Route 66 [Quenched]

by **oaktown** on Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:19 pm

Click image to enlarge.

Added the increasing Route 66 bonuses.
Mostly I just set the file up better to make future changes, but since it had been a while I thought I ought to post something.

by **GrimReaper.** on Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:03 pm

i like it

just a suggestion: Perhaps at every city on 66 Have skyscrapers showing from behind the High way markers

ill try to post a pic illustrating on what i mean

by **MrBenn** on Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:44 pm

[Moved]

It would appear that development of this map has stalled.
Oaktown, after you've got an update, feel free to put yourself back in the drafting room.

Mr B

by **oaktown** on Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:46 pm

MrBenn wrote:It would appear that development of this map has stalled.
Oaktown, after you've got an update, feel free to put yourself back in the drafting room.

Agreed. I'll be away for the next two weeks, so when I get back I'll decide which of my current projects I care about enough to carry on.

by **oaktown** on Tue Jan 06, 2009 1:34 am

Click image to enlarge.

Version 3: no gameplay changes here, I just wanted to get an update up and get this project back on track.

by **MrBenn** on Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:26 am

Good to see this one back oaky!

The graphics are moving in the right direction, but I'm sure you still have some tricks up your sleeve yet ;-)

Gameplay-wise, I think the territory bonus adjustment could be made easier to understand... You've said up to six=+3, 8=+4... presumably...

hang on... just realised I'm looking at the different instructions for Route 66 terrs and city terrs... Perhaps we need to refer to the 'Route 66 Cities' as 'Route 66 stops' or something?

by **sailorseal** on Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:13 pm

I don't understand why the cities don't have 88s on them but maybe that's just me. I like this map and wold play it. The picture of the cities along the bottom was a nice idea. I would make some sort of bonus for each state.

by **the.killing.44** on Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:14 pm

sailorseal wrote:I don't understand why the cities don't have 88s on them but maybe that's just me.

Yep

… n3 = they start with 3 neutral armies.

.44

by **LED ZEPPELINER** on Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:11 am

maybe you could make it like a neutral 5 on the stops on route 66, just to make it a touch harder

by **ZeakCytho** on Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:37 pm

LED ZEPPELINER wrote:maybe you could make it like a neutral 5 on the stops on route 66, just to make it a touch harder

I disagree. No one will bother to attack 5 neutrals except to cross from the north half to the south half and vice-versa. The bonus and objective will never come into play if the neutrals are that high.

by **sailorseal** on Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:32 pm

ZeakCytho wrote:
LED ZEPPELINER wrote:maybe you could make it like a neutral 5 on the stops on route 66, just to make it a touch harder

I disagree. No one will bother to attack 5 neutrals except to cross from the north half to the south half and vice-versa. The bonus and objective will never come into play if the neutrals are that high.

I have to side with ZeakCytho on this one no one is gonna waste good troops on a five nuetral

by **lostatlimbo** on Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:18 pm

I dig this map. Look forward to playing it.

For your "Something Else" you should use Las Vegas - its rather iconic and right off the route.

by **oaktown** on Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:45 am

Click image to enlarge.

Quick update, since it had been a while. A long while.

Added a city - El Paso - to bring the map up to 21 starts and to add a southern city for a bit of balance. The map may still be a bit top heavy.

Also started doodling with some roadside attractions.

by **oaktown** on Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:28 am

it's been a month since I've worked on this, so by rights it should be in the Bin until I get back to it.

by **oaktown** on Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:48 pm

Click image to enlarge.

And, I'm back.

I'm thinking I'd like to code this map for a two-player start, with two starting positions. There are already more than enough neutrals, so a 1v1 game that adds 8 more neutrals would just be uber frustrating.

Discuss.

by **MrBenn** on Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:51 pm

Welcome back! (I heard a rumour that you were quitting 8-[

)

by **the.killing.44** on Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:58 pm

A couple outlying graphical concerns:

It all seems pretty busy (granted this may be a good thing(?)), maybe reducing the opacity of the state borders in the background would help this.
Also about the borders, you have it behind the Route 66 bonus text but not the others — you don't have to add it down in the southeast, but consistency pays off
for the "etc." 10c = 5a? maybe one more example would help clarify.
I like the cowboy …
What do the symbols represent? They stand out quite a lot for no mention anywhere on the map …
Your borders seem oddly pixely in some places (Kansas, Missouri, and SoCal most notably)
The multi-colored aspect of the texture is a bit … jarring.
Nitpicking, around water your land is very sloppy

Glad this is back!
Oh, and that's the font you used on St. Patty's day, correct?

.44

by **oaktown** on Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:31 am

Click image to enlarge.

Some of the above graphics concerns (thanks .44) have been addressed.

Note also that half of the starting territories are in yellow - this is to show how the two-player starting territories will break down. One player is blue, one yellow, with the single red territory going neutral. After some effort i've set it up so that:
• each player has ten starts
• each player has access to the same number of Route 66 territories (five), and one Route end
• only one non-Route 66 neutral does not border each player, and that just has another neutral behind it, so it's sort of a dead end, and
• each player has four starts south of the Route, and six north.

