[Abandoned] Research & Conquer

[carlpgoodrich]

I'm going to firmly stand on NOT removing the autodeploy from the labs. Removing the autodeploy even while giving a buff in starting troops will remove the incentive to research as well as conquer. And I consider it ridiculous you're using the first tech (which is cost 15) as a reason for it. A +3 autodeploy IF YOU ONLY USE THAT will at best garner you a tech in 4 rounds (if you get better than average dice against a +3 reinforcements tech). And the other techs have higher levels than that. Sure, someone could always deploy on the map and neglect deploying to research, but they will get EVERYTHING slower than someone leveraging their research and their conquering. So it's not anywhere near the supposition that "you're getting techs for doing nothing." Technically you are, at a rate at LEAST half of someone who's doing something, which in the average CC game is tantamount to losing.

The latest version has the standing army tech start with 10 neutral. If there is a +3 auto on the lab, then you will have 9 armies on your lab at the beginning of your second turn, without deploying any. The odds of winning 9 on 10 are 38% (I just looked them up, a little lower than I thought they would be, but still greater than one in three). Another 4 turns and you will have enough to get national pride (assuming decent dice of course). That means on the beginning of the 7th turn, a player who devotes 0 deployable troops to research can expect to get a bonus of +7 on top of the usual territory bonus. To me, that seems very high.

Here is the main reason I don't like autodeploys on this map. A key part of this map is to force people to make a difficult choice: do I invest in research or would doing so make me too vulnerable to attacks, especially considering the losing condition? This is the fundamental decision in this map, and every time there is an autodeploy anywhere, this decision is being made for the players.

Right now, there are two autodeploys that everyone will get every round (not including the TSF's): +3 on the lab, and +2 on the capital. I would much rather just say "+5 to deploy for each capital", and then let the players decide what they want to do with it.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

One thing I'd like to point out in defense of TSF autodeploy is the fact that the Laboratories CANNOT attack the Advanced Techs themselves. So for any player to use his lab's autodeploy to help out his TSF-based research, he would have a one-turn delay minimum as he has to fortify things to the TSF first. So I would posit that we keep the autodeploy but we reduce it significantly (to 3 or 5). That way the "research incentive" still exists, but it's not on the level to become a "only just so much longer now" that's the main concern.

At the begining, TSF was not a requisite for advanced techs. It was another tech that provided some bonus for researching.

I think that if we make it an independent tech again, we could keep the autodeploy in this tech. In fact, with this change we add another slightly different tech to spice things a little bit, and yet another choice for the player to do.

The full change would be:

• Making TSF and independent tech
• Change the tech tree. Now each advanced tech would spawn from the basic tech.
• Raise techs cost from "benefit per 5 turns" to "benefit per 6 turns".
• Remove any autodeploy from the lab.

I think that something like this could potentially work. As I'll note in another post, I do agree with TaCktiX that the autodeploy on the labs should stay though, as it forces a player to play the research part of the game as well.

If TSF's were arranged so that they gave an autodeploy bonus that could attack the rest of the tech tree, then I think that neutral value of them should be such that it takes around 6 turns to recover the investment. I also think that the autodeploy should be no higher than +5 if this were the case, as higher than that would make them too valuable since the bonus cannot be taken away. If they are no longer a prerequisite for the advanced techs, then I think that the advanced tech cost should be increased by the autodeploy value of the TSFs times 5. This would make it so that the TSFs would greatly help in obtaining the tech bonus and would make it more difficult for someone using only the labs and deployments. Another neutral/autodeploy combination that may work as well is something like 70-75 neutral for +10 autodeploy. The extra return on investment amount of time would help offset the extra bonus, I think. The neutrals on advanced techs would be raised by +50 in this case, instead of +25 neutrals, and would therefore make it more useful to have the TSFs.

The other way I could see them going is the same that they are now, with a smaller autodeploy... something like +3 or +5 would do good I think. This way I also like because I like the idea of having an additional neutral in the way of the advanced techs, which makes there harder to get, and it also makes it so that the TSF bonus cannot be used to research the basic techs, which is part of my concern with having TSF have such a large neutral above. The idea with the higher neutral above is to discourage easy taking of TSF to research lower cost basic techs quickly.

