[Abandoned] Research & Conquer

[TaCktiX]

Thanks for the long-awaited stamp, hopefully the Graphics one won't take as long to get.

As for gameplay twists and turns, Oliver is referencing the fact that you can't prevent Doomsday from doing its full effect of bombarding everything. Open Conscription is currently coded to supersede Secret Conscription only where necessary, since having Open do all of Secret's work would bloat the XML a good deal and require lots of overrides.

I disagree with Doomsday being paired with another research. I've always envisioned it as the übertech that any lab would always consider working toward, regardless of their other focus. It's the victory weapon, the final goal of all of their labors. While Zeppelin Strikes would make sense as a delivery vehicle and is mechanically similar, it puts a requirement on Doomsday. And since it CAN'T be limited by XML coding requirements, keeping it as is is just fine.

If it absolutely HAD to get paired with Zeppelin Strikes, I will push for dropping its neutral value to 150 to compensate. Remember, 200 is on the borderline of anyone even considering going after it, if its cost goes up to 250 for someone only interested in Doomsday, that would limit options.

[OliverFA]

The costs here are within what I would consider acceptable, so I'm good for finalizing these costs. I would expect that once Beta hits that SC may be brought down to 20 to make it more viable for early games, but I think 25 is at least an acceptable starting point to go with.

Good! Those techs are also closed. Thanks for your feedback

[carlpgoodrich]

Hi all, I have been on vacation the last few days and will be until the new year. I am about 2 or 3 pages behind on the conversation, and I likely won't be able to fully catch up until I get home. That being said, when I get a chance (like now) I will try to read a few posts and make a few short comments. I apologize if my comments are horribly out of date and if the topic has already been decided. If that is the case, please simply ignore what I am saying.

Thanks carlpgoodrich and Tanarri for your comments about Standing Army and Activated Reserves

I tend to agree with you that maybe Standing Army (SA) tech could be lowered down a little bit (and consequently reduced in its cost) in order to provide a "fast" tech to grab early at the start. But I wouldn't reduce the power of Activated Reserves (AR) because I want it to have some utility at medium/late game. The point of SA is getting an early boost. The point of AR is having a(n almost) decent income during the late game even if you have few land. So in extreme situations when your empire is almost lost, you will have at least 18 armies for defending or for trying a desperate attempt at research.

With that in mind, I agrew with you in reducing SA from +6 to +3 and increasing AR from +9 to +12

• Standing Army: +3 armies --> for a total of minimum 6 armies --> 3% of maximum OC bonus --> Cost 12
  
• Activated Reserves: +12 armies --> for a total of minimum 18 armies --> 10% of maximum OC bonus --> Cost 50

I am a bit concerned with SA costing only 12 armies, but I am also afraid that if it costs too much players will just skip it, and I want it to be useful for an early boost and not only as a path to AR.

Oliver, I agree what your ideas about what Standing army and Activated Reserves should mean, and I fully agree with these bonus amounts and costs.

[OliverFA]

A few other things that should be updated as well, to line up with what the map states and I believe has been discussed and tentatively accepted...

- Doomsday should be listed at 200 neutral and +75 bonus

Changed

- National Pride should be listed as +4 for holding the entire homeland

That's the next point in the discussion. But I take your value as starting one

- Deep Mining's bonus is listed as 2 as a value but only +1 in the description. These don't match. Not that this one matters so much, since Mining needs discussion.
- Activated Reserves description needs updating to reflect the new bonus proposal

Fixed

Would it be possible for you to post a link to the spreadsheet itself so that we can play with the values ourselves?

Here is the new spreadsheet with a new tab for calculating the bonuses depending on which techs you have researched and how many territories of each type you hold.

http://www.arrakis.es/~oliverfa/RCDashboard.xlsx

[OliverFA]

I believe that all major concerns about gameplay clarity and balance have been addressed. Further discussions on gameplay can take place in the Graphics Workshop, as this map ultimately needs Beta testing in order to have truly fruitful progress in this area.

And so, after a long time coming, this map has been approved for gameplay.

