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

[natty dread]

So update the legend and you're golden.

Will do...

Looks like a great map. Keep up the good work!

Thanks.

[Industrial Helix]

I imagine this is going to get shot down, but I'm going to recommend it anyway. How about you give this map territories instead of connector tubes?

You know my lack of affinity for connector lines and have heard my reasons before. I think it was a major improvement for Nordic Countries and would be for this map as well. Additional reasons why it would improve this map include:

You can start drawing awesome cultural moon bases on the territories.
You can make the landing sites look more than just colored circles that people won't be able to read anyway with numbers over them, complete with shuttles hovering over the territory, landing pads...
In adding the above, this map will feel more like lunar colonization and war, right now it feels like a stick and ball model of a molecule allegedly supposed to be the moon.
You can make physical he3 mines instead of having just a unique army symbol, increasing clarity.

The next thing I want to add is that you might want to put this map in time somewhere... don't specify a year and entrap yourself, but add a little quip like "In the near future, the space race heats up..." I guess I just feel the need to know whether I'm shooting lasers or bullets on the moon.

I know these are mostly cosmetic changes but I think this map is gearing up for the graphics workshop anyway. I also expect that you'll be hesitant to accept my suggestions, but please think it over. I really think it would improve this map significantly.

[natty dread]

Thanks for your comments, IH. You know I always value your suggestions, even if I don't always agree with them...

Unfortunately I don't think making this map with territories instead of connector tubes would be a feasible option, but I'll have to talk it over with Isaiah. Perhaps we'll put up a poll on it...

The next thing I want to add is that you might want to put this map in time somewhere...

Check post #1, the section labeled "introduction". The map is placed some 50-100 years in the future... However you are correct that it would be good to have this fact refelected in the map somehow. Do you have any suggestions?

I guess I just feel the need to know whether I'm shooting lasers or bullets on the moon.

Personally I believe laser weapons will never be such a huge hit even in the future. I'm more into solenoid quench guns myself... You know, superconducting coil guns. Shooting projectiles at mach 10 beats any concentrated beam of light any day

[natty dread]

And here's update. Legend brought up to date wrt. colour of mines.

Isaiah suggested changing the name to Lunar War 2110, but it didn't look good with the font of the title so I put it in roman numerals. How does that look?

Click image to enlarge.

[ender516]

The year isn't a bad idea, but I wonder if it is immediately obvious that MMCX is a year. You might make it MMCX A.D., or A.D. MMCX, or the more politically correct, MMCX C.E. (Common Era, no Christian bias).

[natty dread]

>> I wonder if it is immediately obvious that MMCX is a year.

... does it need to be?

[ender516]

Well, if the idea is to give a time period to the map, then I'm inclined to say yes...

[natty dread]

Well, if the idea is to give a time period to the map, then I'm inclined to say yes...

ok, you got me there.

[Teflon Kris]

Current Feedback Requests

- neutral values, bonuses and landing site placement: can you see any advantage to any of the countries? ie. does any of the players gaet an unfair advantage based on which country he starts from.

- clarity of gameplay: are all territory connections & borders clear?

- are the symbols distinct enough: can you find all key features easily enough?

- is the legend clear? can you understand all the rules of the map?

Of course feedback on all other topics is welcome as well.

Neutral Values
These seem fine, although some adjustments may be needed later on, if other changes take place.
Most importantly, the above discussion shows quick kills are extremely unlikely which is most important.

Bonuses
Initially, they seem pretty sound, however:

With the landing site and rocket bonuses - you would expect most players to take both landing sites first turn and immediately get +3 in bonuses (and the auto-deploy). Unlucky players wouldn't. In a game with players with equal skill this could make a difference, maybe. I wouldn't see this as a major issue but you may wish to fine-tune in the following ways perhaps?

Smaller neutrals on landing sites to ensure all players likely to get the bonus (2?), or larger number of troops on the rockets (7?).

Simplify the rockets and landing sites bonus as simply +2 for holding all 3 - this may create make the (danderous but interesting) tactical option of taking an opponents' landing site a more attractive option. With the current system, I cant imagine players wanting to do this until later in the game when they have big enough stacks to avoid opening themselves up to revenge attacks from the rockets (given they hae +2 auto-deploy).

