WWII-Stalingrad [QUENCHED]

[captainwalrus]

Actually now that I look at it closer, I don't think the bonuses need adjusting. I never realized that each territory with two armies gets +1. I don't know how I missed that.

[lt_oddball]

(1) Obviously no officer would bombard his own troops, given an alternative. I'm suggesting, though, that, for example, should the troops in W advance into S, capturing an artillery emplacement, they should be able then to bombard from S to E.


(2) so I am changing my vote to "Other Suggestion" and proposing each sector should be able to bombard adjacent sectors, but not the diagonal one: W bombards N or S ; N bombards W or E; E bombards N or S; S bombards W or E.

The (2) suggestion I had previously suggested as well. . But with the current situation it is a bit simpler.

(1) and jefjef is right in that you always have the airplanes to wreck havoc "all" over the map.
(but not everybody can claim the airplanes after a couple of turns..).

At least with that one S <--> W sector you could be spared of hindering arty bombardment for a few turns and build up a little and then push into the other sector..so at least it urges you to attack as a next move instead of start with artillery bombardments (or stick to arty bombardments only for all the time).

I think it is okay

[cairnswk]

So guys...with the poll near ended a massive 8 votes.....it looks like we keep the artillery bombardment as is....yes?

So next, i'd lilke to look at the bonuses, and see if anything needs to be reviewed there....CW has already stated....

Actually now that I look at it closer, I don't think the bonuses need adjusting. I never realized that each territory with two armies gets +1. I don't know how I missed that.

What to others think?

[lt_oddball]

Why do snipers get +1 autodeploy ?

i don't remember when it was introduced or why.


Imagine, there may/will be some attacks over control of one such sniper corner between 2 players.
After that has been established and the target areas have no opponent..the sniper player keeps on building and building.
Those troops cannot get off..so by the time another player moves in to that sector he faces a very difficult (bulk of troops) and boring fight to get that sniper "nest" (more like a sniper population) away.

I can understand some idea behind it (the longer you control a sniper area the better you are in selecting sniperspots), but +1 per turn per sniper is a bit too much I think.

Perhaps change it to "control 2 or more out of 4 snipers and you receive +1 per turn " to be placed anywhere on the map with your other bonus troops.

[cairnswk]

4. Sniper positions need an autodeploy. They bombard a territory that is almost right next to them. I would only get into one if it was an escalating game and the path was blocked.

It would be strange to have snipers fire multiple miles awaythrough all the rubble.

You may be fortunate to have snipers and be able to knock out a player on many different "fronts" and get his cards without actually having to overrun his troops and the ones before it.
idem ditto the artillery ability to bombard (any) infantry..even the enemy ones close by (with mortars ).
All to reach that final one enemy troop elimination to secure his cards...

Why do snipers get +1 autodeploy ?

i don't remember when it was introduced or why.

Imagine, there may/will be some attacks over control of one such sniper corner between 2 players.
After that has been established and the target areas have no opponent..the sniper player keeps on building and building.
Those troops cannot get off..so by the time another player moves in to that sector he faces a very difficult (bulk of troops) and boring fight to get that sniper "nest" (more like a sniper population) away.

I can understand some idea behind it (the longer you control a sniper area the better you are in selecting sniperspots), but +1 per turn per sniper is a bit too much I think.

Perhaps change it to "control 2 or more out of 4 snipers and you receive +1 per turn " to be placed anywhere on the map with your other bonus troops.

here it is (from page 13 i think).
i'm not in favour of the above suggestion of controlling 2 out of four snipers for +1 per turn.
i think +1 auto is good for the sniper....would a sniper go into battle without planty of ammo? I think +1 simply replicates that feeling.
The troops can get off...the Arows on the diagram indicate that movement is both ways from bordering territories to the coloured house sniper positions. The sniper is bound to get holed up there is the opposition comes from behind and blocks the access/return territories, so i think +1 is apppropriate. And not only that, but the sniper will need ammo is he is to act as sniper.
I think cutting it down to +1 for 2 wo-uld be simply too much and defeat that idea of having four separate snipers.

[lt_oddball]

The troops can get off...the Arows on the diagram indicate that movement is both ways from bordering territories to the coloured house sniper positions.

I missed that..ok , then I have no problems with it.

[MrBenn]

POLL RESULT

Artillery has four sectors range (N,S,E,W) - Where should it be able to bombard?