Thanks so much for the approval!

[OliverFA]

I think that +8 would work well as a bonus. After some further thought, I think that the same turn cost as Activated Reserves would be the best way to go, especially since we're trying to encourage people to use SA and hence there would effectively be little chance of there being 'extra' neutrals from the basic tech to go through, since they'll have already taken the bonus anyway. This would put the base amount at 40 neutrals, plus the potential 5 extra from the other comment.

[...]

Whatever the case, I think that 50 will be too high. At that point it's costing 6.25 turns, which sounds too high, especially when you compare it to AR which allows for a deployable bonus. Once you provide some clarification for the above questions, I'll give some feedback as to whether I think that TSF should be 40 or 45.

Yes. 50 is maybe too much because it even goes beyond the 6 turn limit. But 40 is maybe too small for a permanent bonus that will reduce the research time for all the remaining techs. So 45 seems like the sweet spot.

I am uncertain what you're referring to when you mentioned 'there's no way to apply this to Zeppelins and Doomsday'. What are you talking about applying? What specific relationship are you referring to between Zeppelins and Doomsday? There's been a few different discussions regarding these two recently, so I'm not sure if you're referring to MarshalNey's suggestion, the swapping of Zeppelins into being an Advanced tech, or some other thing else.

Just what TaCktiX mentioned. For the other techs, there is to way to requiring the basic tech as a prerequisite in order to get the benefits. But because Zeppelins and Doomsday Device are constructed through adjecencies, there is no way to check ownership of the basic tech. Maybe for Doomsday we could give the +75 only in case the player also owns Zeppelins. But I am concerned how complicated would be that to understand by the players.

[OliverFA]

Thanks for the long-awaited stamp, hopefully the Graphics one won't take as long to get.

As for gameplay twists and turns, Oliver is referencing the fact that you can't prevent Doomsday from doing its full effect of bombarding everything. Open Conscription is currently coded to supersede Secret Conscription only where necessary, since having Open do all of Secret's work would bloat the XML a good deal and require lots of overrides.

I disagree with Doomsday being paired with another research. I've always envisioned it as the übertech that any lab would always consider working toward, regardless of their other focus. It's the victory weapon, the final goal of all of their labors. While Zeppelin Strikes would make sense as a delivery vehicle and is mechanically similar, it puts a requirement on Doomsday. And since it CAN'T be limited by XML coding requirements, keeping it as is is just fine.

If it absolutely HAD to get paired with Zeppelin Strikes, I will push for dropping its neutral value to 150 to compensate. Remember, 200 is on the borderline of anyone even considering going after it, if its cost goes up to 250 for someone only interested in Doomsday, that would limit options.

I also have doubts about making Zeppeling Strikes the requeriment of Doomsday Device. On one side it seems more or less the "natural" path to evolve from zeppelins to aerial strikes. On the other part Doonsday Device is implemented through adjacencies, and there is no way to check if the player has Zeppelin strikes or not to provide those adjacencies.

If we did that, it could only work in two ways. First way is to require Zeppelin Strikes in order to provide the +75 bonus for Doomsday Device (but it would be very difficult to explain) and the other way to make TSF access only the basic techs.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Yes. 50 is maybe too much because it even goes beyond the 6 turn limit. But 40 is maybe too small for a permanent bonus that will reduce the research time for all the remaining techs. So 45 seems like the sweet spot.

I agree with TSF set at +8 autodeploy and 45 neutral as far as the bonus/neutral goes. Does anyone have any other feedback for this before it's finalized?

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Thanks for the long-awaited stamp, hopefully the Graphics one won't take as long to get.

As for gameplay twists and turns, Oliver is referencing the fact that you can't prevent Doomsday from doing its full effect of bombarding everything. Open Conscription is currently coded to supersede Secret Conscription only where necessary, since having Open do all of Secret's work would bloat the XML a good deal and require lots of overrides.