Regardless of which direction they go, I do believe that labs should have an autodeploy on them. Even if it's +2 instead of +3, at least it's something to force players to play the research side of the map, even at a much slower rate. If there are concerns with how quickly "free" tech would be gotten, then I think +2 autodeploy ought to fix the concern. Another way to slow the "free" techs down a turn would be to start the labs off at 1 neutral.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I'm going to firmly stand on NOT removing the autodeploy from the labs. Removing the autodeploy even while giving a buff in starting troops will remove the incentive to research as well as conquer. And I consider it ridiculous you're using the first tech (which is cost 15) as a reason for it. A +3 autodeploy IF YOU ONLY USE THAT will at best garner you a tech in 4 rounds (if you get better than average dice against a +3 reinforcements tech). And the other techs have higher levels than that. Sure, someone could always deploy on the map and neglect deploying to research, but they will get EVERYTHING slower than someone leveraging their research and their conquering. So it's not anywhere near the supposition that "you're getting techs for doing nothing." Technically you are, at a rate at LEAST half of someone who's doing something, which in the average CC game is tantamount to losing.

I wholeheartedly agree that not deploying anything in the tech tree would be the quickest way to get yourself killed. If there was no autodeploy, the best a player could do is +3 reinforcements (presuming standard minimum 3 is in effect) for a few turns, until you were getting 7 reinforcements for your nations homeland a few turns later. Researching, no matter how you look at it, is going to be essential to the gameplay. Anyone who does not research will be outpaced very quickly in the game.

As I mentioned above, I do agree that the labs should retain an autodeploy, if only at +2 minimum. Personally I think +3 is still a better amount, but if the concern that it's too high is there, then it could always be reduced.

And I'm going to disagree on turning TSF into "the one that autodeploys" (or doesn't). Since the amount of autodeploy is a concern, let's drop it to a basic +3, the same bonus you get for the lab. If you're not investing, you won't get anything advanced fast at all (minimum 13 rounds to be equal to the first one, which still assumes that your dice are being slightly better than average).

As mentioned above, I think that this is one valid way of dealing with TSFs autodeploys. Something around +3 or +5 autodeploy would work well. +3 would definitely force someone to deploy on the TSFs if they ever want to get anywhere.

I'm also going to disagree on making basic researches mandatory for advanced ones. For one, to enforce that you'd have to attack through the basic research, which makes zero sense, and for two it is a disincentive in the mid to late game. If in the early game you didn't want to work for Secret Conscription but you find that through your large Mining gains going for Open Conscription would be a great idea, you realizing you have to take Secret Conscription to get Open will increase your cost by 50%. Advanced techs are a higher neutral cost to make them universally usable by anyone, but slowly. Someone who picked up Secret Conscription and used it intelligently would be in a far better position to pick up Open than someone who didn't, but as it is right now there are no limits on any player's strategy when it comes to research acquisition.

I do see your point here. I do think that if the advanced techs don't have the basic ones as prerequisites, then they would have to override the bonuses of the basic techs and provide the full bonus of the advanced tech, regardless of whether a player owns the basic tech. For example, Activated Reserves should give +6/+8 regardless of whether a player has Standing Army or not.

Zeppelins, I'm highly in favor of the option that doesn't require me to revamp the entire map's appearance just to accommodate the description: "Able to bombard own homeland and adjacent regions"

I am not clear which option you're referring to here. Is it the replace them with advanced mining option or one of the other dozen or so options that've come up over the last couple weeks.

Propaganda, I'm favoring Tanarri's defense of making it neutral regions. Foreign homelands turn into your own homeland the second you take the capital, which all things considered would be a natural consequence of taking a guy's homeland to begin with. So the research in that form is only relevant for a select few rounds in any average game. Every other research is relevant period.

My understanding is that foreign homelands are defined by a player NOT owning the matching lab, and hence the homeland not being a starting point homeland.

Still, I really do think that regardless of this distinction, Propaganda would have limited use concerning how difficult it is to take a foreign homeland, particularly one htat belongs to another player who's fighting back. I really do think that the neutral countries are the better way of going.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

The latest version has the standing army tech start with 10 neutral. If there is a +3 auto on the lab, then you will have 9 armies on your lab at the beginning of your second turn, without deploying any. The odds of winning 9 on 10 are 38% (I just looked them up, a little lower than I thought they would be, but still greater than one in three). Another 4 turns and you will have enough to get national pride (assuming decent dice of course). That means on the beginning of the 7th turn, a player who devotes 0 deployable troops to research can expect to get a bonus of +7 on top of the usual territory bonus. To me, that seems very high.

I think part of the confusion here is coming from you looking at the latest revision of the map itself. The second post on Page 40 has a spreadsheet where Oliver proposes new neutral values for the techs, of which most if not all are higher. Standing Army is 15 and National Pride is 20. I think with these changes it should reduce your concerns notably when it comes to getting free tech too quickly.

