Lunar War [GP, G, X] files on p.1

[natty dread]

One thing... look at southern oceanus procellarum, it connects to 4 different landing sites, 2 seas, 3 craters and a mine... that's 10 territories.

Maybe it should also be divided into SW. oceanus procellarum and SE. oceanus procellarum.

[MrBenn]

There have been several suggestions/attempts at making a map based on the moon; and the idea has a lot of potential.

At the moment, the map feels like a bit of a mish-mash of ideas; and there have been several valid gameplay comments/questions that have been overlooked in the rush to update your graphic. What I really want to get a feel for, is the direction that you want to take the map in; the early drafts felt like very much like the Arms Race Map, although you appear to be meandering towards more conquest gameplay.

There is definite potential for this map concept - although what you need to focus on is how to make the map more user friendly. You mention racing to the moon and fighting for lunar resources in your design brief - it is fairly well documented that there are minimal resources on the moon in the first place, and the image in your first post mentions bonuses for landing sites etc; all-in-all the map feels very confusing, and needs to become a bit clearer.

For now, I would be less concerned with updating your image and trying new things out, and would urge you to focus on making the concept mesh with the gameplay elements. It's a good idea, but for now I think it needs a little more work.

[natty dread]

There have been several suggestions/attempts at making a map based on the moon; and the idea has a lot of potential.

At the moment, the map feels like a bit of a mish-mash of ideas; and there have been several valid gameplay comments/questions that have been overlooked in the rush to update your graphic. What I really want to get a feel for, is the direction that you want to take the map in; the early drafts felt like very much like the Arms Race Map, although you appear to be meandering towards more conquest gameplay.

Which comments do you refer to? We have tried to address all issues that have been raised, but some may have been "slipped through the cracks". I'm sure nothing has intentionally been overlooked though.

There is definite potential for this map concept - although what you need to focus on is how to make the map more user friendly.

I agree fully, and hope to achieve it in the following updates. I'd like more feedback on the gameplay, and what people consider hard to understand. I hope to receive this feedback on the GP workshop, although the gameplay design is more Isaiah's responsibility on this one, I'm mostly doing the graphics here.

As you can see though, if you read the thread a bit, we have tried to fix every issue of user friendliness - the wording on the legend, the mare borders, all were issues raised in the thread and at least have been attempted to fix.

I do admit there is a lot of work still to be done though.

You mention racing to the moon and fighting for lunar resources in your design brief - it is fairly well documented that there are minimal resources on the moon in the first place, and the image in your first post mentions bonuses for landing sites etc; all-in-all the map feels very confusing, and needs to become a bit clearer.

As for minimal resources, wikipedia states:

The Moon's surface contains helium-3 at concentrations on the order of 0.01 ppm.[37][38] A number of people, starting with Gerald Kulcinski in 1986,[39] have proposed to explore the moon, mine lunar regolith and use the helium-3 for fusion. Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any mining equipment would need to process extremely large amounts of regolith (over 100 million tons of regolith to obtain one ton of helium 3),[40] and some proposals have suggested that helium-3 extraction be piggybacked onto a larger mining and development operation.

So to me it seems a plausible idea that Helium 3 would be fought over in the moon in a not-so-distant future.

China is already planning to exploit the moon's He-3 reserves btw...

For now, I would be less concerned with updating your image and trying new things out, and would urge you to focus on making the concept mesh with the gameplay elements. It's a good idea, but for now I think it needs a little more work.

I fully agree gameplay needs to be discussed more. What better place to do it than the gameplay workshop, though?

Ah well, I guess not then. I guess we'll try to spend the next two weeks to get this map in shape. Perhaps we'll have a better luck by then...

[natty dread]

OK here's version 12 with major changes in effort to make the map simpler and less confusing.

Click image to enlarge.

- 2 countries added: brazil & south africa. Now all continents are represented (except australia).

- landing sites cut to 16: 2 for each country/rocket.