I disagree with Doomsday being paired with another research. I've always envisioned it as the übertech that any lab would always consider working toward, regardless of their other focus. It's the victory weapon, the final goal of all of their labors. While Zeppelin Strikes would make sense as a delivery vehicle and is mechanically similar, it puts a requirement on Doomsday. And since it CAN'T be limited by XML coding requirements, keeping it as is is just fine.

If it absolutely HAD to get paired with Zeppelin Strikes, I will push for dropping its neutral value to 150 to compensate. Remember, 200 is on the borderline of anyone even considering going after it, if its cost goes up to 250 for someone only interested in Doomsday, that would limit options.

I also have doubts about making Zeppeling Strikes the requeriment of Doomsday Device. On one side it seems more or less the "natural" path to evolve from zeppelins to aerial strikes. On the other part Doonsday Device is implemented through adjacencies, and there is no way to check if the player has Zeppelin strikes or not to provide those adjacencies.

If we did that, it could only work in two ways. First way is to require Zeppelin Strikes in order to provide the +75 bonus for Doomsday Device (but it would be very difficult to explain) and the other way to make TSF access only the basic techs.

As I see it, there's four different ways that this could go with the current code limitations. We could require Zeppelins for the +75, we could limit TSF to basic techs only, we could have TSF be the basic tech, or we could leave it as originally suggested and not have Doomsday have a basic tech at all.

I would agree with Oliver that it would be too difficult to explain the +75 only being given if you own Zeppelins. I also think it's a bad idea to break up the effects of a tech. For both of these reasons, I think the +75 only if you own Zeppelins option a very bad idea.

Limiting TSFs to basic techs only is not the option I would suggest either. The one benefit of this is that it would make it so you wouldn't have to find space for the 'you need to own the basic tech before you get the benefits of the advanced one' rule, which I might add needs to be added to the legend, if I'm not mistaken. I personally like the idea of TSFs having the advantage of being able to use their autodeploys directly on the advanced techs, as opposed to Labs which would need to be forted to the basic tech (or TSF) before being able to be used.

Having TSF be the basic tech for Doomsday would make Doomsday like all other advanced techs in that it would have a 'basic' tech to be attached to. It would also elevate it to a third level of the tech tree, since it would be attached to an advanced tech. Having played a ton of 4X games myself, I like this idea because in all 4X games that have a research victory, it is considered the final tech, on the uppermost tier of the tech tree. Having labs be able to attack Doomsday directly makes Doomsday feel like a basic tech, which is certainly isn't. Overall, I like this idea best at this point.

That being said, after reading TaCktiX's post, I could also support the idea of just leaving it as is, with Doomsday not having any prerequisite. It is true that it is the ubertech that any lab would want to work towards, regardless of their other research priorities. While I would think that any lab that was serious about researching would develop the TSF anyway to aid their research, I could also see how it may be considered an extra step that some may not want to make. So I could see this being a viable option as well.

[carlpgoodrich]

One comment that I was going to save until later is that the TSF's and the doomsday device are not really advanced techs because there are no "basic" versions of them. The TSF's should probably be located directly under the Labs, since they are more of a spring board to other techs than a tech itself, the doomsday device probably belongs as the last of the basic techs. I think it would look fine to move the thick tube that separates the basic and advanced techs down a bit so that things fit.

I'm going to disagree on two different fronts. One is the fact that if I implement this I'm going to break the symmetry that I just established with the Basic and Advanced researches being in clear, rectangular boxes. No confusing loop-de-loops, no weird organization, clearly demarcated. Which is good for a complex map.

Second, I've been thinking of Basic and Advanced this entire time in terms of "cost." Yes there are three pairs of Basic and Advanced where one follows the other, but Doomsday is the most expensive technology there is. If it ISN'T advanced, something is wrong with the research priorities of the country in question. And since TSF is essentially a lab with more abilities, it's an Advanced version of the Lab itself. So taking these two together, Advanced is a way to denote that the researches in question should be saved until later. With TSF as cheap as it is though, I wouldn't be averse to switching Zeppelin Strikes with TSF. Consider that Zeppelin Strikes costs more than Activated Reserves does.