This suggestion doesn't make that much difference though, just a little. Reducing to +1 auto-deploy on the rockets would increase the attraction of taking landing sites as well.

Neither suggestion here would make a huge fundamental change - they are both non-essential.

The seas bonuses
It looks like gaining control of the seas would often be key to winning the game. I'm not too sure about some of the connections yet though, so difficult to comment whether the bonus values seem ok or not. The main considerations are that control of the seas can't be established too early in the game, although also worth ensuring the gameplay doesn't simply become a luck-based battle purely based on the seas, i.e. that other tactical options are significant enough.

Landing Site Placement
Hard to tell if this is right as I am not too sure about many of the connections with the landing sites in particular

Connections and Borders
I'm having trouble with these.

The connector tubes are clear.

The edges of the seas could do with being clearer, and different to the borders between connected seas.

What some of the landing sites connect with is not so clear (e.g. US1).

Some of this would be picked up in the graphics workshop but would be best sorted now I'd say (contrastingly the teal/cyan colour of the seas' army squares contrasts too much with the greys of the map - better to have more contrast on borders than army circles (squares etc.).

Symbols
The symbols are distinct enough

The use of different army shapes is cool, and very clear (e.g. square seas, hexagon mines).

Legend
This is fine, especially at this stage. (I wouldn't mind knowing how you did this for some sci-fi map ideas I have lol).

Overall
Keep up the good work, this map could be a winner, the gameplay is interesting, very interesting.

[natty dread]

Wow, thanks DJ for the well thought-out feedback. I'll try to address some points...

Smaller neutrals on landing sites to ensure all players likely to get the bonus (2?), or larger number of troops on the rockets (7?).

Well, this could be done, however we may have to tweak some other neutrals to keep the 1st turn kills a non-viable option.

Simplify the rockets and landing sites bonus as simply +2 for holding all 3 - this may create make the (danderous but interesting) tactical option of taking an opponents' landing site a more attractive option. With the current system, I cant imagine players wanting to do this until later in the game when they have big enough stacks to avoid opening themselves up to revenge attacks from the rockets (given they hae +2 auto-deploy).

Hmm... I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. If you want to make taking the opponents' landing sites an attractive option... then why change the current system? Currently you get +2 for holding the landing sites, and +3 if you also hold the rocket. So if you take your opponent's landing sites you gain a +2 bonus and he loses a +3 bonus... that seems attractive enough to me.

Rockets have the +2 autodeploy, yes, but they can only access the playing area via the landing sites and thus stacking on them would be stupid. And I wouldn't want to make it so that it would be too easy to take someone's landing sites and hold them - because then that player really has no chance to retaliate, as the landing sites are necessary for a player to gain access to the moon...

I'll be having a chat with isaiah about this, but I suspect he will agree with me about the rockets and landing sites bonus. However the lowering of the site neutrals could be done IMO, but then some other neutral values probably have to be revisited...

The seas bonuses
It looks like gaining control of the seas would often be key to winning the game. I'm not too sure about some of the connections yet though, so difficult to comment whether the bonus values seem ok or not. The main considerations are that control of the seas can't be established too early in the game, although also worth ensuring the gameplay doesn't simply become a luck-based battle purely based on the seas, i.e. that other tactical options are significant enough.

Which connections are unclear? I can see if I can improve them.

Yes, I don't think the sea bonuses can be used too early in the game. You need at least 5 sea territories to get a bonus, and that means killing 25 neutral troops. And even then you only get a +5 bonus so let's say you lose 25 troops taking and holding that bonus, it will only pay itself back in 5 rounds... However, later in game when you manage to grab more of the seas the bonus will really pay off.

Landing Site Placement
Hard to tell if this is right as I am not too sure about many of the connections with the landing sites in particular

We are working on new landing site icons, which will hopefully improve this. But again please tell me which ones are unclear, so I can make a note to pay extra attention on them.

The edges of the seas could do with being clearer, and different to the borders between connected seas.

Hmm... how do you mean? You mean to make the borders different colour where the border is between 2 seas? Or something like that? I'm not sure how feasible that would be visually, but I could give it a shot...