- sinuses removed except for Medii which is now a sea territory.

- alphonsus crater removed.

- bonus structure restructured.

[isaiah40]

Looks good, and I believe a much clearer, understandable and cleaner map.

[ender516]

I was just looking at the nomenclature and because my Latin is VERY rusty, I looked up Mare Spumansis and discovered there is no such place. The accepted name is Mare Spumans.

[natty dread]

I was just looking at the nomenclature and because my Latin is VERY rusty, I looked up Mare Spumansis and discovered there is no such place. The accepted name is Mare Spumans.

Thanks. Will be corrected in next version.

[cyrenius]

I like better this version, nice job.Will be fun

[sctjkc01]

Wondering about the connection between Rockets and Landing Sites...

Is it one-way (rocket to landing site) or two-way?

[natty dread]

Wondering about the connection between Rockets and Landing Sites...

Is it one-way (rocket to landing site) or two-way?

Current gameplay plan has them attack both ways. Sites attack rockets & rockes attack sites. That's why it says "Rockets connect to landing sites" instead of "Rockets can assault landing sites".

Right now, we're just waiting for a re-evaluation of the design brief... I think we have addressed all the issues that kept this from moving ahead the last time, but it'd be nice to have a mod's opinion on that.

[isaiah40]

Wondering about the connection between Rockets and Landing Sites...

Is it one-way (rocket to landing site) or two-way?

Current gameplay plan has them attack both ways. Sites attack rockets & rockes attack sites. That's why it says "Rockets connect to landing sites" instead of "Rockets can assault landing sites".

Right now, we're just waiting for a re-evaluation of the design brief... I think we have addressed all the issues that kept this from moving ahead the last time, but it'd be nice to have a mod's opinion on that.

We just have to be patient for another week for Mr.Benn to take another look at it. So here I sit twiddling my thumbs. *Looks intently for a twiddling thumbs smiley to no avail*

[natty dread]

[natty dread]

Mare Spumans corrected:

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

This project has been a bit quiet for a while... but I've been having a few ideas.

I'm thinking about making the rockets into shuttles. It would make more sense, since rockets are becoming old technology, and 50-100 years in the future we probably won't be using rockets to launch shuttles, we'll have shuttles that can take off into space independently.

Also, a gameplay idea. How about making the rockets/shuttles one-way attack their landing sites, and adding 1 or 2 territories that are killer neutrals and attack all the shuttles. I'm thinking of north and south poles as territories... Maybe we could put missile bases on them to explain how they kill shuttles.

As this would make the shuttles harder to take we'd change the He3 mine bonus to not include the shuttles/rockets.

Anyone have opinions about this?

[MarshalNey]

...
I'm thinking about making the rockets into shuttles. It would make more sense, since rockets are becoming old technology, and 50-100 years in the future we probably won't be using rockets to launch shuttles, we'll have shuttles that can take off into space independently.

You might be surprised to know this (most are), but the space shuttle is in no way a Lunar-capable vehicle. In fact, as space exploration goes, it was a huge step backward (yes, I said backward). Its major benefit was re-usability. In other words, it was something showy that NASA could send up and save money.

The space shuttle never actually leaves Earth's outer atmosphere (where the air is very, very, very thin). It has neither the fuel capacity nor the long-term payload to make a moon trip. Things like the "X-prize" competition featured "shuttles" that had an even more limited capability.

Rockets (not to be confused with the smaller booster rockets for a shuttle) are currently the only technology that can make it to the moon. They might be "old" but no further research has realistically been done to make anything better (as far as I know). Unfortunately, no nation currently has the capability to get to the moon since all of those projects have been dismantled some time ago. To get to the moon, it would normally take about 2 or 3 years just to develop the heavy industry to construct a real moon rocket!