Regardless, as TaCktiX has pointed out, if a player does not research they will very quickly fall behind everyone else who is. This map will by nature run longer than most and as a result, the 5 turns (or less) investment in researching is well worth the cost. Without the lab autodeploy, If all you do is drop on the geographic map and do work there, the best you'll ever get is +1 per 3 territories plus the +4 for owning your homeland. You could own most of the rest of the board and never get any bonuses past that. Other players will overrun you very quickly. Even with the autodeploy, players who put effort into researching will be dropping much more than a player who doesn't.

Here is the main reason I don't like autodeploys on this map. A key part of this map is to force people to make a difficult choice: do I invest in research or would doing so make me too vulnerable to attacks, especially considering the losing condition? This is the fundamental decision in this map, and every time there is an autodeploy anywhere, this decision is being made for the players.

Even with the autodeploys, I think that the decision is still very much there. +2 auto on capitals and +3 on labs is a very small number compared to how many troops will be being dropped through deployables. By having these autodeploys you simply force a player to play both sides of the map to at least a tiny degree, which I think is very important to maintain the concept of the map.

Right now, there are two autodeploys that everyone will get every round (not including the TSF's): +3 on the lab, and +2 on the capital. I would much rather just say "+5 to deploy for each capital", and then let the players decide what they want to do with it.

I still think that its better to force a player to play both sides, at least to a minor degree, each turn. The entire point of the map is Research and Conquer... a player who be playing both sides. Once the game hits round 8-10, I could easily see deployables of 10-15. Once you get to this point, the autodeploys are a fairly minor amount. Particularly later in the game when everyone's dropping 40-70 guys a turn, those few troops are nothing.

[carlpgoodrich]

I think part of the confusion here is coming from you looking at the latest revision of the map itself. The second post on Page 40 has a spreadsheet where Oliver proposes new neutral values for the techs, of which most if not all are higher. Standing Army is 15 and National Pride is 20. I think with these changes it should reduce your concerns notably when it comes to getting free tech too quickly.

That does help a bit, but the foundation of my concern is still there (see below).

Regardless, as TaCktiX has pointed out, if a player does not research they will very quickly fall behind everyone else who is. This map will by nature run longer than most and as a result, the 5 turns (or less) investment in researching is well worth the cost. Without the lab autodeploy, If all you do is drop on the geographic map and do work there, the best you'll ever get is +1 per 3 territories plus the +4 for owning your homeland. You could own most of the rest of the board and never get any bonuses past that. Other players will overrun you very quickly. Even with the autodeploy, players who put effort into researching will be dropping much more than a player who doesn't.

Here is the main reason I don't like autodeploys on this map. A key part of this map is to force people to make a difficult choice: do I invest in research or would doing so make me too vulnerable to attacks, especially considering the losing condition? This is the fundamental decision in this map, and every time there is an autodeploy anywhere, this decision is being made for the players.

Even with the autodeploys, I think that the decision is still very much there. +2 auto on capitals and +3 on labs is a very small number compared to how many troops will be being dropped through deployables. By having these autodeploys you simply force a player to play both sides of the map to at least a tiny degree, which I think is very important to maintain the concept of the map.

Right now, there are two autodeploys that everyone will get every round (not including the TSF's): +3 on the lab, and +2 on the capital. I would much rather just say "+5 to deploy for each capital", and then let the players decide what they want to do with it.

I still think that its better to force a player to play both sides, at least to a minor degree, each turn. The entire point of the map is Research and Conquer... a player who be playing both sides. Once the game hits round 8-10, I could easily see deployables of 10-15. Once you get to this point, the autodeploys are a fairly minor amount. Particularly later in the game when everyone's dropping 40-70 guys a turn, those few troops are nothing.

I don't see why we want to FORCE people to play both sides. Why do we want to discourage people from being very aggressive in the beginning by trying to eliminate a player? The autos on the capital will protect everyone from the aggressive player in the early rounds, and the auto on the labs will prevent anyone from falling too far behind on their research.

In order for this map to really work, I think you need to give people the option of taking real risks. Devoting yourself entirely to research should be risky, just as playing all your troops on the map should be risky. There should also be large benefits to both extreme strategies (huge payouts from research or eliminating someone by being aggressive).

The way the map is now with the autodeploys, there is no incentive to be aggressive in the early rounds. Therefore, every game will basically be "what is the fastest way to get the most troops? Then build a huge army, and then attack or research doomsday."