Some of this would be picked up in the graphics workshop but would be best sorted now I'd say (contrastingly the teal/cyan colour of the seas' army squares contrasts too much with the greys of the map - better to have more contrast on borders than army circles (squares etc.).

Yes, I've been thinking about making the sea "circles" match the colour of the sea borders... maybe that would help.

Legend
This is fine, especially at this stage. (I wouldn't mind knowing how you did this for some sci-fi map ideas I have lol).

Heh, It's a secret

jk, I don't mind telling. It's actually quite simple. I used the rounded rectangle tool to draw the frames. Then I applied some bevel on them (I put the bevel on another layer so I can adjust it's opacity) I'm not sure, I might have done several bevels with different opacities to create that rounded look on the frames... Then I applied a very slight texture on the frames.

Then I used the magic wand tool to select the empty areas inside the frames, and created a new layer, filled it with blue and applied that grid texture on it, then lowered the opacity to make it nicely transparent.

The text & graphics are on another layer with reduced opacity, so the grid texture shows through all the graphics - this creates a cool effect as you can see

Keep up the good work, this map could be a winner, the gameplay is interesting, very interesting.

Much thanks. I'll get working on the graphical changes, and I'll have a chat with Isaiah about the gameplay ones...

[Teflon Kris]

Simplify the rockets and landing sites bonus as simply +2 for holding all 3 - this may create make the (danderous but interesting) tactical option of taking an opponents' landing site a more attractive option. With the current system, I cant imagine players wanting to do this until later in the game when they have big enough stacks to avoid opening themselves up to revenge attacks from the rockets (given they hae +2 auto-deploy).

Hmm... I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. If you want to make taking the opponents' landing sites an attractive option... then why change the current system? Currently you get +2 for holding the landing sites, and +3 if you also hold the rocket. So if you take your opponent's landing sites you gain a +2 bonus and he loses a +3 bonus... that seems attractive enough to me.

Rockets have the +2 autodeploy, yes, but they can only access the playing area via the landing sites and thus stacking on them would be stupid. And I wouldn't want to make it so that it would be too easy to take someone's landing sites and hold them - because then that player really has no chance to retaliate, as the landing sites are necessary for a player to gain access to the moon...

Good point - not sure what I was thinking there regarding changing the bonus, it does make basically very little difference if the rocket is part of the bonus requirement or not.

However, stacking on the rockets would be a kind of forced option in an adjacent game - imagine adjacent and fog of war - players would be scared to take landing points as there could be a significant rocket stack unleashed (plus the next auto-deploy) for the sake of breaking a 3 bonus. This is similar to most auto-deploy 'base' maps (e.g. feudal, pelo war etc.) but on those maps the bonus from regions adjacent to the base is less, so little is lost by not attacking right up to the base. In this case, bases can't be attacked from landing points and landing points have a more significant bonus.

In the mid-game stage, it would be extremely difficult to attack both corresponding landing points, so having the bonus for holding both is good thinking, enabling players to break the bonus by attacking one landing point. However, what I'm getting at is that attacking a landing point is a pretty unattractive option in the mid-game stage. Which means that the mid-game stage, could be a status-quo where everyone holds their rockets and landing points and builds with their +3 bonuses and +2 auto-deploys. This may not be a stalemate problem though, as sooner or later, players would then think about the options of going for missiles, 5+ seas or He-3s. Plus, I cant see an easy way to make attacking landing sites less risky (my previous thinking was clearly flawed).

Overall, on this point, it would be nice if attacking landing points wasm less risky as an extra stregic option mid-game, but not essential.

Yes, I don't think the sea bonuses can be used too early in the game. You need at least 5 sea territories to get a bonus, and that means killing 25 neutral troops. And even then you only get a +5 bonus so let's say you lose 25 troops taking and holding that bonus, it will only pay itself back in 5 rounds... However, later in game when you manage to grab more of the seas the bonus will really pay off.

I agree. Later on, we need to think through the balance of / difficult it is to try to take and hold the seas & HE-3s and take the missile bases and rocket(s) so we are confident none of the options are likely to be written off and ignored by players (such as players ignoring the too-difficult objective in pelo war).

