Peloponnesian War [Done]

[ZeakCytho]

I dont think so, because you dont get big bonuses,like you get in dass scloss.
But we can not know before first game on map,right. We can not know precisely how will these work,because we dont have testing area for that.

I think the lack of big bonuses helps alleviate the situation, but to win you still need to hold 8 territories, which is no easy feat unless it's a foggy game. Also, in escalating games, card values could get really big pretty fast. I don't see how 8 player games can end.

I just had a thought, which you may or may not like. What if the objective were to hold a majority (5/8) of the shields instead of all 8? That's more feasible.

[Qwert]

I think the lack of big bonuses helps alleviate the situation, but to win you still need to hold 8 territories, which is no easy feat unless it's a foggy game. Also, in escalating games, card values could get really big pretty fast. I don't see how 8 player games can end.

I just had a thought, which you may or may not like. What if the objective were to hold a majority (5/8) of the shields instead of all 8? That's more feasible.

Hmm,these will be bad in games with small number of players,1vs1,or 3 player games,not to counting doubles,or triples.
Lets stay with present situation,i realy can not guess how these working online.

[The Neon Peon]

I dont think so, because you dont get big bonuses,like you get in dass scloss.
But we can not know before first game on map,right. We can not know precisely how will these work,because we dont have testing area for that.

I have the opposite opinion.

You need to hold 8 territories, all in a different part of the map. But, to go to each part of the map, you run into another player.

That player will keep attacking you because you can't eliminate them, so you need to put a deploy as large as the player's right next to them, so that you can focus the rest of your troops elsewhere.

This means that for it to not be impossible to take control of the bonuses, you need 3 troops minimum per person so that you stop the players down to 1 territory from taking them back.

So, that means you have to get 4 men (3 for keeping the player inside, and the next for some profit) from each area around each player. At first I thought you would not be getting enough men, but when I look at it, that is just 6 territories and a Hoplites.

So it is possible to keep someone inside the starting point, but is it worth it? You take over the next player, and then gain nothing much. You might have 1 or two extra troops, but you are too weak for invasions yourself. The troops you deploy there are being depleted by the person attacking you, so when a second person comes in, they release the 1st person, and you start all over.

The main point being... with such small bonuses, or small amounts of bonuses... you are capable of taking over a region, yes, but you don't get enough troops from it to hold it once you encounter a third player.

[Qwert]

Its depend what you hold.
maximal bonuses is 13 for hoplites-and 26 for territory(if you hold all)
8 players can have reinforcment per turn 40 army(if i remove autodeply +2 per turn) 24 army.
I think is very possible to blocking one by one player out of game,but its depend how you play,and how other players play,you must count luck with dices.Expecialy with cards you have much biger chance to block players,because if you block players to take cards,then he dont have chance to come back in game. I think that these is possible, expecialy in 1v1 games. 8 players games,these i can not say how will work,these is only teoreticaly,in realy who knows.

[The Neon Peon]

Alright, lets save the gameplay for later, then.

What font/language did you use for the sea names?

[Qwert]

Greek language,i hope that these is correct?

[The Neon Peon]

Greek language,i hope that these is correct?

Can't say on that, why I was asking. I only speak Russian, a small bit of French and English.

[MrBenn]

Alright, lets save the gameplay for later, then.

Actually, I think there is some good discussion about the gameplay going on, and I want to make sure that this map will work, and have most of the gameplay worked out to avoid another 'Das Schloss'. It's in the best interest of everybody concerned

[Qwert]

Can't say on that, why I was asking. I only speak Russian, a small bit of French and English.

mrbeen
Actually, I think there is some good discussion about the gameplay going on, and I want to make sure that this map will work, and have most of the gameplay worked out to avoid another 'Das Schloss'. It's in the best interest of everybody concerned

Well its quit dificulty to say abouth these gameplay option,these is only teoretical, if we take only Dass scloss for example,then nobody can create map with starting possition who can not attack.
I want to try with these concept,who have small number of bonuses, and to see how these work,if its not good,then i belive i can easy fix,removing one way attack ,and add these change in xml,not causing any problems for players in beta stage.