Believe me, it wasn't easy. Yellow has access to two adjoining Route territories, but blue has access to the two on either side of Joplin. This couldn't be helped, and really I think it might be good because it will encourage players to go for the route rather than just nibbling away at the extremities.

I'd love some gameplay discussion... I'm digging it as is, which probably means I'm not looking at it critically and I'm missing something major. For instance, is starting two player games with ten territories (which nets five armies) problem, or does the fact that you can only attack neutrals negate the first player's advantage? :-s

by **MrBenn** on Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:03 pm

Just so I get this straight in my head - you're planning on fixing the positions for 1v1 games using starting positions, as laid out above?

For more than 1v1 games, those same positions would be dealt out randomly? Is that right?

You mention that with 10 terrs on the drop, you'll get 5 armies... I'm assuming that players won't also get the standard +3? (so they will only get 5, rather than 5+3).

How would the numbers pan out for other numbers of players (I'm too tired to work it out myself :-$

) It could be worth adjusting the deployment to +3 for up to 7; +4 for 9, +5 for 11 etc...

by **oaktown** on Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:08 pm

MrBenn wrote:Just so I get this straight in my head - you're planning on fixing the positions for 1v1 games using starting positions, as laid out above?

For more than 1v1 games, those same positions would be dealt out randomly? Is that right?

Correct. Two starting positions only, so they'd be ignored in games of 3 or more players.

MrBenn wrote:You mention that with 10 terrs on the drop, you'll get 5 armies... I'm assuming that players won't also get the standard +3? (so they will only get 5, rather than 5+3).

Right again MrBenn. The five army drop is based on the accelerated rate of one army/two cities.

MrBenn wrote:How would the numbers pan out for other numbers of players (I'm too tired to work it out myself ) It could be worth adjusting the deployment to +3 for up to 7; +4 for 9, +5 for 11 etc...

All games other than two player games would start with the normal three army drop... for example:
Three players = 7 cities each = 3 armies in the first round.
Four players = 5 cities each = 3 armies (since three is the minimum).

The concern I have is whether or not we want two players to start with 5 each. I could easily code two more territories neutral to make it 9 terits/player, which gives a +4. OR I could code only those cities that border the Route cities and let the remaining cities fall randomly between the two starting players and a neutral; this would mean five automatic placements/player, plus three of the remaining 11 cities/player, for a total of 8 cities each. Wait, that sucks - it's five more neutrals, and losing one city in the first round takes you down a notch.

Better yet, code all of the Route bordering cities as starts, code two more strategically determined territories as starts = probably two southern cities to guarantee some north/south balance, and let the last nine go random; nine starts/player, 4 armies on the first turn, only three additional cities going neutral, there'd be some variety in the starts.

by **oaktown** on Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:23 pm

Click image to enlarge.

Yellow, blue, and red 88s are starting positions. In a two player game one player will start with all of the blues, the other with all of the yellows. The nine reds will be randomly assigned between blue, yellow, and neutral.

Added a southern route into Joplin, so yellow has more of a fighting chance to gain access to it.

Added some more decorative elements and toyed with the colors. Route 66 cities are now yellow - nobody should wonder which is which.

by **MrBenn** on Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:03 am

oaktown wrote:Yellow, blue, and red 88s are starting positions. In a two player game one player will start with all of the blues, the other with all of the yellows. The nine reds will be randomly assigned between blue, yellow, and neutral.

Actually, that's not quite how starting positions work... each player will randomly be assigned a group, with the remaining one split up... so Player 1 could be red, Player 2, Blue, and yellow split up. The other thing to remember is that in a 3p game, each player will get one group in any case.

Balancing things with starting positions is a lot more complicated than it should be, because when you try and balance for 1 setting, there are untold other combinations that get skewed in the process.

My random thought, is that starting positions override starting neutrals, so you could add some Route 66 starts for 1v1 games - or even alternate the starts along the whole route... 1v1 games would then have a particular strategy choice - go through a neutral to try and knock a bonus down, or try and take a couple of Route 66 terrs... It might make 1v1s a tiny bit less dependent on who goes first?

by **oaktown** on Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:48 pm

MrBenn wrote:
oaktown wrote:Yellow, blue, and red 88s are starting positions. In a two player game one player will start with all of the blues, the other with all of the yellows. The nine reds will be randomly assigned between blue, yellow, and neutral.

Actually, that's not quite how starting positions work... each player will randomly be assigned a group, with the remaining one split up... so Player 1 could be red, Player 2, Blue, and yellow split up. The other thing to remember is that in a 3p game, each player will get one group in any case.

Sorry, I mis-spoke. I should have said that yellows, blues, and reds are starting territories, not positions. Yellow and blue and starting positions. The reds are unassigned territores which will be split among the player 1, player 2, and neutral.

As there are only two coded starting locations, three or more player games will ignore the positions and it'll be a free-for-all, as in any other map.