We are working on new landing site icons, which will hopefully improve this. But again please tell me which ones are unclear, so I can make a note to pay extra attention on them.

The edges of the seas could do with being clearer, and different to the borders between connected seas.

Hmm... how do you mean? You mean to make the borders different colour where the border is between 2 seas? Or something like that? I'm not sure how feasible that would be visually, but I could give it a shot...

Looking again, I'm guessing that landing sites such as JP2 are connected to the sea(s) they border? Does US1 connect to the adjacent seas? IN2 seems to touch Copernicus on the small map but not the bigger one?

If I've got that right then I'd just suggest something minor maybe ame to clariy the landing sites that aren't on connector tube routes, either graphics-wise or legend-wise. Otherwise, I imagine a fair few players may have the same initial uncertainty as myself?

The edges of the seas and borders between seas are pretty much the same (e.g. border between N.Oceanus & S.Oceanus) - I'm just thinking its worth having a slight different - maybe the borders between being thinner than the edges - nothing major - defo not changing colour (unless its a minor shading change) - as you say, it wouldn't look right.

[natty dread]

Overall, on this point, it would be nice if attacking landing points wasm less risky as an extra stregic option mid-game, but not essential.

I agree. Right now I see no feasible way to do this, without screwing other aspects of the gameplay.

I agree. Later on, we need to think through the balance of / difficult it is to try to take and hold the seas & HE-3s and take the missile bases and rocket(s) so we are confident none of the options are likely to be written off and ignored by players (such as players ignoring the too-difficult objective in pelo war).

There's been quite a lot of discussion about the balance between mines & seas. I think the objective should be difficult in this map, not impossible but difficult... because if the objective is too easy players will just go for the objective every time and ignore the missile bases. I'd like the map to have several viable ways to win...

Looking again, I'm guessing that landing sites such as JP2 are connected to the sea(s) they border? Does US1 connect to the adjacent seas? IN2 seems to touch Copernicus on the small map but not the bigger one?

Yes, this is even explained in the map, although in a roundabout way in this case - the legend says that seas connect to all territories that border them or occupy them. Thus seas connect to landing sites on their borders, so landing sites obviously connect to them too. US1 connects to both seas bordering it...

Regarding IN2, what do you mean? We only have the large map so far... there's no small map yet... you probably mean the previous version, which had different symbols for the mines? Anyway, no, IN2 doesn't connect Copernicus, I too noticed this and have been meaning to correct it. The new landing site icons will probably fix this problem though...

The edges of the seas and borders between seas are pretty much the same (e.g. border between N.Oceanus & S.Oceanus) - I'm just thinking its worth having a slight different - maybe the borders between being thinner than the edges - nothing major - defo not changing colour (unless its a minor shading change) - as you say, it wouldn't look right.

Hmm, this sounds like a neat idea. The thinner borders I mean. I'll look into it.

[ender516]

I still feel I'm not experienced enough to make significant comments on gameplay, but let me say this: the rockets attacking the landing sites reminds me of the ships in the Jamaica map. Does anyone feel competent to contrast and compare these two maps? Sometimes this sort of exercise is a good way to find strengths and weaknesses.

[natty dread]

I still feel I'm not experienced enough to make significant comments on gameplay, but let me say this: the rockets attacking the landing sites reminds me of the ships in the Jamaica map. Does anyone feel competent to contrast and compare these two maps? Sometimes this sort of exercise is a good way to find strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, this was true before we added the missile bases... Now the gameplay is very different from Jamaica: in Jamaica the landing sites can attack the ships, but here you need to go through the missile bases to attack the rockets...

The gameplay of Lunar is kind of a mix of WWII Poland, Arms race and New world... or perhaps a simplified Das Schloss?

You know, I've been meaning to do this for a while: a comparison of all the countries. Here goes...