Again, the only reason for the autodeploys that I can see is to force people to play both the tech tree and the map, but I don't think that is a good thing. I would much rather take those 5 troops and let the player deploy them however they want.

[OliverFA]

I'm going to firmly stand on NOT removing the autodeploy from the labs. Removing the autodeploy even while giving a buff in starting troops will remove the incentive to research as well as conquer. And I consider it ridiculous you're using the first tech (which is cost 15) as a reason for it. A +3 autodeploy IF YOU ONLY USE THAT will at best garner you a tech in 4 rounds (if you get better than average dice against a +3 reinforcements tech). And the other techs have higher levels than that. Sure, someone could always deploy on the map and neglect deploying to research, but they will get EVERYTHING slower than someone leveraging their research and their conquering. So it's not anywhere near the supposition that "you're getting techs for doing nothing." Technically you are, at a rate at LEAST half of someone who's doing something, which in the average CC game is tantamount to losing.

No offense intended. But I think we should avoid firmly standing on anything. What happens if I firmly stand on the opposite?

As you know, I am open to suggestions, comments, and changes. I like I have an open minded. But I am not sure I get the "firm stand" thing.

I'll give my reasons for making TSF autodeployable as a tech and not autodeployable as a "gateway to advanced techs" . As I previously said, the whole point of the map is to balance your efforts between science and military, and forcing you to decide each turn. Will you place everything in your army for a fast start? Will start slow but research in order to be stronger later? Choices. That's what it is about.

If you research a TSF technology, then you have invested on a permanent research boost. Is ok to receive those armies each turn. Is you just happen to get this autodeploy just because, there has not been any choice or any risk involved. And of course, if it is a tech instead of a gateway for the other techs, it adds more variety.

I'm also going to disagree on making basic researches mandatory for advanced ones. For one, to enforce that you'd have to attack through the basic research, which makes zero sense, and for two it is a disincentive in the mid to late game. If in the early game you didn't want to work for Secret Conscription but you find that through your large Mining gains going for Open Conscription would be a great idea, you realizing you have to take Secret Conscription to get Open will increase your cost by 50%. Advanced techs are a higher neutral cost to make them universally usable by anyone, but slowly. Someone who picked up Secret Conscription and used it intelligently would be in a far better position to pick up Open than someone who didn't, but as it is right now there are no limits on any player's strategy when it comes to research acquisition.

I think it makes full sense. You can't develop supersonic flights if you don't know how to fly in the first place. Or can't develop supercomputers if you don't know how to build a computer. It is also the way it works in 4X games, which are the inspiration for this map. In your example, going to Secret Conscription in the medium-late game, would provide you a sizable bonus. It would not be research for nothing.

Zeppelins, I'm highly in favor of the option that doesn't require me to revamp the entire map's appearance just to accommodate the description: "Able to bombard own homeland and adjacent regions"

I think this tech will only be useful in AA maps. But since I am a big fan of AA maps, I'll be happy to leave the tech that way.

Propaganda, I'm favoring Tanarri's defense of making it neutral regions. Foreign homelands turn into your own homeland the second you take the capital, which all things considered would be a natural consequence of taking a guy's homeland to begin with. So the research in that form is only relevant for a select few rounds in any average game. Every other research is relevant period.

Why foreign homelands turn yours when you take their capital? Even if you have their capital, you are occupying their lands. They refuse to cooperate, which is why you need to research a way to appeal to them. I am not against Propaganda working in all lands, but I would like a reason for it other than "period".

Sorry if this post seems a bit hard, but as I said, I have tried to be very open and caring about the whole map creation process. And I would like to receive the same treatment, and not just firm standings and periods.

[TaCktiX]

Alrighty, did some looking over scenarios with Evil DIMwit, and here's what I've got:
- All lab and capital autodeploys are dropping from the map.
- Holding a capital grants you a +3 deploy bonus.
- Labs will start with 6 armies.
- TSFs have a +3 autodeploy and can attack every research.
- Labs can attack every research.

