Oasis [Quenched]

by **gimil** on Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:40 am

Map issues/suggestions should be discussed in the map development thread which can be found in the final forge sub forum in the map foundry.

Here is a link to the thread for OASIS which is where I encourage discussion to continue

Oasis Development Thread

I will flag this up and see if cicerio or a global mod will move it over to the foundry.

cheers,
gimil

by **cicero** on Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:42 pm

gimil wrote:I will flag this up and see if cicerio or a global mod will move it over to the foundry

This thread, started in Suggestions & Bug Reports moved to Foundry Discussion forum for merging with the quenched Oasis thread in Map Foundry - Final Forge subforum.

Cicero

PS - Who's this 'cicerio' chap ?

by **gimil** on Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:19 am

Just merged a thread (Oasis game ending too soon.) in here that was started in suggestions and bug reports. About 9 posts long.

[merged]

by **wcaclimbing** on Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:30 am

so much work for the mods.

by **paulk** on Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:19 am

I have not read the whole thread so I have no idea if this has been suggested before.

But I wish that desert territories occupied by your armies, if they only had 1 on them would become neutral 1's instead.
That way you could not leave anyone left in the desert, because they would simply die. And the -1 for this and that territory would actually mean something, even when you only have 1 left.
Maybe just maybe, the desert territories starting with 2, 3 or 4 also could build back to that?

Thats my 2 cents.

Good map otherwise.

by **thepurpleyeti** on Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:00 pm

Game # 3907471
Units in the dessert are not decaying as described, instead, a -1 army penaly appears at the beginning of the turn, but before units are awarded for territories and oasis bonuses. this is resulting in dessert terts not having any ill effect on their holders at all.

by **The Neon Peon** on Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:15 pm

That is because the units are ones.

by **oaktown** on Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:44 pm

I'm going to recommend that the BETA tag be removed from this map... the concerns above have more to do with CC's gameplay engine (1 army terits can't lose 1, victory conditions can be exploited in freestyle games, etc.) than with the features of this map.

by **wcaclimbing** on Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:48 pm

oaktown wrote:I'm going to recommend that the BETA tag be removed from this map... the concerns above have more to do with CC's gameplay engine (1 army terits can't lose 1, victory conditions can be exploited in freestyle games, etc.) than with the features of this map.

That would be nice.
No more beta.

by **n00blet** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:29 pm

wcaclimbing wrote:
oaktown wrote:I'm going to recommend that the BETA tag be removed from this map... the concerns above have more to do with CC's gameplay engine (1 army terits can't lose 1, victory conditions can be exploited in freestyle games, etc.) than with the features of this map.

That would be nice.
No more beta.

AND IT IS SO!

by **Theguyoverthere** on Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:55 pm

How come Oasis of Loyalty (an oasis with 5 neutrals on it) is 7 nuetrals away from the grand oases, rather thn the 4 that all the other ones are?

by **wcaclimbing** on Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:28 pm

Theguyoverthere wrote:How come Oasis of Loyalty (an oasis with 5 neutrals on it) is 7 nuetrals away from the grand oases, rather thn the 4 that all the other ones are?

Hey.... I never noticed that.
Its the only 5 Oasis with more than one space from the center.
Interesting....

That won't be changed, Its just how the map was made.
It doesn't hurt anything to keep it how it is.

by **hendrr** on Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:15 pm

The Negative Bonus doesn't work the way it should. Instead of reducing the number of troops, the Negative Bonuses are taken at the beginning, then the Positive Bonuses are taken. It should be the other way around. If you have more negatives than positives, then you don't get any armies for deployment.

-hendrr

by **the.killing.44** on Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:25 pm

hendrr wrote:The Negative Bonus doesn't work the way it should. Instead of reducing the number of troops, the Negative Bonuses are taken at the beginning, then the Positive Bonuses are taken. It should be the other way around. If you have more negatives than positives, then you don't get any armies for deployment.

-hendrr

It's not that the actual troop drop is negative, it's that the # of armies on the actual desert territories gets a -1 until it's at 1.

.44

by **hendrr** on Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:23 am

It still doesn't work (see Game 4462102 for more details). I placed armies on desert and still got credit.

-hendrr

by **n00blet** on Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:21 am

Reaadddddd when someone replies to you!

That is how it's supposed to work.

by **hendrr** on Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:53 pm

n00blet wrote:Reaadddddd when someone replies to you!

That is how it's supposed to work.

I am saying in Game 4462102, the armies any player placed in the desert AND at the Grand Oasis (1, 2 or 3) never declined. I placed a barrier of 4 armies in each desert spot around the Grand Oasis and there was still 4 left where the other players hadn't attacked my armies.

-hendrr