I also think about basic and advanced techs in terms of costs. For that reason I would suggest to make the change that you are pointing yourself. Swap TSF and Zeppelin Strikes. TSF makes more sense as a cheap tech, and Zeppelin Strikes, even if it does not have a basic version, certainly looks more expensive than TSF.

I had planned to save this feedback until we reached the point of discussing TSFs, but if this change is about to happen because of the above listed reasons, then I should mention it now...

I strongly disagree with the idea of TSFs being only +3 autodeploy. The entire point, as far as I am aware at least, of TSFs is to provide a bonus for players who make a conscience decision to play a more research heavy strategy. If this is the case, then having something that is only a +3 autodeploy is pointless, as is having them cost so little, since it's hardly any investment. I would suggest raising the TSF bonus to something more like +8 or +10 and have the tech cost around the same turn cost as Activated Reserves, perhaps slightly higher. The thinking behind this is that TSFs would not require going through a basic tech (SA) in order to get the bonus, however they are an autodeploy and would not allow a player the same flexibility as Activated Reserves would. I think, perhaps, if TSFs were put at +8 then 45 (around 5.5 turns) would be a good cost and if it was set at +10, then either 55 or 60 would be a good cost.

Using these bonuses and neutral values, it allows a player to over the long run gain a distinct research advantage, however it has a signficant upfront cost which makes it so that it's not a tech that everybody will research as a matter of course, no matter what their strategy is.

On another note, it seems that there's still some discussion to have over whether basic techs are prerequisites for advanced techs or not. If they aren't, then I would suggest having the cost of TSFs be increased in turn cost according to their ability to research all advanced techs without the basic ones first; something that is a significant advantage and should be reflected in their cost, even if they remain as low in bonus as they are now. If basic researches are prerequisites, then I think the values that I posted above are good.

First, if "advanced" vs "basic" is more in terms of cost, then I agree with you TaCktiX, although I would be in favor of moving the TSF's tot he top (below labs) because the can attack all other techs. In this sense they are not just another tech, they are a place to do research from. Also, I like your idea of moving the Zeppelins down to "advanced" since they will most likely be a late game tech and the cost is high.

Tanarri, you describe the TSF's as being an equivalent to AR but less flexible, whereas right now they are the equivalent to the less powerful SA but equally less flexible. I guess this brings us to a fundamental decision regarding TSFs: should they be an early game or late game tech? My opinion is that if someone is going to take a research heavy strategy throughout the game, I like the TSF's being relevant throughout the game (i.e. an early game tech). I am worried that there are not enough options at the early-mid stages of the game, and making TSF's an advanced tech will further that. This way they will also help speed up the beginning of the game, which is a good thing.

[carlpgoodrich]

The above post notwithstanding, I have a few parting thoughts-

The Doomsday Device I think is a very good idea, but ultimately I don't like it being attackable without going through a basic tech first. Along those lines...
How about attaching Zepplin Strikes as a Basic and Doomsday Device as an advanced version? The bombardment ability links them already, plus it fits thematically as there has to be a good method of delivering the ultimate bomb/deathrays/etc (see the B-29 Superfortress and the A-bomb as an example).

Just a thought

Merry Christmas everyone.

I like this idea a lot. I am fully in favor of it.

[carlpgoodrich]

Thanks for the long-awaited stamp, hopefully the Graphics one won't take as long to get.

As for gameplay twists and turns, Oliver is referencing the fact that you can't prevent Doomsday from doing its full effect of bombarding everything. Open Conscription is currently coded to supersede Secret Conscription only where necessary, since having Open do all of Secret's work would bloat the XML a good deal and require lots of overrides.

I disagree with Doomsday being paired with another research. I've always envisioned it as the übertech that any lab would always consider working toward, regardless of their other focus. It's the victory weapon, the final goal of all of their labors. While Zeppelin Strikes would make sense as a delivery vehicle and is mechanically similar, it puts a requirement on Doomsday. And since it CAN'T be limited by XML coding requirements, keeping it as is is just fine.