On another front, we're going to stick with the original Propaganda which gives an additional +2 bonus for holding a foreign homeland. I also edited the text of National Pride to be exclusive to the first held homeland. Oliver, if you could latch the foreign/home difference to being whether or not you hold the associated lab, that should do the trick.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

A lot of good discussion in the last few posts on a number of topics, and I have to say that it's swayed me in some different directions. I don't have time to cross reference all the quotes like I usually do, but here's some thoughts:

With Oliver repeating the entire point of the map is in the decision of whether to deploy your troops on the map or in the tech tree and carlpgoodrich's explanations, I do think that having a capital deployable bonus of +3 would work well and to eliminate the autodeployables on labs and capitals. I had originally thought that someone could storm someone who was focusing only on tech tree and take them out, if they focused only on deploying on the map, but I really do think that autodeploy of 2 would provide too much forced protection.

As far as TSF's go, I do like the idea of them being a standalone tech. I do think, however, that the autodeployable bonus should be properly balanced with the neutral cost in such a way where the larger the autodeploy we decide on, the longer the return on investment in turns should be. Say something like 25 neutral for +5 or 70 neutral for +10. The reason for this would be that it's a permanent bonus. I think some balancing consideration would need to be done with this in regards to Standing Army and Activated Reserves. If Activated Reserves runs off of Standing Army, then I think +3 for 15 (small deployable bonus) for Standing Army, +8 extra (+11 total if Standing Army is counted as well) for 50 neutrals for Activated Reserves (larger deployable bonus), and then somewhere around what I listed above for TSFs. I'm torn between whether it should be a larger bonus or a smaller one.

As far as basic techs being a prerequiste for the advanced ones, I will have to agree with Oliver. It only makes sense that you need to know how the basic tech works before being able to research the more advanced ones. It also gives a tech tree feel to it as well, much like the 4x games that the map are based on. I don't know how the best way to show the new relationship on the map would be though. If basic techs are a prerequisite for advanced ones, then there's a matter of where to stick the Doomsday Device. I would suggest sticking it off of TSFs.

Oliver: As far as Propaganda goes, the reasoning that I had for the suggestion was that it could be argued that the neutral territories are also countries themselves. Perhaps the 6 playable countries are the most advanced (or more organized, or most powerful, or <insert other reasoning here>) and the other neutral countries are accordingly inferior. They would still be countries and their residents I'm sure would put up a fight or otherwise not want the presence of intruders. If you wanted a real world example, you could look at any given large empire of a time taking over the smaller kingdoms or towns.

TaCktiX: I think it would be a big mistake to stick with the old +2 only. That would make the tech quite useless. By the time you've taken over someone elses homeland, the extra +2 you would get for the homeland would be virtually meaningless compared to the larger bonuses you'd be getting from other techs. Hell, even Standing Army would be of more use than a +2 from Propaganda per foreign homeland.

Oliver: In regards to TaCktiX's comment about zeppelins, I'm pretty sure he stated that he didn't like the 'able to bombard homeland and adjacent regions' suggestion, since it would require too much revamping of the map and how it looks. I'm still not certain what option he liked though.

In regards to TaCktiX's suggestion to have +3 autodeploy on TSFs, I presume that was done with them being a gateway into advanced techs. If they stay that way, then I think +3 would be fine for that purpose. Otherwise I think at the very least they should be +5 to provide any real use as an autodeploy for the purposes of aiding tech research.

If the autodeploys are going away, then I do agree with the labs starting at 6 though. If National Pride is being exclusive to the first homeland(s) owned (which I agree with as a rewording), then I think that the neutral should perhaps be lowered a bit since it would be a breakable bonus that you would need to take spots on the map to own. As such, it should have at least a slightly lower "Turns" value ratio than Standing Army, which is a slightly smaller bonus that is permanent. Perhaps 16 for National Pride would work? That would give it a 4 turn return time.

I think that covers all the thoughts I had. I still like the idea of changing zeppelins to an advanced mining tech, providng there is a spot to move this to. The only thing I can think of is that if Doomsday wasn't an advanced tech, the TaCktiX/Oliver logos went up above Labs, and everything got shifted down. If the basic techs were going to be prerequisites, then this would allow for the basic techs to go beside the advanced ones.

[carlpgoodrich]

Alrighty, did some looking over scenarios with Evil DIMwit, and here's what I've got:
- All lab and capital autodeploys are dropping from the map.
- Holding a capital grants you a +3 deploy bonus.
- Labs will start with 6 armies.
- TSFs have a +3 autodeploy and can attack every research.
- Labs can attack every research.

On another front, we're going to stick with the original Propaganda which gives an additional +2 bonus for holding a foreign homeland. I also edited the text of National Pride to be exclusive to the first held homeland. Oliver, if you could latch the foreign/home difference to being whether or not you hold the associated lab, that should do the trick.