Poll ended at Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:46 pm

N <--> E and S <--> W (simulating Russian V German RL campaign)... 8... 80%

W <--> N and E <--> S... 0... No votes

Every Other Sector (ie S --> N,E,W) (probably good for gameplay)... 1... 10%

Other Suggestion... 1... 10%

Total votes : 10

[lt_oddball]

have a good new year

missed the forum..great that it is back.

[cairnswk]

have a good new year

missed the forum..great that it is back.

And you also, lt_oddball.

This map must be ready for gameplay stamping...there's nothing else we can do with this that isn't going to take it way over the top.

[cairnswk]

Mod mod where for art thou?

[ender516]

Mod mod where for art thou?

Yes, I hope that the mods did not mistake our quiet patience for a lack of interest.

[cairnswk]

Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:15 am
Hey I was wondering is the "stanlingrad" a actual map in the making? or is is just somehting you put thier?

Thanks for your question, ask me2
No, it's not something i just put there.
This is a real map, and I am waiting on the mods to get their head around the gameplay so that it can continue progression.

This has been in development for quite a while now.

[lt_oddball]

agonizing silence

[Fireside Poet]

Has it been recommended to label the Volga River?

[cairnswk]

Has it been recommended to label the Volga River?

No, but good call.
I think i'll put it between R04 and R07 in next update.

[ask me2]

Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:15 am
Hey I was wondering is the "stanlingrad" a actual map in the making? or is is just somehting you put thier?

Thanks for your question, ask me2
No, it's not something i just put there.
This is a real map, and I am waiting on the mods to get their head around the gameplay so that it can continue progression.

This has been in development for quite a while now.

Well thanks for correcting my spelling.

[Industrial Helix]

Maybe if I post here with some gameplay stuff this map will get stamped? /thoughts

Are there any starting neutrals on this map? Snipers seem like a potential neutral start as they autodeploy.

I just want to make sure I understand the rules as well:
Territories like R 67 1st division gain a player one bonus as they have artillery and infantry?
Soviets can't bomb the soviet airfields, right and likewise for the Nazis?
Sniper rules are totally clear to me.
Artillery... i can't figure it out. What do the directions mean? It'll make more sense to see this map with BOB and then I won't worry about it, but a lot of players don't have that.
The AA batteries... define close tank? Is it within two spaces or three or bordering?

Is there any pattern to the colored region bonuses? I think I found them alright but perhaps they could be listed North to South or East to West or something? Or even do as Kabanellas did and put them in subcategories? I know you're short on space so maybe not.

The colored region bonus numbers seem pretty decent to me. No problems there.

Ah crap, I just understood the east west ect, artillery thing... I was going to ask what the dotted lines meant. Ah, that makes perfect sense, can't believe I missed it.

Perhaps you could somehow incorporate the meaning of close to the direction sectors? AA batteries attack tanks in the same Western/Eastern/Southern/Northern quadrant?

The circles between "planes cannot assault..." and the Impassables" do those mean anything or have any purpose or are they just for decoration?

Anyway... I think the gameplay is pretty solid. Most of my crits are graphics queries rather than gameplay, or clarifications. Stamp this beast?

[cairnswk]

Maybe if I post here with some gameplay stuff this map will get stamped? /thoughts

Are there any starting neutrals on this map? Snipers seem like a potential neutral start as they autodeploy.

Not sure i want any neutrals on this map. I'd prefer to let the drop rule who gets the snipers...might be an incentive for whoever decides to take what side.

I just want to make sure I understand the rules as well:
Territories like R 67 1st division gain a player one bonus as they have artillery and infantry?

Yes

Soviets can't bomb the soviet airfields, right and likewise for the Nazis?

No, not the case. Only rule is that inside the airfield you can't bomb/assault your own planes.

Sniper rules are totally clear to me.

Good.

The AA batteries... define close tank? Is it within two spaces or three or bordering?

IS this not clear from the colour of the tanks? and the legend.

Is there any pattern to the colored region bonuses? I think I found them alright but perhaps they could be listed North to South or East to West or something? Or even do as Kabanellas did and put them in subcategories? I know you're short on space so maybe not.

this can be fixed

The colored region bonus numbers seem pretty decent to me. No problems there.

Good.