[Incandenza]

The problem with the whole "let's see how it works in beta" is that it can take a long time for systemic problems to arise. Recall that das Schloss wasn't removed from play because of stalemate possibilities, it was because of the horribly unbalanced bonuses.

Here's the thing: I'm of the opinion that escalating will be impossible on any map that doesn't allow for killshots. The idea somehow that in a 6-8p escalating game, the eventual winner will be able to leave enough armies to block every other player from getting a card is kinda insane.

On an unrelated note, I've been thinking about your hoplite bonuses, and I have an idea: what if there were two different types of hoplite? Say one is a bronze helmet with a +2 autodeploy, and every starting position has one within 1-2 terits. Then there can be, say, silver helmets that give a plain ole' +2 bonus, but they're positioned so that they're equidistant from starting points, thus giving players something to fight over in the early going.

[Qwert]

i will try to find some solution,maybe create ring of one way attack ,and to stop any discusion abouth these,because i dont want these. If you dont like,then fine.

[Qwert]

new update-i remove one way attack,because i realy dont want to disscus abouth that,you dont like,and i eliminate,so we have gameplay where you can eliminate opponent.
Also add new territory,to Skyrians have same distace like other for hoplite bonus.

Click image to enlarge.

[crosseout]

Hey
I can't offer much advice; but I've got to say that this map looks really awesome, can't wait to play this:D
Theres obviously quiet a lot of research behind this, appreciate your efforts:D

[The Neon Peon]

Qwert. If you have gameplay where you can eliminate opponents, it almost defeats the objective. It is like the hold all castles in AoR I... you win way before that happens, or do so with having only a few territories left.

I think that we might have figured out some solution eventually, but since you decided not to... What if we made the shields an escalating bonus?
1 shield: 0
2 shields: 1
3 shields: 2
4 shields: 4
5 shields: 6
6 shields: 12
7 shields: 18
8 shields: 24

This way, you can have it work either way, with eliminations or without them.

With eliminating an opponent possible, people actually have a reason to take the shields, and attacking will be highly encouraged since the more shields you can take, the stronger you become, although being the first to take a shield or 2 is not really going to make much of a difference.

With this being a purely objective map, the shields will provide a good bonus. Where before, a player would have to rely on hoplites and thus a small bonus. But now, the person would become stronger with each next person whom they conquer.

This would need some shield rearrangements, it would seem, but I think that if you move hoplites to areas without shields, so that they have 2, it will balance itself out.

[Qwert]

neon peon,now these is what i want to eliminate-BIG BONUSES.
I have quit bad experience with maps who give large bonuses,who is most unbalanced and give huge advantage to player who first come to these territory. I think that these will ruin all balance of these map.
In these map you dont have countries,and these mean that you dont need to Kill opponent to win a game.
The problem with Aor or some other map,is that opponents start with castles,here these is not ,you can take shield and to not attack opponents.
I dont think that these defeats objectives,these is only give two option for win a game, and i think that these is good.

[The Neon Peon]

I disagree that this is a big bonus. To hold 5 shields, you need to own a HUGE portion of the map, and then you only get +6.

If you make it impossible to eliminate people again, then the first large bonus you would get is if you had 6 shields. and by that time, you should probably win the game anyway, so it only speeds up the process and lets you win.

[Qwert]

by The Neon Peon on Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:25 am

I disagree that this is a big bonus. To hold 5 shields, you need to own a HUGE portion of the map, and then you only get +6.

If you make it impossible to eliminate people again, then the first large bonus you would get is if you had 6 shields. and by that time, you should probably win the game anyway, so it only speeds up the process and lets you win.

Ok,now its look that we not understand each other. Present gameplay is for now very good balanced,for all player option.
I realy dont see nothing wrong to have more options for win. With these what you suggest,people will only trying to fight over shields to get bonuses, but still main problem is that you want to change places where is shield,and these is not possible.
I know that you want to see map with huge bonuses,but these gameplay will be with small bonuses.
If you take 5 shield,you will be in big advantage over other players,and with 6,the game will be finish.

