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

[Teflon Kris]

I hope this map goes into the gameplay workshop - I like the setting and features

[ender516]

Hardly seems fair. This map was one of the first to attach a proper design brief, so it deserves a comment from the boys in blue, one way or the other.

[Coleman]

Back in ancient times when I worked this place I was forced to let really well developed maps sit here for a long time for various reasons. So in short, MrBenn is doing the best he can for you and means well and I suspect in a very short amount of time you are going to advance to gameplay workshop.

I do not intend to speak for him or on his behalf but my interpretation of his last comment was that he was having trouble identifying if this is conquest gameplay like New World where everyone starts on the rockets and then slowly takes over the moon, or something more similar to arms race where everyone gets their share of white circles and has to fight for everything else.

Now, I am certain if I read through the entire topic this might become clear to me but from my initial glance at the map it is not. If I were to pick this map out of a line up having never played it before and having never visited the foundry I would not know what I was getting into.

The requirement to advance, if things haven't changed too much, is to have a working draft. This is open to immense interpretation so I could be completely wrong but I have a thought that might get you out of the melting pot.

Write, somewhere on the map, "players start with rockets" or "players start with moon territories" or "no starting neutrals exist on this map" or have some placeholder neutral values in the territories that will have starting neutrals. This would eliminate any chance of confusion and would satisfy the ancient requirement that I be able to play with your map if I printed it out, which is the method I often employed when determining when something could leave.

I, of course, maintain immense respect for MrBenn and his authority here and apologize if I am disrupting his process. I do not intend anything of the sort. I just noticed you guys seemed frustrated so I wanted to provide some of my insight, because I really do like the map and want you to be successful.

[skeletonboy]

Back in ancient times when I worked this place I was forced to let really well developed maps sit here for a long time for various reasons. So in short, MrBean is doing the best he can for you and means well and I suspect in a very short amount of time you are going to advance to gameplay workshop.

I do not intend to speak for him or on his behalf but my interpretation of his last comment was that he was having trouble identifying if this is conquest gameplay like New World where everyone starts on the rockets and then slowly takes over the moon, or something more similar to arms race where everyone gets their share of white circles and has to fight for everything else.

Now, I am certain if I read through the entire topic this might become clear to me but from my initial glance at the map it is not. If I were to pick this map out of a line up having never played it before and having never visited the foundry I would not know what I was getting into.

The requirement to advance, if things haven't changed too much, is to have a working draft. This is open to immense interpretation so I could be completely wrong but I have a thought that might get you out of the melting pot.

Write, somewhere on the map, "players start with rockets" or "players start with moon territories". This would eliminate any chance of confusion and would satisfy the ancient requirement that I be able to play with your map if I printed it out, which is the method I often employed when determining when something could leave.

I, of course, maintain immense respect for MrBean and his authority here and apologize if I am disrupting his process. I do not intend anything of the sort. I just noticed you guys seemed frustrated so I wanted to provide some of my insight, because I really do like the map and want you to be successful.

I think MrBenn just hates natty

[Coleman]

I think MrBenn just hates natty

I can assure you nobody in the cartographer work group hates anybody. They might hate something he has done however, I do not know him so I cannot say, but that should have no effect on their handling of this map.

[isaiah40]

Well that seems fair coleman! Hopefully natty will make that change on the map, and get it posted soon.

[Coleman]

Well that seems fair coleman! Hopefully natty will make that change on the map, and get it posted soon.

Yeah I just read that the rockets are the starting points and everything on the moon is neutral, but the current map doesn't show that in any way so it isn't initially clear. Since it looks so similar to arms race one could incorrectly interpret that you start with all the white circles. So some random neutrals all over the moon or some text on the map saying players start with rockets should solve it.

I am going to assume my New World map is an inspiration for you guys even if you don't know what it is, so I feel very privileged to see something with similar game-play being dreamed up.

I want to re-stress this may not be what MrBenn is talking about, I am not him so I can't say for sure. I am sure he will comment when he can.