Country comparison

Access to missile base

USA:
#1 - 2 seas (10 troops) in between landing site & missile base, shortest route
#2 - 1 sea (5 troops)

Russia:
#1 - 1 sea (5)
#2 - 3 seas (15)

China:
#1 - 1 crater with 5 (5)
#2 - 3 seas (15)

Japan:
#1 - 2 seas (10)
#2 - 2 seas (10)

India:
#1 - crater & sea (7)
#2 - 2 seas (10)

Eu:
#1 - 1 sea (5)
#2 - no viable access, other landing sites in the way

Brazil:
#1 - crater, 3 seas (17)
#2 - crater & sea (7)

South Africa:
#1 - crater, crater w/5 (7)
#2 - no viable access


Ok, it seems there are a coupe of countries which get kinda "the short end of the stick" when it comes to missile access. Now let's look at access to He-3 mines:

USA:
#1 - can access 3 different mines with only 7 troops between
#2 - 12 troops to nearest

Russia:
#1 - 5 troops to nearest, 12 to another
#2 - 12 to nearest

China:
#1 - 4 to nearest
#2 - 5 to nearest, 14 to another two

Japan:
#1 - 7 to nearest
#2 - 12 to nearest

India:
#1 - 4 to nearest
#2 - 7 to nearest

EU:
#1 - 9 to nearest
#2 - 4 to nearest

Brazil:
#1 - 7 to nearest
#2 - 4 to nearest

South africa:
#1 - 11 to nearest
#2 - 6 to nearest


There we go. Now just some hard core analyzing to figure out if we need to shuffle them somewhat. Right now it seems USA might be a bit too strong... maybe India too... South Africa seems a bit weak?

[Teflon Kris]

You know, I've been meaning to do this for a while: a comparison of all the countries. Here goes...


Country comparison

Access to missile base

USA:
#1 - 2 seas (10 troops) in between landing site & missile base, shortest route
#2 - 1 sea (5 troops)

Russia:
#1 - 1 sea (5)
#2 - 3 seas (15)

China:
#1 - 1 crater with 5 (5)
#2 - 3 seas (15)

Japan:
#1 - 2 seas (10)
#2 - 2 seas (10)

India:
#1 - crater & sea (7)
#2 - 2 seas (10)

Eu:
#1 - 1 sea (5)
#2 - no viable access, other landing sites in the way

Brazil:
#1 - crater, 3 seas (17)
#2 - crater & sea (7)

South Africa:
#1 - crater, crater w/5 (7)
#2 - no viable access


Ok, it seems there are a coupe of countries which get kinda "the short end of the stick" when it comes to missile access. Now let's look at access to He-3 mines:

USA:
#1 - can access 3 different mines with only 7 troops between
#2 - 12 troops to nearest

Russia:
#1 - 5 troops to nearest, 12 to another
#2 - 12 to nearest

China:
#1 - 4 to nearest
#2 - 5 to nearest, 14 to another two

Japan:
#1 - 7 to nearest
#2 - 12 to nearest

India:
#1 - 4 to nearest
#2 - 7 to nearest

EU:
#1 - 9 to nearest
#2 - 4 to nearest

Brazil:
#1 - 7 to nearest
#2 - 4 to nearest

South africa:
#1 - 11 to nearest
#2 - 6 to nearest


There we go. Now just some hard core analyzing to figure out if we need to shuffle them somewhat. Right now it seems USA might be a bit too strong... maybe India too... South Africa seems a bit weak?

Thanks for this, makes life easier for eveyone analysing gameplay.

Plus, thanks for swift response to my above points - I'm pretty happy you have responded to my points - I think we can safely say there is noting essential outstanding (ideally the legend would tell players some landing sites connect to seas, but this is ideal, not essential, most players should be able to work it out).

Ok, so, the hard core analysing ... yes, you probabky need to address the balance in missiles / mines distance. Ideally there would be a bit of a balance of both so that players have both strategic options as viable wherever they start.

However, and there are probably many debates about this in previous map threads, total balance is not necessary and probably not preferable either. I agree with the gameplay comparisons above, although I'd say its a mix of WWII Poland and Pelo War. Both of these maps are popular due to their gameplay as much as their graphics, and both have a certain amount of imbalance between start positions. Take pelo war as an example, the imbalance in distance from swords (for the +2 bonus) doesn't ruin the game by any stretch. Therefore, get more of a balance, but total balance isn't needed.