Excellent, I think we are starting to agree on the basics of the gameplay . In the interest of moving the map forward, can I suggest we leave discussions about specific numbers ("I think 4 rather than 3, etc etc") until after we have made bigger decisions like autos/no autos (which I think we are all agreed on now), what to do with zeppelins, and if the advanced techs require the corresponding basic tech, etc. I think the zeppelins are the biggest unresolved issue.

I still like the idea of changing zeppelins to an advanced mining tech.

By this do you mean removing the zeppelins tech and replacing it with a tech that increases the bonus given by the mines? If so, I think I am in favor of it. I really like the concept of zeppelins in that it would add a different dynamic to the gameplay, but there does not seem to be a good way to implement it.

That being said, can I throw one other suggestion out there (actually, I think I suggested this a while ago, but it might make more sense now that some other things have changed): "Zeppelins can bombard all mines except those in a homeland." This would complement the mining tech by forcing players to defend their mines, adding a different dynamic to the map without significantly affecting offensive or defensive strategy. It would also provide limited "spy" capabilities in foggy games.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I believe that it was decided that the zeppelins bombarding the mines would end up negating the usefulness of the mines. I can see how this would definitely be true and the only way I could potentially see something like this working is if mines were given a higher bonus than +2 per mine. This would make it so that they were still useful and force a player to decide whether he wants to use those extra troops to defend the mine or if he wants to use them elsewhere.

The other thing would be to keep the zeppelin neutral cost fairly high. I think the new 50 neutral cost would work well. This would (hopefully) make it so that if someone were to get mining early game, it would remain useful without threat of mines being bombarded. Mid-game spending the extra 50 neutrals for zeppelins would make more sense if one of your opponents was getting too many bonuses from mining. Sure, someone could early game make a point of getting zeppelins, but I think that would put someone at a major disadvantage in other areas if they were to take that risk.

I think that there were some arguements against the spy capability, but personally I think with a high neutral like 50, then if someone wants to use them for that purpose then at that point it makes sense to allow them that potential benefit as well. Players could always make a conscience decision to use Conscription and National Pride for bonuses and avoid the mines, should they decide to remain unseen by potential zeppelins.

All in all, with the new higher neutral value, I think that this could be a viable use of zeppelins. I'm of course happy to hear the other side of the debate though.

In regards to replacing zeppelins with advanced mining, yes, that is the kind of thing I was suggesting. Heck, if there was some way to find room for both of them, I'd be happy with both (presuming we can find some way of figuring out zeppelins). I think it would end up being too crowded in the research side of things though.

[carlpgoodrich]

Ya... I guess an advanced mining tech would be used more, and having the zeppelins bombard mines would discourage people from using their armies to expand (since there is another way to break mines). I like the advanced mine tech because it encourages fighting in the middle of the map.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I still think that it may be worthwhile considering zeppelins bombarding mines with the recent changes in neutral values. If necessary to adjust for the change to zeppelins, mines could be bumped to +3 per mine for basic mining. This would make them more worth getting and provide an extra troop for a player to consider putting towards protecting their mines. It also adds another dynamic to gameplay as well, particularly if advanced mining is put in, since it would be extra valuable to protect your mines. I really think that having a 50 neutral on zeppelins would discourage any early use of the tech for bombarding mines, as it's a lot of guys to be sinking into the ability to bombard your opponents +3 bonuses.

I also like the advanced mining idea as well, since it would certainly encourage fighting in the middle. Without the mines in the middle, the extra bonuses from the advanced mining would be of much use, since you'd have a fairly limited number of mines.

[TaCktiX]

That was my intent when putting so many mines in the center. It gives a major incentive to expand out for the Conquerors, since holding a decent chunk of the middle is lucrative. Not sure about increasing the basic mining bonus to +3, since there's one easily accessed and protected mine nearby. Holding it with Mining would be a +10 just for staying at home. But that might not be a bad thing, and it would definitely turn Zeppelin Strikes into a viable research without breaking the rest of the game.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

That was my intent when putting so many mines in the center. It gives a major incentive to expand out for the Conquerors, since holding a decent chunk of the middle is lucrative. Not sure about increasing the basic mining bonus to +3, since there's one easily accessed and protected mine nearby. Holding it with Mining would be a +10 just for staying at home. But that might not be a bad thing, and it would definitely turn Zeppelin Strikes into a viable research without breaking the rest of the game.