[The Neon Peon]

Alright, I see where you are going with this. I thought you had a different set of gameplay in mind.

P.S. Where is the second inset?

[Qwert]

by The Neon Peon on Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:27 am

Alright, I see where you are going with this. I thought you had a different set of gameplay in mind.
I whas initial idea that Starting position be nonattacablile territoey,but after yours oppinion that these is not going to work i remove these option, and left objectives.
Now you have two option for win-Take all shields,and what is normal-if you eliminate yours opponents before take a shields. Tacticaly these can be very interesting gameplay.


P.S. Where is the second inset?

Second inset?For what?

[captainwalrus]

one problem I see is thatt the starting positions are unbalanced. pelopenissis and attica (If i remember my history class) Are where 4 sheilds and they are all condenced, where the other scheilds are much more spread out. There needs to be a way to better balance that because who ever starts at skyros has a huge advantage

one way would be to make their less hopolites in that reagion so the player who starts there has a hard time building a force

[Qwert]

by captainwalrus on Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:47 pm

one problem I see is thatt the starting positions are unbalanced. pelopenissis and attica (If i remember my history class) Are where 4 sheilds and they are all condenced, where the other scheilds are much more spread out. There needs to be a way to better balance that because who ever starts at skyros has a huge advantage

one way would be to make their less hopolites in that reagion so the player who starts there has a hard time building a force

I repeat again,you dont get any bonuses for holding shield,like write in map-these is objectives.
Lets calculated these,If you start in Skyros,and you want to take all peoponnes and atica you need to conquer 13 neutral territories(39 neutral army),do you realy think that other players will standing and watching these? Any way you forget Persians who is in same distance like Skyrians to Pelloponesia and atica. Also when Skyrians come to Corinthians hes possition will be under Attack from Romans and Dardanians, i dont think that Skyrians can fignt against two opponent in same time. And hes road will be much easy to move,because Skyrians will be clean these from neutrals. If someon start to run to capture shield in atica,he will only help others to easy move into atica. Maps who dont give big bonuses its much better to play patience instead to run.

[whitestazn88]

I think I remember you saying you wanted to have set start points with +2 autodeploy? Are you still using that idea? If so, the legend needs to say something about that. Same with territory bonuses, unless it's the same 1 army per 3 territory as normal.

[The Neon Peon]

Second inset?For what?

You have territories "3" and "4" on the map to the right of Boeotians, and beneath Malians.

I assume those are not the territory names.

[Qwert]

by whitestazn88 on Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:00 am

I think I remember you saying you wanted to have set start points with +2 autodeploy? Are you still using that idea? If so, the legend needs to say something about that. Same with territory bonuses, unless it's the same 1 army per 3 territory as normal.

Yes i im using these, but now if these need to add like some addition legend,then i will be forced to remove +2,because i realy dont have space for these.
Everything what is need some extra explanation will be removed,because map is filed and not have free space.
Territory bonuses-you dont have any addition territory bonuses,its normal 3 for 1.

You have territories "3" and "4" on the map to the right of Boeotians, and beneath Malians.

I assume those are not the territory names.

Yes these is not hes names(look page 1-map description) I will use same formula like in WWII EUROPE(numbers on map-Numbers and names combination on XML)
In map write 1. 2. 3. 4.
and in xml will write 3. name of territory.

[whitestazn88]

by whitestazn88 on Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:00 am

I think I remember you saying you wanted to have set start points with +2 autodeploy? Are you still using that idea? If so, the legend needs to say something about that. Same with territory bonuses, unless it's the same 1 army per 3 territory as normal.

Yes i im using these, but now if these need to add like some addition legend,then i will be forced to remove +2,because i realy dont have space for these.
Everything what is need some extra explanation will be removed,because map is filed and not have free space.
Territory bonuses-you dont have any addition territory bonuses,its normal 3 for 1.

Are the starting points already in the legend? Because that would need to be added too... I really love this idea qwert. I also like how there are a lot of territories and open gameplay. I want this to work out, but you might have to find a way to get a bigger legend in somewhere.