If it absolutely HAD to get paired with Zeppelin Strikes, I will push for dropping its neutral value to 150 to compensate. Remember, 200 is on the borderline of anyone even considering going after it, if its cost goes up to 250 for someone only interested in Doomsday, that would limit options.

What if TSF's could not attack the Doomsday device? That would solve the problem of using the Doomsday device without zeppelins. Of course, TSF bonuses could still be used for the Doomdsday device, they would just have to be reinforced first. Also, I think the bonus on the Doomsday device makes it well worth 200 even with a 50 prerequisite. I see it as being useful in two situations: 1) as a late game guard against stalemates and 2) a way for the underdog to gain a huge advantage (i.e. something for everyone to keep in the back of their mind). If every (or most) games end via the doomsday device, I think the map will suffer (boring, predictable- definitely not what this map is all about), so I don't think we want to be lowering the cost to help people get it.

Of course, 150 vs 200 cost is a pretty minor detail that could wait until beta.

[Teflon Kris]

Belated congrats on the gameplay stamp



I've not quite had the time to sink my head into this one which means that myself, and many others like me, will love the challenge of having a tactical clue.

[carlpgoodrich]

Yes. 50 is maybe too much because it even goes beyond the 6 turn limit. But 40 is maybe too small for a permanent bonus that will reduce the research time for all the remaining techs. So 45 seems like the sweet spot.

I agree with TSF set at +8 autodeploy and 45 neutral as far as the bonus/neutral goes. Does anyone have any other feedback for this before it's finalized?

I know I just posted some comments on this, but that was before I realized this was ready to be finalized. I do not agree with this change (making TSFs much more powerful while increasing the neutral cost accordingly), so let me try to explain.

In my opinion, the early game is the time when players will have the most choice. There are fundamental decisions that have to be made (mostly how much do they want to devote to research and how much to conquer), whereas later in the game I think the choices are more along the lines of "which tech best suits my position in the game". Deployables will be large enough at this point that everyone will likely devote some to research and some to the map, so having the tech-only bonus from the TSF will be almost the same as if it were a regular deployable bonus.

However, in the early game, having a bonus that autodeploys on the tech tree instead of being deployable is a big deal, since there is a real threat of early eliminations by aggressive players. This makes the early-game version of TSF's significantly different from the SA/AR techs. Of course, +3 in the later games is not a lot, but early in the game it is, and those little bonuses can really add up when you consider that they will help get you other techs faster.

In fact, I am less adamant in the bonus the TSF's give as I am in the cost they should have, which I think should be very small (something between 12 and 22) so that it is a viable option in the early game. The bonus they give can then be deduced from that (probably between 3 and 4). As I said, if they are not relevant early in the game, then their uniqueness is nullified and they will not provide players with an additional option in research-heavy strategies.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Would it be possible for you to post a link to the spreadsheet itself so that we can play with the values ourselves?

Here is the new spreadsheet with a new tab for calculating the bonuses depending on which techs you have researched and how many territories of each type you hold.

http://www.arrakis.es/~oliverfa/RCDashboard.xlsx

Thank you for the updated spreadsheet and especially the bonus calculator

I played around with the bonus calculator and found a couple errors in the calculations and had a couple other suggestions for it as well, if I may.

- For the calculation of 'total territories', SC should be calculated at 1/2 as opposed to 2/3 that it is now

- Homeland bonus, presuming it for the time being is supposed to be +1 for every 2 territories for both non-tech and National Pride, should be listed as 0.5 and 1, not the 0.25 and 0.5 they are now.

- Standing Army and Activated Reserves are missing from the calculation

- Just as a suggestion, perhaps having the # column under the calculations be dependent on the 'Yes/No' dropdown for TSF and Doomsday would work better?

