Tribal War - Florida v14.2 [31 Jan 2012] pg27

[ender516]

A quick point, DiM: If a map has 44 territories available for the initial drop, then in a 1v1 game, each player gets 14, and 16 are set neutral. In a 1v1v1 game, each player gets 14, and two are set neutral.

[MarshalNey]

imagine a 1v1 game. there are 44 terits so i get 22 to start and that gives me 7 troops to deploy at first. let's say we get an even spread in the warzone. i get 4 terits and you get 4 terits. i put my troops in one terit on the war zone and that gives me a 10 troop stack. with 3 good rolls in a row i can take 3 tomahawks/bows and then using my other terits from the war zone i can reinforce each of my tomahawks with 5 troops at the end of my turn and i've secured an aditional +6 on top of a +8 for having 25 terits.

Hmmm, this is the common trouble with gameplay issues- everyone has their 'normal' settings for games, and those are the glasses through which they view 'balanced' bonuses.

Ender's correction to your scenario aside, the fact is that I usually don't heavily bias my advice toward balancing 1v1s, and far less so to Unlimited Reinforcements (I also usually neglect Manual Deployment, Nuclear Spoils and Freestyle for those who are curious). In the main, my advice is geared toward 3-8 player & Team Games, No Spoils/Flat Rate, Automatic Deployment and Sequential Turns. One-versus-one games always get some consideration, but in many ways these games tend to have very different considerations than all of the other games types in terms of bonuses and deployment. The one exception to this is Conquest-style maps, where there is no real excuse for not making a perfectly balanced game for 1v1s.

Although part of the goal for a Foundry Gameplay Stamp is to make the map as playable as possible for all game settings, the bottom line is that priority usually is given to certain games types over others, as per the goals and vision of the mapmaker. Personally, I would advise a mapmaker away from creating a map that caters to what I consider 'advanced' or 'specialty' settings, but I think that there is a place for any map so long as it doesn't create an abnormally unbalanced experience for any given setting.

1v1 games, by their nature, tend to create game situations where the drop, turn order and initial luck of the dice often play a more significant role. I don't feel that this map creates an abnormally skewed experience in this regard.

in my years of map making i've discovered one thing. the number of terits that can attack a certain territory is in many cases irrelevant. just for fun i used the bonus calculator that most people around here swear by to compute the bonuses from my steamworks map. it's horribly wrong and it gives me only +7 + 8 bonuses for continents with 2 borders and 4-5 terits. and all this because the map is very open and a border can be attacked from at least a dozen places.
that calculator might work fine on something classic but on what you have here it is utter crap.
the fact that a terit can be attacked by 20 others doesn't actually mean it will be attacked by them.

Very true. I am in complete agreement that scenario-construction can be far better than the bonus calculator, especially for 'non-standard' maps.

again imagine a scenario. 8 player game. i deploy 3 troops and form a 6 stack. good dice and i take ap-3. i reinforce with 2 more troops from another terit. that gives me a 7 stack on that terit. yes the entire war zone can attack me but who will do it when they have just 3 to deploy and it will mean attacking 6v7? nobody. yeah sure if the other 7 players all focus on attacking my terit they might finally break it but nobody will do it. and in round 2 i have an unbreakable +3.

This a cogent scenario, but I feel that the implied question is not necessarily applicable in this case. The question seems to be, "Are the bonuses too high compared to the stage of the game at which they can be taken?". The companion questions that I have are, "Can every player potentially snag a 'quick' bonus?" and, "What risks does a player take when pursuing a 'quick' bonus?"

For instance, if an 'easy' bonus is not unique- indeed if it is so ubiquitous that any player can grab one- then the map can still be balanced, because the potential power of each player is still on an even footing. In the same vein, just because a bonus can be taken quickly does not mean that the neutral troops will evaporate for the convenience of the attacking player. Constructing scenarios for 'good dice' can be tricky- certainly I never construct scenarios for perfect dice and consider them worthwhile. Generally scenarios are best when they consider the typical or above average. This is important, because just as dice can be good (more frequently than one might think) they can also be poor, and just as often. So, when a player goes after a neutral bonus, he risks wasting his troops only to let a rival easily seize a weakly garrisoned bonus or a weakened set of neutrals.

Your scenario isn't impossible, but it takes a somewhat reckless personality to pursue. The odds are just as good that he or she will fail completely, or even worse allow an opponent to take the bonus.

compare miccosukee with caluso.
you say micossukee has +3 because that terit can be attacked by the entire war zone. if that argument is valid then what should caluso's value be?
that continent has not 1 but 3 areas that can be attacked by the entire war zone. also it has 5 places where it can be attacked by other neighbouring continents and on top of that it has 10 terits so it is much much harder to take. so why is it worth just 8? if the same standards apply then it should be worth at least 30-40 troops. but that would be absurd wouldn't it?

same thing with the castle bonus. +5 for 1 terit is HUGE and it can only be attacked from the conquiztador. it can't even be attacked from the entire war zone. not that it would justify its bonus if the entire warzone could attack it.

The argument about Caluso is the most convincing to my mind. However, it can still be an 'okay' bonus value if it is considered as a 'secondary' level of bonuses- not the primary aim of a player, but still enticing enough to warrant a mid- to late-game push. Even when considered in this light, however, I'm not sure that Caluso compares favorably enough.

Actually, overall I'm not sure how I feel about the bonus values. My primary concern was for clarity, and I think that this map has made wonderful strides in that regard. I'll give this a more careful looking over this weekend, if that time frame is acceptable Seamus?