Artillery... i can't figure it out. What do the directions mean? It'll make more sense to see this map with BOB and then I won't worry about it, but a lot of players don't have that.
Ah crap, I just understood the east west ect, artillery thing... I was going to ask what the dotted lines meant. Ah, that makes perfect sense, can't believe I missed it.

Good

Perhaps you could somehow incorporate the meaning of close to the direction sectors? AA batteries attack tanks in the same Western/Eastern/Southern/Northern quadrant?

Mmmm. i'll see.

The circles between "planes cannot assault..." and the Impassables" do those mean anything or have any purpose or are they just for decoration?

Decoration

Anyway... I think the gameplay is pretty solid. Most of my crits are graphics queries rather than gameplay, or clarifications. Stamp this beast?

That would be nice.

[Industrial Helix]

Ok, now that you mention the color of the tanks I see what you mean by close.

If you're cool with letting the snipers drop then I guess its fine by me. Personally, I don't think the first round needs to be perfectly fair (as mandated by the number of territory rules which are silly in my opinion). So having the sniper open to a drop is alright by me, just unsure how the mods will feel about it, especially since they autodeploy 1. If they don't want it to pass, I'd suggest the next best option be a start neutral of 1... enough to prevent an unfair drop but not high enough for a player to completely ignore knowing other players likely won't grab it.

[MrBenn]

The first thing I'm looking at is the attack/bombard instructions:

• I get that the aircraft are represented by the double-headed symbol, but I wonder if this might be better represented with two aircraft (similar to the depiction of the tanks).
• It took me a while to work out that the blue R O symbol related to the river territories; perhaps you could just write River instead?
• Hmm ... I can;t see anything that indicates how close the tanks need to be to the AA batteries to be bombarded? Is it just the nearest, or all neighbouring ones within a certain range?
• Likewise the artillery bombardment range could do with some clarification; you could get some more space by having the text at the bottom spanning two lines, and then moving the arrows to go in a corresponding to actual directions on the map by moving them to the right of that box? You could also clarify the instruction at the top so that instead of reading "any" it says "some"
• The symbol for the Luftwaffe in the legend is facing the opposite direction to the planes on the map itself; it may be worth flipping it over.
• On the subject of flipping things, it may be worth considering switching the position of the Assault and Bombard legends, as I think the assaults are more important than the bombardments. This is only a mild suggestion though

I'm not sure that the "within own airfields" instruction makes too much sense - are you simply saying that Luftwaffe cannot attack/bombard other Luftwaffe? If that is the case, then I'm not sure it's worded very well; it might be better with a visual representation similar to the one used at the top legend, with the direction arrows in a no-entry type symbol (ie crossed through)

The snipers are well explained, but still require some thought; initially I thought that they were attackable by neighbouring territories based on their physical location rather than by the coloured buildings. Perhaps you could make their positions slightly more distinct by adding some sort of shadow or something like qwert did with his insets on Imperium Romanium (but not quite as heavy) - just a thought.

I can;t see the total number of territories listed in the first post - I was going to run some figures to check the odds of dropping the double-terr bonuses. I know it's only for +1 bonuses, but if there's complaints about them being too advantageous/common on the drop then it may be worth considering how to split them up on the drop; which could either be done through starting neutrals, or some creative use of starting positions.

Some of the colours are very similar; particularly with the snipers. It would be nice to see a bit more colour differentiation if possible, or perhaps a small target symbol with a sniper number on it as well? It would be worth splitting the snipers up with starting positions to ensure an equitable split during 1v1 games.

The bonus values feel more-or-less right; It's difficult to be completely sure they're spot on until Beta; same with some of the bonus combinations (particularly for the small bonuses). As long as there is some consideration about alternative use of starting neutrals/start positions should they be required when in Beta, then I'm happy for this to move forward... I'll wait for a response to the above before giving a stamp; although some of the concerns are borderline graphics issues

I have the distinct feeling that this map could become as popular as Waterloo - although this one probably requires a little more thought due to the variety of attack types. Personally I think this is one of your better maps that you have worked on over recent times

[ender516]

Both IH and MrBenn have had difficulty in recognizing that there are two types of tanks, with only one type attackable by AA batteries. Maybe the legend box labelled Armour (right under the title) should show both colours of tanks, just as the Aircraft box shows both. That way, all the legend entries regarding armour except the AA bombardment would show two types of tank, which might make the distinction regarding the "close" tank more obvious. The trick will be finding the room to squeeze in both tanks, though the tiny pair in the Assault legend might fit.