Good work on the spreadsheet, I think it will be very useful when it comes to balancing the different techs.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I had poked around the other tabs of the spreadsheet and looked at the Progess tab. In the notes under SA and AR, it says to invalidate Conscription up to a certain number. If I read this correctly, it sounds like SA and AR are being coded to be a minimum territory bonus of 6 and 18 as opposed to +3 and +12 troops respectively. I am confused as to which the techs are supposed to be. I recall discussions in the past about SA and AR being 'as if' they were a minimum territory bonus, but I because of the description on the map I thought they were just a straight reinforcement bonus that gave you a minimum of 6 and 18 troops but didn't have any relation to the minimum territory bonus at all.

Are SA and AR intended to be just reinforcement bonuses or are they intended to be a way of raising the minimum territory bonus? If the latter, then I think that the tech description on the map needs to be updated to reflect this. If they are intended to affect the minimum territory bonus specifically, then I think it may be worthwhile to reopen them to discussion regarding the neutral value, since I would think that they'd be worth slightly less if they're not going to provide a consistant +3 and +12 bonus.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I know I just posted some comments on this, but that was before I realized this was ready to be finalized. I do not agree with this change (making TSFs much more powerful while increasing the neutral cost accordingly), so let me try to explain.

In my opinion, the early game is the time when players will have the most choice. There are fundamental decisions that have to be made (mostly how much do they want to devote to research and how much to conquer), whereas later in the game I think the choices are more along the lines of "which tech best suits my position in the game". Deployables will be large enough at this point that everyone will likely devote some to research and some to the map, so having the tech-only bonus from the TSF will be almost the same as if it were a regular deployable bonus.

However, in the early game, having a bonus that autodeploys on the tech tree instead of being deployable is a big deal, since there is a real threat of early eliminations by aggressive players. This makes the early-game version of TSF's significantly different from the SA/AR techs. Of course, +3 in the later games is not a lot, but early in the game it is, and those little bonuses can really add up when you consider that they will help get you other techs faster.

In fact, I am less adamant in the bonus the TSF's give as I am in the cost they should have, which I think should be very small (something between 12 and 22) so that it is a viable option in the early game. The bonus they give can then be deduced from that (probably between 3 and 4). As I said, if they are not relevant early in the game, then their uniqueness is nullified and they will not provide players with an additional option in research-heavy strategies.

While I understand a number of your concerns carl, I do truly think that +3 or even +4 is too small a bonus for TSF to be a significant way to create a research heavy strategy. After looking over some of the numbers, I do think that +8 and 45 neutral may be too high. I would like to see TSF be an early-mid game tech as well, and a neutral value of 45 will in all likelyhood make it, as you say, a mid-late game tech that turns it into just another bonus.

I do also think that having TSFs any higher in turn cost than SA or AR would be too much if you will be required to have the basic tech in order to gain the benefits. Especially we do make TSF an early-mid game tech, where the autodeploy instead of deployable does make even more of a difference.

Perhaps if we were to set TSF at a bonus of +6 and a neutral count of 30? This would at least put it in the same range as the basic techs, albeit in the higher range of it. This would still make it useful as a noticable research boost and would force a player to make a significant sacrifice for it.

[carlpgoodrich]

I know I just posted some comments on this, but that was before I realized this was ready to be finalized. I do not agree with this change (making TSFs much more powerful while increasing the neutral cost accordingly), so let me try to explain.

In my opinion, the early game is the time when players will have the most choice. There are fundamental decisions that have to be made (mostly how much do they want to devote to research and how much to conquer), whereas later in the game I think the choices are more along the lines of "which tech best suits my position in the game". Deployables will be large enough at this point that everyone will likely devote some to research and some to the map, so having the tech-only bonus from the TSF will be almost the same as if it were a regular deployable bonus.

However, in the early game, having a bonus that autodeploys on the tech tree instead of being deployable is a big deal, since there is a real threat of early eliminations by aggressive players. This makes the early-game version of TSF's significantly different from the SA/AR techs. Of course, +3 in the later games is not a lot, but early in the game it is, and those little bonuses can really add up when you consider that they will help get you other techs faster.