I don't know that having 10 guys just for staying home is such a bad thing. It would help with research and give a few extra guys for defending your capital as well, which will be a critical consideration given that capitals are a losing condition. As noted, it would certainly turn zeppelins into a viable, useful research and with a +3 bonus for mines, I don't think it would break the mining aspect of the game so much since there'd be the extra 1 guy to help protect the mines if you cared to. I would see the zeppelin and +3 mine balance be similar to the president/launch code and spy balance in Arms Race, where the bonus is higher but can be difficult to defend. Not exactly the same, of course, but similar at least.

If we are able to squeeze in advanced mining as another tech, then having the zeppelins be able to bombard mines would certainly help keep someone who goes mine happy in check and provide a way for a player to stop a run-away.

Are there any objections to zeppelins being used to bombard mines and mines being raised to +3? Also, does anyone have any thoughts or objections to the advanced mining idea?

[carlpgoodrich]

Are there any objections to zeppelins being used to bombard mines and mines being raised to +3? Also, does anyone have any thoughts or objections to the advanced mining idea?

Not here. I think the advanced mine tech is necessary to make zeppelins (attacking mines) a good idea, but having both sounds great, if it fits. As far as bringing mines to +3, I think it might be a good idea as it encourages researching mining in the beginning (everyone will have that one mine, so getting the tech gives an immediate return of +3) and encourages expansion later in the game (once everyone has the basic techs, the only real variable in bonuses will be mines). In terms of saving space, the advanced mine tech could just read "double effect of mines."

[TaCktiX]

Sadly, I do not have the space on the map to accommodate both Advanced Mining and Zeppelin Strikes. I tried to parse some language down for space, but there wasn't enough.

EDIT: But the jury is still out for how much of an effect changing the font on Top Secret Facilities will have. Maybe there will be enough space then.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Are there any objections to zeppelins being used to bombard mines and mines being raised to +3? Also, does anyone have any thoughts or objections to the advanced mining idea?

Not here. I think the advanced mine tech is necessary to make zeppelins (attacking mines) a good idea, but having both sounds great, if it fits. As far as bringing mines to +3, I think it might be a good idea as it encourages researching mining in the beginning (everyone will have that one mine, so getting the tech gives an immediate return of +3) and encourages expansion later in the game (once everyone has the basic techs, the only real variable in bonuses will be mines). In terms of saving space, the advanced mine tech could just read "double effect of mines."

I think that doubling the effects of mines would work to shorten the text if necessary. Describing the increasing value idea from before would be difficult to do in a small area. Another way that it could be worded is "+# extra per mine", which should be even smaller. Calling it something different than "advanced mining" could also save space. "Deep Mining" is a term I've seen commonly in 4X games which may work.

Something that I just realized with Oliver's spreadsheet is that he had mines at +1 per mine and a neutral value of 35. Owning 1/6 of the mines on the board would then take 5.3 turns to get your research investment back. I think previous to the idea of zeppelins bombarding mines, I would have suggested a slightly lower number for the neutral value. With zeppelins bombarding the mines, I think if this were to be put at +2 (now that I look at the spreadsheet, +3 would be way too high) for basic mines with a neutral value of 40. This would make owning 1/6 the mines of the board have a return of investment of 3 turns un protected or 6 turns if you used the extra reinforcement for protecting the mine. Early game I think it's easy to get to around 3-4 mines early enough, so unprotected it would take around 5-7 turns to get your troops back for the tech. I think this is acceptable, since zeppelins wouldn't be researched this early in the game. If they were, then the person who researched them would be at a major disadvantage.

For advanced mining, for what it's worth, changing it from increasing to doubled makes it so both old (increasing) and new (doubled) ideas would be worth the same bonus if you owned 7 mines, a little more than 1/6 the mines on the board. Any smaller number of mines would have the doubling be more powerful and larger number of mines would have the increasing be more powerful. I think if we stick with doubling, then a neutral value of 65 would work well, since this would put the average return on research cost to just below that of open conscription. If we were to put it to +3 extra per mine, then a neutral value of 100 would work well. Both of these values I think work nicely as well, since they spread the research cost options out a little for the advanced researches.

If it's at all possible to squeeze advanced mining in, I really like it as an idea, even more so now that I realize that there's really only one advanced tech that provides any option for a significant troop boost. I think this would add an important part to research, since it provides a real choice for which route to take on getting a troop boost later in the game. It also expands upon the other main source of income in the game (mines vs. territory count), rather than leaving it gimped when it comes to advanced techs/late game bonuses.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Sadly, I do not have the space on the map to accommodate both Advanced Mining and Zeppelin Strikes. I tried to parse some language down for space, but there wasn't enough.