NASA puts out a lot of "cool" musings about stuff like particle drives and such, but NASA is, sadly, an over-calcified bureauacracy that no longer takes real risks. Given these trends, I think very little progress will be made in the arena of space exploration (sorry to be such a curmudgeon to sci-fi enthusiasts).

Of course, this map is all about imagination and "what ifs?". However, don't feel that you need to make the rockets into shuttles in order to be "realistic". In fact, when I saw the rockets they made sense to me. Shuttles are the more fantastic option, barring a real space station with permanent docking capability or something equally implausible given the current political nature of NASA.

...
How about making the rockets/shuttles one-way attack their landing sites, and adding 1 or 2 territories that are killer neutrals and attack all the shuttles. I'm thinking of north and south poles as territories... Maybe we could put missile bases on them to explain how they kill shuttles.

As this would make the shuttles harder to take we'd change the He3 mine bonus to not include the shuttles/rockets.
...

sounds good to me. Missile bases, barracks with boarding shuttles... a really big harpoon gun maybe

[natty dread]

Rockets are currently the only technology that can make it to the moon.

The map is placed 50-100 years in the future though...

[Industrial Helix]

...
I'm thinking about making the rockets into shuttles. It would make more sense, since rockets are becoming old technology, and 50-100 years in the future we probably won't be using rockets to launch shuttles, we'll have shuttles that can take off into space independently.

You might be surprised to know this (most are), but the space shuttle is in no way a Lunar-capable vehicle. In fact, as space exploration goes, it was a huge step backward (yes, I said backward). Its major benefit was re-usability. In other words, it was something showy that NASA could send up and save money.

The space shuttle never actually leaves Earth's outer atmosphere (where the air is very, very, very thin). It has neither the fuel capacity nor the long-term payload to make a moon trip. Things like the "X-prize" competition featured "shuttles" that had an even more limited capability.

Rockets (not to be confused with the smaller booster rockets for a shuttle) are currently the only technology that can make it to the moon. They might be "old" but no further research has realistically been done to make anything better (as far as I know). Unfortunately, no nation currently has the capability to get to the moon since all of those projects have been dismantled some time ago. To get to the moon, it would normally take about 2 or 3 years just to develop the heavy industry to construct a real moon rocket!

NASA puts out a lot of "cool" musings about stuff like particle drives and such, but NASA is, sadly, an over-calcified bureauacracy that no longer takes real risks. Given these trends, I think very little progress will be made in the arena of space exploration (sorry to be such a curmudgeon to sci-fi enthusiasts).

Of course, this map is all about imagination and "what ifs?". However, don't feel that you need to make the rockets into shuttles in order to be "realistic". In fact, when I saw the rockets they made sense to me. Shuttles are the more fantastic option, barring a real space station with permanent docking capability or something equally implausible given the current political nature of NASA.

...
How about making the rockets/shuttles one-way attack their landing sites, and adding 1 or 2 territories that are killer neutrals and attack all the shuttles. I'm thinking of north and south poles as territories... Maybe we could put missile bases on them to explain how they kill shuttles.

As this would make the shuttles harder to take we'd change the He3 mine bonus to not include the shuttles/rockets.
...

sounds good to me. Missile bases, barracks with boarding shuttles... a really big harpoon gun maybe

That was a near perfect sum up of the space industry at this point right now... hopefully a little international competition will bring space exploration to the forefront again.

As for this map... I love the idea. But I'm going to be upfront... I can't read it to make sense of the gameplay. These dots with names mean next to nothing other than you occupy it. For example, what is Plinus? Is it a trench, a mountain, a region? The graphics aren't illustrating what all these names mean and I have a hard time making sense of the gameplay and the map.

[natty dread]

As for this map... I love the idea. But I'm going to be upfront... I can't read it to make sense of the gameplay. These dots with names mean next to nothing other than you occupy it. For example, what is Plinus? Is it a trench, a mountain, a region? The graphics aren't illustrating what all these names mean and I have a hard time making sense of the gameplay and the map.