Would adding an extra missile base help? The same could go for HE=3s (although 4 HEs may make the objective too hard and holding 3 out of 4 too easy?).

In summary, this balancing is the big work to move on to the graphics wokshop.

[natty dread]

Would adding an extra missile base help? The same could go for HE=3s (although 4 HEs may make the objective too hard and holding 3 out of 4 too easy?).

There's already 6 he-3 mines... And the objective requires holding 1 rocket with all the mines, so any type of "hold x out of y mines" is pretty much out of question, since that would make for huge amount of combinations of rockets & mines...

Therefore, get more of a balance, but total balance isn't needed.

Gotcha
I'm thinking that by swapping the positions of a few landing sites we should be able to accomplish this.

Oh, and extra missile base... that could work, but it could also make it too hard to balance... ATM I'm thinking 2 is pretty much optimal... but if you have any suggestions (where to place it), we'll be happy to hear them

[Teflon Kris]

Would adding an extra missile base help? The same could go for HE=3s (although 4 HEs may make the objective too hard and holding 3 out of 4 too easy?).

There's already 6 he-3 mines... And the objective requires holding 1 rocket with all the mines, so any type of "hold x out of y mines" is pretty much out of question, since that would make for huge amount of combinations of rockets & mines...

Therefore, get more of a balance, but total balance isn't needed.

Gotcha
I'm thinking that by swapping the positions of a few landing sites we should be able to accomplish this.

Oh, and extra missile base... that could work, but it could also make it too hard to balance... ATM I'm thinking 2 is pretty much optimal... but if you have any suggestions (where to place it), we'll be happy to hear them

Yeah, shift some landing sites (esp. Sa2) and maybe play around moving the missile bases - maybe aim for 5 or 6 sites to link (indirectly) to a missile base - or even have 4 bases (each being close-ish to 4 landing points).

Or, maybe think about each countr

[natty dread]

Ok here's what I do. I'll give each landing site 2 boolean variables of "strong/weak", one based on the base distance and one on mine distance. Now let's say "strong" is worth 1 and "weak" is worth 0, then each country will have a 4-bit set of variables. The ideal situation would be for each country's total to be 2 (two 1's, two 0's, no matter in what order).

So here we go:

US1 we, st (+1)
US2 st, we (+1)

RU1 st, st (+2)
RU2 we, we (+0)

CH1 st, st (+2)
CH2 we, st (+1)

JP1 we, we (+0)
JP2 we, we (+0)

IN1 st, st (+2)
IN2 we, we (+0)

BR1 we, st (+1)
BR2 st, st (+2)

EU1 st, we (+1)
EU2 we, st (+1)

SA1 st, we (+1)
SA2 we, st (+1)



So I suggest: CH2 -> BR2 -> JP2 -> CH2.

should fix all problems...

[isaiah40]

Well, that would probably be better. Do the changes and we'll see what becomes of it.

[Teflon Kris]

Well, that would probably be better. Do the changes and we'll see what becomes of it.

Good shout isaiah - lets have another look after the changes. I feel there could be more to do to get a better balance but lets judge once you've made the changes. Another point I should have mentionned earlier is that perhaps each landing-point (or pair of landing-points) should have one or two 'easy' neutrals - an imbalance here could make all the difference in a cards game (e.g. some players lose lots of troops trying to take a big neutral for a card whilst others have an easy card).

[natty dread]

Do the changes and we'll see what becomes of it.

Ok will do...

[natty dread]

Sorry, I've been a bit busy with some rl stuff so I haven't had time to work on my maps... I'll try to get an update posted today.

[natty dread]

v17

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

So, anybody got any feedback on the gameplay?

I've got Nordic almost finished so I can spend more time on this map soon.

Also, I'm planning a thorough graphical overhaul on this map, but I want to get the gameplay finished first...

[isaiah40]

So, anybody got any feedback on the gameplay?

I've got Nordic almost finished so I can spend more time on this map soon.

Also, I'm planning a thorough graphical overhaul on this map, but I want to get the gameplay finished first...

I do! I do! Move BR2 to where Plato is and remove Plato all together. that will give the Brazilians a chance at Roris base.