EDIT: But the jury is still out for how much of an effect changing the font on Top Secret Facilities will have. Maybe there will be enough space then.

I don't know what you've changed, but would changing mining to '+2 per mine' fit on one line with the mining symbol? If so, that could help clean up some space. I don't think that mentioning 'armies', 'reinforcements', or otherwise is necessary when talking about deployables, since I believe that's the default that everyone presumes.

Perhaps renaming 'Zeppelin Strikes' to 'Zeppelins' would help free up some space, as would keeping the description to 'Bombards mines'? That should take out another line worth of text there pretty easily. You may even be able to keep the tech called 'Zeppelin Strikes' with the change in description and keep it to one line.

Realizing the discussion is still ongoing in regards to the path for advanced techs, but if they were done off of basic techs then that would remove the numbers (1, 2, 3, etc) from underneath the TSFs as well.

If you could give a link for what you have so far, perhaps I can take a look and see if there's anything else that I can spot as well that could free up some space.

[TaCktiX]

I freed enough space. It's borderline cramped, but it fits. I'd rather not show what I have right now as I'm not done with some graphical touches I'm making to the map to avoid inevitable "understandability" issues. And this is BEFORE I do whatever with the Top Secret Facility.

EDIT: And I called it Deep Mining for space reasons.

[carlpgoodrich]

I freed enough space. It's borderline cramped, but it fits.

Awesome! I believe that this settles most of the major gameplay questions we had (other than neutral count etc). Or are there any others that I am forgetting? The only thing I can think of is whether or not the basic techs are required for advanced techs.

[TaCktiX]

I would prefer we not do that, simply due to space constraints elsewhere, but that might change as I remove the extra width given the Top Secret Facilities at present.

[Victor Sullivan]

Wowzers, I've missed a lot! Would someone mind summing up what we're discussing (SOOOOOOOO much text to read...) and what's happening with the zeppelins? Thanks.

-Sully

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Wowzers, I've missed a lot! Would someone mind summing up what we're discussing (SOOOOOOOO much text to read...) and what's happening with the zeppelins? Thanks.

-Sully

I've got to get to bed, so I'll comment on the other posts tomorrow, but for Sully...

A brief summary of the last few pages would be...

A list of things that I think we've come to a concenus about

1) A new advanced tech will be added called Deep Mining. It will increase the benefits of the mines. Neutral value and exact bonus is still being discussed. Options put forth are 'double mine bonus', +2 per mine, +3 per mine, and an increasing bonus where the first mine is worth +1, second +2, third +3, etc. I think the last has been decided againstt due to space constraints for the explanation

2) Autodeploys are being removed from capitals and labs in favour of a +3 per capital deployment

3) Neutral values are being reworked, see top of page 40 for Oliver's spreadsheet with suggestions

4) Zeppelins will bombard mines, but have a much higher neutral on them... I think 50 is where we're at now.


A list of subjects that we're currently discussing:

1) Should TSFs be the prerequisite for advanced techs or should the matching basic tech be the prerequisite. I think most people are on the side of basic tech, with TaCktiX having prefernces/concerns towards TSFs being the prerequisite.

2) It is generally accepted that TSFs need to be gimped in one fashion or another. This will either be done by their becoming their own tech and have a higher neutral and no direct relationship with advanced techs or by them remaining as they are with a +3 autodeploy instead of +10. Again, I think most are leaning towards the the former, but TaCktiX prefers something like the latter.

3) There's been some discussion about neutral values and bonus amounts. I think resolving the TSF and advanced tech discussions would be better before we continue the bonus discussions too much, since some of the bonuses will likely rely on which direction those conversations go.


Did I miss anything guys? There's been so much discussion over the last week or two that I've lost track of some of it.

[carlpgoodrich]

I think that most of it. A while back there was some discussion about the Doomsday device. I think the consensus was that having a big bonus (50? 100? whatever) was ok as long as there are no autodeploys in the tech tree that make it trivial to get without deploying significant troops.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I would prefer we not do that, simply due to space constraints elsewhere, but that might change as I remove the extra width given the Top Secret Facilities at present.

TaCktiX, if you were talking about making advanced techs run off of basic techs, then would sticking the map credits above labs and shifting everyting down work? If you can't squeeze the four advanced techs into the box that they're in now, perhaps we can make it so Doomsday doesn't require a basic tech? That should make enough room, especially with removing the numbers (1, 2, 3, etc) from below the TSFs.