Umm... excuse me but which version are you looking at? The latest version has a legend which very clearly states which territories are craters, which are mines and which are seas. How can you be confused about it?

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

And here a fast update, with a new feature added, "missile base".

The legend has also been made more clear, it now comes with matching territory text colour & font to better help you recognize which territories are which.

The missile bases are killer neutrals. Rockets were also changed to one-way attack their landing sites. Both missile bases attack all rockets. He-3 mines now give a bonus independently.

Version 13:

Click image to enlarge.

[MarshalNey]

I realized that one thing that I did think when I originally read the legend was that I wasn't sure what the "connector tubes" were. I figured it out of course, but I think a small graphic by the reference might help if you could squeeze it in.

Really, that's a little thing. This map feels like it should at least be in the gameplay forum... it's really striking visually and the concept seems to have solidified (8 starting nations in a Gold Rush for Lunar resources, sort of like Treasures of Gallapigos on steriods).

I understand the gameplay after studying it for a bit, but I know people who might have trouble or wouldn't want to take the time. That's no different than a lot of quenched maps, though. Your biggest complication is the seas, there's a lot of text there. I'm not sure it's all entirely necessary, specifying adjacency and connector tubes when you could probably modify the map to use just one or the other method to show an outside connection to a sea (connector tubes would be preferred b/c they're more explicit).

Again, my compliments on a beautiful map, and very playable as it is... in my opinion.

[natty dread]

I realized that one thing that I did think when I originally read the legend was that I wasn't sure what the "connector tubes" were. I figured it out of course, but I think a small graphic by the reference might help if you could squeeze it in.

Hmm. Sounds reasonable.

Really, that's a little thing. This map feels like it should at least be in the gameplay forum... it's really striking visually and the concept seems to have solidified (8 starting nations in a Gold Rush for Lunar resources, sort of like Treasures of Gallapigos on steriods).

Heh, interesting way to put it. I kinda like it

I understand the gameplay after studying it for a bit, but I know people who might have trouble or wouldn't want to take the time. That's no different than a lot of quenched maps, though. Your biggest complication is the seas, there's a lot of text there. I'm not sure it's all entirely necessary, specifying adjacency and connector tubes when you could probably modify the map to use just one or the other method to show an outside connection to a sea (connector tubes would be preferred b/c they're more explicit).

Yeah.. I didn't want to put connector tubes to all of the seas, as I fear it would make the map look cluttered. Which is already kinda is, of course, but we're trying to minimize the clutter.

I'll have to think on some solutions for this problem.

Again, my compliments on a beautiful map, and very playable as it is... in my opinion.

Thanks, and thanks for your feedback. Like I said, things have been a bit slow, as me & Isaiah both have other projects to develop as well. But we're still trying to make this work and get it advanced into the gameplay shop.

[natty dread]

I see design briefs were evaluated today... but no verdict has yet been given to the remodeled Lunar war map...

Have we been forgotten?

[isaiah40]

I see design briefs were evaluated today... but no verdict has yet been given to the remodeled Lunar war map...

Have we been forgotten?

We are the forgotten one natty

[natty dread]

I see design briefs were evaluated today... but no verdict has yet been given to the remodeled Lunar war map...

Have we been forgotten?

We are the forgotten one natty

Waah! Oh Mrbenn... Say it ain't so ...

[natty dread]

OK, so either move this map to the gameplay shop, or move it to the bin for vacation. If it still isn't "good enough" for further development, then me & isaiah will have to do some major work and possibly start from scratch. Which I'm not sure I'm up to at the moment.

So please, move the map somewhere, where that is, you decide. I hope you choose the gp shop, but... I hope lots of things and they seldom come true...

Either way, please give us some closure, I want to know if this map is going to advance or not, because if it's not, I'll let this one be vacationed and pick up another map to work on. I would still like to work on this map though, but not if it's going to gather mold in the melting pot eternally...