[MrBenn]

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

This is down to an administrative oversight on my behalf... The bookmark I have in the Design Brief thread took me to the Lava map, bypassing the second submission you posted for this, as well as one or two other maps (which I will also have to look at again!)

Since my last review, you have confirmed that you are aiming for a conquest style map; at some point you will need to factor in neutral values to the non-starting territories across the map.

I still have my concerns about the realist prospect of mining the moon, but I think we can live with a little bit of imagination! The key things to focus on now are to consolidate the gameplay and to ensure that it is crystal clear on the map.

[moved] to the Gameplay Workshop

[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

This is down to an administrative oversight on my behalf... The bookmark I have in the Design Brief thread took me to the Lava map, bypassing the second submission you posted for this, as well as one or two other maps (which I will also have to look at again!)

Since my last review, you have confirmed that you are aiming for a conquest style map; at some point you will need to factor in neutral values to the non-starting territories across the map.

I still have my concerns about the realist prospect of mining the moon, but I think we can live with a little bit of imagination! The key things to focus on now are to consolidate the gameplay and to ensure that it is crystal clear on the map.

[moved] to the Gameplay Workshop

Thank you Mr.Benn! Well off to get the game play done!!

[natty dread]

Ok how's this?

Click image to enlarge.

I am going to assume my New World map is an inspiration for you guys even if you don't know what it is, so I feel very privileged to see something with similar game-play being dreamed up.

Well I can't speak for Isaiah, but New world is certainly one of my favorite maps. I don't think we ever intentionally meant to make the gameplay of this map similar to New world, although now that you mention it I can clearly see some similar elements. Which is cool, because I really like New world. On the other hand, with the addition of the missile bases, the gameplay also has lots of elements of WWII Poland... which is another one of my favorite maps.

As for MrBenn, I know he is very busy, and for the record I think he is doing a great job in the foundry. Perhaps he just somehow missed this map, we're all human after all. Or perhaps there is a deeper reason. No use to speculate though, he'll inspect the map when he has the time, I'm sure.

edit: oh, fastposted by Mrbenn.... Well what can I say, except Thanks a bunch Mrbenn!

Seems my speculation was kinda correct then... well, glad this got settled, now let's get this show on the road!

[Teflon Kris]

I do not intend to speak for him or on his behalf but my interpretation of his last comment was that he was having trouble identifying if this is conquest gameplay like New World where everyone starts on the rockets and then slowly takes over the moon, or something more similar to arms race where everyone gets their share of white circles and has to fight for everything else.

Isnt sorting these kind of things out the kind of thing that should go on in the gameplay workshop?

So now you are there natty, next step is to clarify about starts etc. as per Coleman's point.

Congrats on the progression

[Coleman]

I do not intend to speak for him or on his behalf but my interpretation of his last comment was that he was having trouble identifying if this is conquest gameplay like New World where everyone starts on the rockets and then slowly takes over the moon, or something more similar to arms race where everyone gets their share of white circles and has to fight for everything else.

Isnt sorting these kind of things out the kind of thing that should go on in the gameplay workshop?

Absolutely correct sir. Let's get started!

[EDIT FINISHED]

You guys really thought this out, I was certain one of the starting points would have an obvious disadvantage but none of them seem to. Except maybe Brazil is too far from a missile base compared to US or Russia.

Now comes the ugly part though. Is it possible for a player to be dead before his first round?

I assume an 8 player game. If the rocket starts with 5 troops, gains 2 automagically, and is allowed to deploy 3 then they really start with 10.

In my scenario Russia gets to go first. The Russian player is incredibly devious and decides to assault RU1, and takes it without a loss, he moves 9 troops forward. He then has a 9v4 with the sea and also wins that without a loss, which is statistically unlikely but still possible. I am sure you see where I am going with this. Winning what would be an 8v9 with enough strength to then wipe out 5 on someone else's rocket is unlikely, but possible and in my opinion not unlikely enough.