[cairnswk]

Both IH and MrBenn have had difficulty in recognizing that there are two types of tanks, with only one type attackable by AA batteries. Maybe the legend box labelled Armour (right under the title) should show both colours of tanks, just as the Aircraft box shows both. That way, all the legend entries regarding armour except the AA bombardment would show two types of tank, which might make the distinction regarding the "close" tank more obvious. The trick will be finding the room to squeeze in both tanks, though the tiny pair in the Assault legend might fit.

Done

The first thing I'm looking at is the attack/bombard instructions:

• I get that the aircraft are represented by the double-headed symbol, but I wonder if this might be better represented with two aircraft (similar to the depiction of the tanks).

That was tried before, but i'll go again on it to see if you think it's better....Done

It took me a while to work out that the blue R O symbol related to the river territories; perhaps you could just write River instead?

Done

Hmm ... I can;t see anything that indicates how close the tanks need to be to the AA batteries to be bombarded? Is it just the nearest, or all neighbouring ones within a certain range?

Mmm. Degree of interpretation i guess. There are only 2 AA Batteries - R. 1077AA U3 and R. 1077AA U1 - that are anywhere close to green tanks. Might that provide a hint. There's not a tank within coooey of the three AA Batteries on the Russian side of the Volga.

Likewise the artillery bombardment range could do with some clarification; you could get some more space by having the text at the bottom spanning two lines, and then moving the arrows to go in a corresponding to actual directions on the map by moving them to the right of that box? You could also clarify the instruction at the top so that instead of reading "any" it says "some"

I'm pretty happy that the bottom section is quite clear, although i have changed the top to read "some"

The symbol for the Luftwaffe in the legend is facing the opposite direction to the planes on the map itself; it may be worth flipping it over.

Done

On the subject of flipping things, it may be worth considering switching the position of the Assault and Bombard legends, as I think the assaults are more important than the bombardments. This is only a mild suggestion though

I think i'll keep them as they are. Too much trouble for little gain.

I'm not sure that the "within own airfields" instruction makes too much sense - are you simply saying that Luftwaffe cannot attack/bombard other Luftwaffe?

Yes

If that is the case, then I'm not sure it's worded very well; it might be better with a visual representation similar to the one used at the top legend, with the direction arrows in a no-entry type symbol (ie crossed through)

The wording has been changed from "own" to "each"

The snipers are well explained, but still require some thought; initially I thought that they were attackable by neighbouring territories based on their physical location rather than by the coloured buildings. Perhaps you could make their positions slightly more distinct by adding some sort of shadow or something like qwert did with his insets on Imperium Romanium (but not quite as heavy) - just a thought.

OK. i don't know that adding any shadow/colour/or whataever is going to achieve that. I think that area is concentrated enough, and if you say it is well explained in the legend....

I can;t see the total number of territories listed in the first post - I was going to run some figures to check the odds of dropping the double-terr bonuses. I know it's only for +1 bonuses, but if there's complaints about them being too advantageous/common on the drop then it may be worth considering how to split them up on the drop; which could either be done through starting neutrals, or some creative use of starting positions.

I understand. Front page has a tert/army count on it which has been updated....
99 terts, with the snipers starting on 1 neutral that's 95.
I'd like to keep this a neutral free drop map if possible.

Some of the colours are very similar; particularly with the snipers. It would be nice to see a bit more colour differentiation if possible, or perhaps a small target symbol with a sniper number on it as well? It would be worth splitting the snipers up with starting positions to ensure an equitable split during 1v1 games.

Colours for snipers are the same as for buildings...they work well with the background and i wouldn't want to change them

The bonus values feel more-or-less right; It's difficult to be completely sure they're spot on until Beta; same with some of the bonus combinations (particularly for the small bonuses). As long as there is some consideration about alternative use of starting neutrals/start positions should they be required when in Beta, then I'm happy for this to move forward... I'll wait for a response to the above before giving a stamp; although some of the concerns are borderline graphics issues

OK, i understand

I have the distinct feeling that this map could become as popular as Waterloo - although this one probably requires a little more thought due to the variety of attack types. Personally I think this is one of your better maps that you have worked on over recent times

Oooooh! That's a big statement MrBenn. I probably wouldn't have gone that far as i think Waterloo is probably easier on the eyes...this is quite intense and very compact...but thanks for that thought.