In fact, I am less adamant in the bonus the TSF's give as I am in the cost they should have, which I think should be very small (something between 12 and 22) so that it is a viable option in the early game. The bonus they give can then be deduced from that (probably between 3 and 4). As I said, if they are not relevant early in the game, then their uniqueness is nullified and they will not provide players with an additional option in research-heavy strategies.

While I understand a number of your concerns carl, I do truly think that +3 or even +4 is too small a bonus for TSF to be a significant way to create a research heavy strategy. After looking over some of the numbers, I do think that +8 and 45 neutral may be too high. I would like to see TSF be an early-mid game tech as well, and a neutral value of 45 will in all likelyhood make it, as you say, a mid-late game tech that turns it into just another bonus.

I do also think that having TSFs any higher in turn cost than SA or AR would be too much if you will be required to have the basic tech in order to gain the benefits. Especially we do make TSF an early-mid game tech, where the autodeploy instead of deployable does make even more of a difference.

Perhaps if we were to set TSF at a bonus of +6 and a neutral count of 30? This would at least put it in the same range as the basic techs, albeit in the higher range of it. This would still make it useful as a noticable research boost and would force a player to make a significant sacrifice for it.

I think we are starting to find common ground. I personally still think that +6/30 is high, but am more than willing to take that to beta. If Oliver and TaCktiX sign off on that, I am comfortable calling it final.

[TaCktiX]

I'm at the point with this map that anything people are vaguely happy with being finalized until Beta is good by me. I will say that be very careful about changes that will require substantial explanation, as it's apparent we don't have much space for that anymore. It's one reason why I gave the TSF the "privilege" of attacking every research, as it takes less space than "attack basic research." However, considering that we're coding the XML to require the basic tech first for the advanced to even work right (another reason I would prefer Doomsday stay all by its lonesome), I'll need to figure out how to make space for that.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I'm at the point with this map that anything people are vaguely happy with being finalized until Beta is good by me. I will say that be very careful about changes that will require substantial explanation, as it's apparent we don't have much space for that anymore. It's one reason why I gave the TSF the "privilege" of attacking every research, as it takes less space than "attack basic research." However, considering that we're coding the XML to require the basic tech first for the advanced to even work right (another reason I would prefer Doomsday stay all by its lonesome), I'll need to figure out how to make space for that.

If you're looking to clear up a line worth of space to include the note about requiring the basic research, then if we had TSF be the prerequisite for Doomsday you could change 'Doomsday Device bombards all land regions on the map. It can be assaulted by labs and TSFs.' to simply 'Doomsday Device bombards all land regions.' This way the 'TSF can assault all researches' note covers TSF being a prerequisite, since it's the only way you'd be able to get Doomsday.

The development process for this map has been taking quite a while. I think that it's getting near done though and all of the work will be well worth it. I could see this becoming a popular map amoungst the higher ranked players who love maps with a lot of strategy to them.

[carlpgoodrich]

There are also a few other things regarding the legend/tech explanations, some of which might free up some space.

1) The biggest thing I see is the different words that are used that mean you get a bonus: "reinforcements," "army," and "bonus" are all used interchangeably. To avoid confusion, a common convention should be used. I suggest a fourth convention in the interest of saving space, simply say "Standing Army: +3" for example. When a bonus is autodeployed, it would remain "Doomsday Device: +75 autodeploy." This is used in numerous maps and is not ambiguous in any way, and would free up a line in Propaganda and might save some room elsewhere.

2) In the interest of space, I think you can remove the line "holding a research gives you the benefit of it." I don't think anyone will be confused without this line.

3) This is more a gameplay comment, but it is also in the interest of saving space. Is there a reason not to remove "Holding an entire foreign homeland +2"? Foreign homelands will already give +2 form the previous line, and foreign homelands will be held so infrequently that it seems silly to take a whole line in the legend for something that provides so little to the map. Removing this will also remove the problem of foreign homelands being worth more than domestic homelands with no techs. Any objections?

4) I do not see an explanation that the standard territory bonus (and its upgraded SC and OC) applies only to the map and not the tech tree. See point 5) for a suggested solution.