What would the be the risk benefit of such an action? I'm not sure. My suggestion unfortunately would require a slight redesign of the rocket areas. I suggest moving them both slightly more inland and out of the seas, with a new territory in front of them that also has 4 neutral on it. This means even with phenomenal rolls they would have to leave 1 behind on a landing point, and 1 behind on the sea, and 1 behinds on the new territory so at most they would have an 7v9 (damn near statistically impossible to have 7 at that point) followed by a ?v5 which really should be statistically impossible. Or at least unlikely enough that the risk benefit is no longer significant enough for a suicidal cook or gutsy major to try it.

[natty dread]

So now you are there natty, next step is to clarify about starts etc. as per Coleman's point.

Congrats on the progression

Thanks. See my previous post (above yours) it contains the latest version, which should clarify all these issues.

Rockets are starting points. They one way assault their respective landing points, and can only be assaulted by missile bases.

All other territories start neutral. Missile bases are killer neutrals, and have a high neutral count (currently marked up as 9) so rockets are hard to conquer.

The whole thing with missile bases was done, because the map is kinda tight on space, when it comes to landing sites... there's several places where landing sites of different rockets are quite close to each other. So to reduce chances of first round eliminations, it was made harder to conquer rockets of other players. However missile bases were made killer neutrals, to eliminate the possibility of stacking on them... however you can still stack to territories adjacent to them. Which brings to my first gameplay point:

Missile bases should each connect to at least 2 other territories, to make it harder for players to block and guard them with huge stacks. So we should to figure out a feasible way to do this...

Next point is neutral values. Craters give no bonus except for the standard territory bonus, so it's prudent to have only 2 troops on them. Seas are more valuable, since gathering at least 5 of them starts giving extra. Therefore they have 4. And he3-mines have 6. I think these are all "kosher" as the saying goes...

However, I'm unsure on the neutral values of landing sites: on one hand, they should be reasonably easy to take from the rocket at the start of game, on the other hand, the leftovers in less-than-8-player games shouldn't be too easy... They're currently 3:s, but maybe they could have 4? Here's a thought: add more starting troops to rockets, then make landing sites 5:s.

Next is bonus values of he3-mines. I'd like them to be more important in the gameplay, since they are central to the "story" of the map. Perhaps +3 each? And should the mine bonus be autodeployed as well?

Neutral values of leftover rockets: since rockets are quite powerful (they get +2 autodeploy, and have access to landing points) any leftover rockets in less-than-8 games should have high neutral count. I'm thinking 10.

Positioning of landing sites: since it's now impossible to eliminate players via landing sites, should landing sites of the same nationality be closer to each other? It's something I have been pondering for a while, but haven't figured out the answer yet.

Everyone, your thoughts on all of these issues are most welcome.

[Coleman]

Hopefully you see my edit, your thoughts on adding a couple new territories to get the rockets inland and make them less tempting for an early errr what I will now call evil son of a b*tch run.

10 would be a great neutral count for an unclaimed rocket. It works for New World.

[natty dread]

Hopefully you see my edit, your thoughts on adding a couple new territories to get the rockets inland and make them less tempting for an early errr what I will now call evil son of a b*tch run.

10 would be a great neutral count for an unclaimed rocket. It works for New World.

Thanks for the well thought out suggestions. However, I'd like to avoid having two landing sites connect to the same sea, for obvious reasons... (for that matter, US1 could perhaps be moved so that it only borders Mare Nubium?)

So, I do agree with your logic, but I'm not sure how to fix this. Isaiah might have some ideas...

One possibility would be to bring the Sinus Roris territory back (as a sea territory), then connect the Roris base to it.

However, as I explained in my last post, I would really like to get all missile bases connected to at least 2 other territories, so if you can see a reasonable way to do this I'm all eyes.

Hmm, Medii base could border both Sinus Medii & Mare Vaporum. It would still be hard enough to take, since no landing site connects to Vaporum. But Roris is a tougher nut to crack...

