awesome, I like these colors better 'cause after looking at the map for a second time, verson 8.11's Queen Maud Land looked like orange sherbert

Added new army circles (though I doubt you'll notice the difference)

i don't

Gameplay simplified:
Ships start with 3, autodeploy 3

sounds good

Ports start with 1 neutral, autodeploy 1 when captured

sounds fine

All other territories start with 3 neutral

Seeing how many neutrals there are and how it tough it would be to gain a continent, especially when playing against 8 other players, I like the simplified version. Maybe 4 or 5 neutrals on the Polar Plateu though?

1 deployable army per 3 provinces, minimum 1 (not 3)

Let me make sure I understand: 1 for 3 territories, 2 for 6, 3 for 9, 4 for 12, and so on.
Ok, I have a few questions about this:
1) Does the territory bonuses include ships?
2) If the answer is no to the above question because they are already an autodeploy territory, then my next question is does the territory bonus include the port territories?
3) Is it possible to make a max territory bonus? Like you can receive no more than 3 troops from territory bonuses or something like that. If you could, this could ensure no stalemates, but also make players rely more on their autodeploys, or atleast rely equally on autodeploys.

Love the map, still foaming at the mouth to get a chance to play on it.

[e_i_pi]

Let me make sure I understand: 1 for 3 territories, 2 for 6, 3 for 9, 4 for 12, and so on.

That's the sort of scheme I'm getting at. I understand it will be difficult to take continents, so going 1 for 2 may be better, ie 1-3 terrs = 1 army, 4-5 = 2, 6-7 = 3 etc

1) Does the territory bonuses include ships?

I can make it include or not include ship I believe. If I didn't include ships, I would consider making it 1 per 2 territories

2) If the answer is no to the above question because they are already an autodeploy territory, then my next question is does the territory bonus include the port territories?

Yeah ports will be included

3) Is it possible to make a max territory bonus? Like you can receive no more than 3 troops from territory bonuses or something like that. If you could, this could ensure no stalemates, but also make players rely more on their autodeploys, or atleast rely equally on autodeploys.

Yeah I can make a max, but the map really isn't that big to warrant it. The only map that starts trimming bonus armies is Conquer Man I think, and that has 200 or so territories. I'm happy with people deploying, just not all deploying at once on one player who then takes the pole and wins the game.

Love the map, still foaming at the mouth to get a chance to play on it.

Heh cool, hopefully it won't be much longer, but there's still a fair amount of work to do

[oaktown]

looking sharp as usual.

The only remaining colors that trouble me are West Ant. and Peninsula, then West Ant. and Victoria Land. This is further complicated byt he fact that West Ant. and Penin. look similar on the mini-map. Maybe if West Ant. were a touch lighter on both?

I think the 1 army minimum turn allotment will need further clarification... since we're used to getting a minimum of three you (sadly) may want to actually note that the placements begin at 1, not 3.

The auto-deploy stuff is important, so maybe it should be as bold as the rest of the text. And if each player is getting 1 army each turn plus 1 per port, 2 may be sufficient for the boats. Getting five each turn, even if two are buried, may mean faster build-up than you want.

Even with just two auto-deploys on the boats, here's how I might work this game: round 1, I take the undefended (1 neutral) port and move in five armies. Round two I get an army on that port, another to place, and at the end I move my two from the boat in - I'm at 9. When round three begins I put two more armies there for 11, and I can terrorize one of my neighbors' ports. I think that right now the ports may be over-valued.

Do you want to set this up so only the fleet sitting off each port gets the bonus? eg. Argentina gets a bonus for holding Palmer, but Great Britain doesn't. If you don't do this, then when Great Britian (for example) takes over the Peninsula, the bonus is effectively +7, since it's +4 for the region plus three more for holding each port. Doing this would mean either waiting for the same XML update that the Trench Warfare map is waiting for - autodeploys as the result of a combination of territories - or you would have to just give a +1 for holding the boat/port combination that the player could place anywhere.

[yeti_c]

1) Does the territory bonuses include ships?

I can make it include or not include ship I believe. If I didn't include ships, I would consider making it 1 per 2 territories

There are 2 ways of doing it.

a) Create continents based on every territory
b) Use the Territories matrix.

WIth A) you could omit the ships...

With B) you can't - as it applies to all territories!!

C.

[bryguy]

not much time to comment, but ive though i would just give my comments on a couple things...



1) Needs inner atmosphere
2) Maybe add some stars?
3) Maybe add the sun and moon?



sorry but if i had more time i would comment more


Looking good

[e_i_pi]

looking sharp as usual.

The only remaining colors that trouble me are West Ant. and Peninsula, then West Ant. and Victoria Land. This is further complicated byt he fact that West Ant. and Penin. look similar on the mini-map. Maybe if West Ant. were a touch lighter on both?

You're kidding right? I've checked this map on all 7 forms of colour blindness, and aside from monochromacy, only one has any trouble distinguishing, that being between Polar Plateau and Victoria Land (due to brightness similarity). I can post the 7 versions for people to see - there is clear distinction in the West Antarctica area. That was the area that I started on in this latest version, making the colours absolutely opposite on the colour wheel so that there is unequivocal distinction. If this isn't enough as is, I may have to retire the map, as I'm completely out of ideas...

I think the 1 army minimum turn allotment will need further clarification... since we're used to getting a minimum of three you (sadly) may want to actually note that the placements begin at 1, not 3.

The auto-deploy stuff is important, so maybe it should be as bold as the rest of the text. And if each player is getting 1 army each turn plus 1 per port, 2 may be sufficient for the boats. Getting five each turn, even if two are buried, may mean faster build-up than you want.

I plan on re-doing the legend, I haven't paid much attention to it lately.

Even with just two auto-deploys on the boats, here's how I might work this game: round 1, I take the undefended (1 neutral) port and move in five armies. Round two I get an army on that port, another to place, and at the end I move my two from the boat in - I'm at 9. When round three begins I put two more armies there for 11, and I can terrorize one of my neighbors' ports. I think that right now the ports may be over-valued.

Do you want to set this up so only the fleet sitting off each port gets the bonus? eg. Argentina gets a bonus for holding Palmer, but Great Britain doesn't.

Yes this would be best, but I don't think I have room for the essay required to explain this. I'll have a rethink about the bonus structure, but I'm afraid it may have to be simplified to ... cater ... for the audience

[e_i_pi]

1) Needs inner atmosphere
2) Maybe add some stars?
3) Maybe add the sun and moon?

These were in in some form or another, and got poo-pooed by a mod. Every comment since the change (apart from this one) has big upped the change to a simpler background.

[bryguy]

1) Needs inner atmosphere
2) Maybe add some stars?
3) Maybe add the sun and moon?

These were in in some form or another, and got poo-pooed by a mod. Every comment since the change (apart from this one) has big upped the change to a simpler background.

looking at the earlier versions, im not surprised that the stars were removed, they didnt look that good.



But if you look around, you can find some really good tutorials on how to make starfields that look excellent.


I still think it needs inner atmosphere tho