Version 29 Update.

Click image to enlarge.

[iancanton]

does goemark station border g 76th div rear? the rubble is ambiguous here.

both sets of aircraft appear to be facing the wrong direction, away from the enemy.

can the regions containing bomb icons be bombarded by any aircraft or artillery? this isn't explained anywhere on the map.

will btf and dtf be written out in full in the game log? most people won't know what they mean: i certainly don't!

the legend says planes cannot assault or bombard each other inside each airfields. i looked for planes outside the airfields and was unable to find any. do u actually mean planes cannot assault or bombard friendly planes?

despite, or maybe because of, being extremely complex and apparently confusing, this is shaping up to be a potential masterpiece for 1v1 strategy that ranks alongside waterloo.

with this in mind, the large number of bonus zones consisting of only 1 or 2 regions can lead to the drop causing significant imbalances in initial deployment. i count 16 of these in all: 14 2-army territories, the hospital and mameyev hill. while putting another 16 starting neutrals on these is contrary to ur stated wishes, i believe a single starting neutral on each of the 6 artillery pieces is essential, having seen in waterloo the pivotal importance of the artillery (all of which are part of a 2-army territory bonus here). this has the side-effect of reducing to 89 the number of starting regions - good for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 players.

given the various bombardments from all angles, the bonuses for holding some larger zones, such as all city, appear to be very low. at one point, u had a +1 bonus for each region held. i do not suggest u return to that, but am thinking that perhaps a zone bonus roughly equal to the total number of regions in that zone is appropriate - i thought u had done something like this for goemark (7 regions less 3 2-army territories gives +4 zone bonus), but it isn't even close for all city.

ian.

[cairnswk]

does goemark station border g 76th div rear? the rubble is ambiguous here.

Fixed.

both sets of aircraft appear to be facing the wrong direction, away from the enemy.

Corrected

can the regions containing bomb icons be bombarded by any aircraft or artillery? this isn't explained anywhere on the map.

Oooo. i would have thought that would be a granted to be bombarded by planes, but i shouldn't known better. Fixed.

will btf and dtf be written out in full in the game log? most people won't know what they mean: i certainly don't!

Yes, they need to be written out in full. Note to self.

the legend says planes cannot assault or bombard each other inside each airfields. i looked for planes outside the airfields and was unable to find any. do u actually mean planes cannot assault or bombard friendly planes?

Good wording. Fixed.

despite, or maybe because of, being extremely complex and apparently confusing, this is shaping up to be a potential masterpiece for 1v1 strategy that ranks alongside waterloo.

MrBenn said something similar to thate recently also i believe

with this in mind, the large number of bonus zones consisting of only 1 or 2 regions can lead to the drop causing significant imbalances in initial deployment. i count 16 of these in all: 14 2-army territories, the hospital and mameyev hill. while putting another 16 starting neutrals on these is contrary to ur stated wishes, i believe a single starting neutral on each of the 6 artillery pieces is essential, having seen in waterloo the pivotal importance of the artillery (all of which are part of a 2-army territory bonus here). this has the side-effect of reducing to 89 the number of starting regions - good for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 players.

ian, as always with arguments like those, you have ne convinced. 16 neutrals are added, strategically.

given the various bombardments from all angles, the bonuses for holding some larger zones, such as all city, appear to be very low. at one point, u had a +1 bonus for each region held. i do not suggest u return to that, but am thinking that perhaps a zone bonus roughly equal to the total number of regions in that zone is appropriate - i thought u had done something like this for goemark (7 regions less 3 2-army territories gives +4 zone bonus), but it isn't even close for all city.
ian.

What do you siggest then?

given the various bombardments from all angles, the bonuses for holding some larger zones, such as all city, appear to be very low. at one point, u had a +1 bonus for each region held. i do not suggest u return to that, but am thinking that perhaps a zone bonus roughly equal to the total number of regions in that zone is appropriate - i thought u had done something like this for goemark (7 regions less 3 2-army territories gives +4 zone bonus), but it isn't even close for all city.
ian.

What do you siggest then?

Version 30

Click image to enlarge.

[iancanton]

16 neutrals are added, strategically.

i'm surprised that u've left most of the artillery non-neutral, when i'd have expected that these would have been the most strategic spots.

aircraft are fully-random deployment, without start positions, right? that's the assumption i made when assessing the number of deployable regions.

ian.