[Coleman]

This might look too cluttered but Medii Base could go inland and have white line connections to Sinus Medii and Mare Tranguillitais. At that point calling it Medii Base might not be as significant as it once was but it would give some more rockets an easier chance of getting to one earlier.

A new neutral 3-4 territory could exist on the west coast of Mare Frigoris that has a white line connection to Roris base helping EU in a similar fashion

I really need to get going. I'll be back in a few hours with more thoughts. I'm addicted to your map idea now.

[isaiah40]

Okay, here is what I think. Instead of adding a couple more territories to an already busy map, I suggest this. Decrease the rockets to start with the normal 3, up the seas (mares) to 4 neutral and the missile base to 10 neutral. In this way (let's take colemans example) the russian player will only deploy 5 (his/her +2 auto and normal 3) for a total of 8. Now with the landing site having a 3 neutral and the mare having a 4 neutral, that would be 7v7 with a 10 neutral on the missile base. The probability of the Russian player even making it all the way through 17 neutral and having enough to eliminate another player is very unlikely. I think this would be the way to go. we could even make sure even more by increasing he mare neutrals to a 5 from the 4, but not necessary.

I think the landing site should start with 3 neutrals. As far as the He3 mines go, IMO they are fine with the 6 neutrals with a +2 for everyone held. (Needs to have "For every .." in front). Though for the craters I think the normal 3 neutral would be the way to go.

For now these are the only thoughts I have.

[natty dread]

This might look too cluttered but Medii Base could go inland and have white line connections to Sinus Medii and Mare Tranguillitais. At that point calling it Medii Base might not be as significant as it once was but it would give some more rockets an easier chance of getting to one earlier.

A new neutral 3-4 territory could exist on the west coast of Mare Frigoris that has a white line connection to Roris base helping EU in a similar fashion

I really need to get going. I'll be back in a few hours with more thoughts.

Hmm, these are all interesting ideas. I also need to be going to sleep soon, but all ideas will surely be considered.

I'm addicted to your map idea now.

Bwahahaha! Now that we have you hooked on Lunar, your life will never be the same again!


edit: isaiah, pm me with all changes that should be done for the next version, and I will try to get it done by tomorrow.

[isaiah40]

Just see my post above yours!

[natty dread]

Just see my post above yours!

aww, but a list with bullet points would have been more convenient

nvm, I'll look into it tomorrow.

[natty dread]

v13b

Click image to enlarge.

[isaiah40]

I don't about anyone else but I believe the neutral values are good. No one will be to able to eliminate another player first turn.

[natty dread]

I would still like if both of the missile bases border more territories. So how about if Roris Base would also connect to Frigoris and Medii base would also connect to Vaporum?

Alternatively, Roris base could connect to northern Imbrium, and Medii base could connect to Ptolemaeus.

[isaiah40]

I would still like if both of the missile bases border more territories. So how about if Roris Base would also connect to Frigoris and Medii base would also connect to Vaporum?

Alternatively, Roris base could connect to northern Imbrium, and Medii base could connect to Ptolemaeus.

Roris sounds good. How about we move Medii over to Mare Nectarus and then connect it to Piccolomini? That way it is clearer and won't look as cluttered. Of course you would have to rename it Nectaris Base.

[natty dread]

I would still like if both of the missile bases border more territories. So how about if Roris Base would also connect to Frigoris and Medii base would also connect to Vaporum?

Alternatively, Roris base could connect to northern Imbrium, and Medii base could connect to Ptolemaeus.

Roris sounds good. How about we move Medii over to Mare Nectarus and then connect it to Piccolomini? That way it is clearer and won't look as cluttered. Of course you would have to rename it Nectaris Base.

That's a great idea actually. Piccolomini is close to 2 starting points, but there would be 4 troops in between the landing site and the base, so it's just 1 troop less than what we now have in Roris...

Only thing is that "Nectaris base" doesn't sound as cool as "Medii base"...

But when I think about it, it would make sense to have the bases at opposite ends of the moon. One in NW corner, one in SE... I'll do a version with the nectaris base.