5) Open Conscription currently says "+1 per 1 region held" and not "+1 per 1 region held (instead of per 2)" similar to secret conscription. I am worried some might not realize that this overrides secret conscription (after all, the other advanced techs do not override their basic counterparts). Still, adding that explanation will cost a line of space... What about saying something along the lines of "Standard territory bonus applies only to the map and is replaced by conscription" and then the explanation for the techs can be simply "+1 per 2" and "+1 per 1" saving another line in the tech tree. This explanation should fit in 2 lines in the legend, and if everyone agrees with me on points 2) and 3) it will fit easily.

Unless I am missing something, the above 5 suggestions fix a few ambiguity/consistency issues and free up two lines of text in the tech tree to add further explanations.

[OliverFA]

I had to dedicate a bit of attention for a couple of days to the 2010 AA Tournament (long time without an update) now my attention is back here

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

There are also a few other things regarding the legend/tech explanations, some of which might free up some space.

1) The biggest thing I see is the different words that are used that mean you get a bonus: "reinforcements," "army," and "bonus" are all used interchangeably. To avoid confusion, a common convention should be used. I suggest a fourth convention in the interest of saving space, simply say "Standing Army: +3" for example. When a bonus is autodeployed, it would remain "Doomsday Device: +75 autodeploy." This is used in numerous maps and is not ambiguous in any way, and would free up a line in Propaganda and might save some room elsewhere.

I agree with this. This would help save space. One other thing that may work (and feedback on this idea would be appreciated, because I'm not sure about it) is for the advanced techs such as AR, use '+12 extra' to make sure that people understand that AR doesn't override SA.

2) In the interest of space, I think you can remove the line "holding a research gives you the benefit of it." I don't think anyone will be confused without this line.

I also think that this should be a safe thing to remove. As you had mentioned earlier, the map will take some minimal level of competence to play and I think this line is unnecessary hand holding. It would help clear up space for more useful instructions.

3) This is more a gameplay comment, but it is also in the interest of saving space. Is there a reason not to remove "Holding an entire foreign homeland +2"? Foreign homelands will already give +2 form the previous line, and foreign homelands will be held so infrequently that it seems silly to take a whole line in the legend for something that provides so little to the map. Removing this will also remove the problem of foreign homelands being worth more than domestic homelands with no techs. Any objections?

I think that this requires a full discussion about homeland bonuses, which are still up in the air and I believe the last suggested revision of the homeland bonus would be different than what was listed there, but still would require two lines to describe.

4) I do not see an explanation that the standard territory bonus (and its upgraded SC and OC) applies only to the map and not the tech tree. See point 5) for a suggested solution.

This is something that should be specifically mentioned, as it's not something that's obvious or a given.

5) Open Conscription currently says "+1 per 1 region held" and not "+1 per 1 region held (instead of per 2)" similar to secret conscription. I am worried some might not realize that this overrides secret conscription (after all, the other advanced techs do not override their basic counterparts). Still, adding that explanation will cost a line of space... What about saying something along the lines of "Standard territory bonus applies only to the map and is replaced by conscription" and then the explanation for the techs can be simply "+1 per 2" and "+1 per 1" saving another line in the tech tree. This explanation should fit in 2 lines in the legend, and if everyone agrees with me on points 2) and 3) it will fit easily.

Unless I am missing something, the above 5 suggestions fix a few ambiguity/consistency issues and free up two lines of text in the tech tree to add further explanations.

I have also wondered about the #5 issue with OC and thought that some may not read it properly. I do agree that an explanation such as the one that you gave and the changes in #5 would fix this issue. That being said, without a full and proper discussion on the non-tech homeland/foreign homeland bonuses, I cannot agree with #3 and hence some other changes may be necessary to fix the potential problem of space.

[carlpgoodrich]

You are right, we need to have a full discussion about homeland bonuses. Can we start that now or should we wait until we clear up some other things. The problem is that they are all tied together because of space constrictions.

[TaCktiX]

Talk about it now, it makes it easier to consolidate all the thoughts in one fell swoop instead of ending up with several intermediate versions that I update daily.