-- Marshal Ney

[DiM]

A quick point, DiM: If a map has 44 territories available for the initial drop, then in a 1v1 game, each player gets 14, and 16 are set neutral. In a 1v1v1 game, each player gets 14, and two are set neutral.

i've been away for a long time. i have forgotten a lot of things )

[DiM]

imagine a 1v1 game. there are 44 terits so i get 22 to start and that gives me 7 troops to deploy at first. let's say we get an even spread in the warzone. i get 4 terits and you get 4 terits. i put my troops in one terit on the war zone and that gives me a 10 troop stack. with 3 good rolls in a row i can take 3 tomahawks/bows and then using my other terits from the war zone i can reinforce each of my tomahawks with 5 troops at the end of my turn and i've secured an aditional +6 on top of a +8 for having 25 terits.

Hmmm, this is the common trouble with gameplay issues- everyone has their 'normal' settings for games, and those are the glasses through which they view 'balanced' bonuses.

actually i rarely play 1v1 games as they are the least strategic ones and luck plays a very important role. so 1v1 unlimited is clearly not my "normal" setting. but when i take a look at a map i try to analyse all possible game types.

Ender's correction to your scenario aside, the fact is that I usually don't heavily bias my advice toward balancing 1v1s, and far less so to Unlimited Reinforcements (I also usually neglect Manual Deployment, Nuclear Spoils and Freestyle for those who are curious). In the main, my advice is geared toward 3-8 player & Team Games, No Spoils/Flat Rate, Automatic Deployment and Sequential Turns. One-versus-one games always get some consideration, but in many ways these games tend to have very different considerations than all of the other games types in terms of bonuses and deployment. The one exception to this is Conquest-style maps, where there is no real excuse for not making a perfectly balanced game for 1v1s.

Although part of the goal for a Foundry Gameplay Stamp is to make the map as playable as possible for all game settings, the bottom line is that priority usually is given to certain games types over others, as per the goals and vision of the mapmaker. Personally, I would advise a mapmaker away from creating a map that caters to what I consider 'advanced' or 'specialty' settings, but I think that there is a place for any map so long as it doesn't create an abnormally unbalanced experience for any given setting.

1v1 games, by their nature, tend to create game situations where the drop, turn order and initial luck of the dice often play a more significant role. I don't feel that this map creates an abnormally skewed experience in this regard.

with ender's correction. the scenario is still almost the same. with 14 terits i get +4. so with a stack of 7 can attack 2 tomahawks and take them then reinforce and have 4-5-6 troops on each. and all he needs is just decent dice not perfect.
the next player won't be able to break me and the game is decided from round 1. yes in almost all maps the player that goes first has an advantage but that advantage should be slight and not game decisive. here it is surely game decisive.

again imagine a scenario. 8 player game. i deploy 3 troops and form a 6 stack. good dice and i take ap-3. i reinforce with 2 more troops from another terit. that gives me a 7 stack on that terit. yes the entire war zone can attack me but who will do it when they have just 3 to deploy and it will mean attacking 6v7? nobody. yeah sure if the other 7 players all focus on attacking my terit they might finally break it but nobody will do it. and in round 2 i have an unbreakable +3.

This a cogent scenario, but I feel that the implied question is not necessarily applicable in this case. The question seems to be, "Are the bonuses too high compared to the stage of the game at which they can be taken?". The companion questions that I have are, "Can every player potentially snag a 'quick' bonus?" and, "What risks does a player take when pursuing a 'quick' bonus?"

For instance, if an 'easy' bonus is not unique- indeed if it is so ubiquitous that any player can grab one- then the map can still be balanced, because the potential power of each player is still on an even footing. In the same vein, just because a bonus can be taken quickly does not mean that the neutral troops will evaporate for the convenience of the attacking player. Constructing scenarios for 'good dice' can be tricky- certainly I never construct scenarios for perfect dice and consider them worthwhile. Generally scenarios are best when they consider the typical or above average. This is important, because just as dice can be good (more frequently than one might think) they can also be poor, and just as often. So, when a player goes after a neutral bonus, he risks wasting his troops only to let a rival easily seize a weakly garrisoned bonus or a weakened set of neutrals.

Your scenario isn't impossible, but it takes a somewhat reckless personality to pursue. The odds are just as good that he or she will fail completely, or even worse allow an opponent to take the bonus.

if he fails it's no biggie. many people have failed a 6v3 roll in the beginning of the game. the trouble is that somebody WILL get that +3 bonus in the first round. weather it is the first guy that tries or it's the one that profits from a weakend neutral garison it doesn't really matter. all that matters is that by round 2 somebody could earn double of what everybody else is earning and that nobody can break that.
imagine a game on classic where somebody starts with 3 terits on australia, takes the 4th and reinforces his border. that player has a HUGE advantage right from the start. luckily such drops are very rare because you do need those 3 terits, but this situation could potentialy happen in every game on this map.

[Seamus76]

Thanks for the feedback everyone, there are a lot of good points, and I'm still plowing through all of this, but did want to make sure everyone referred back to the first post which contains the below initial territory numbers. So, for a 1v1 game, each player only starts with 8 terits, and only receives 3 troops to deploy.

2 = 8 territories
3 = 8 territories
4 = 5 territories
5 = 5 territories
6 = 5 territories
7 = 3 territories
8 = 3 territories

I'll be back. And Marshal, whenever you can get to the feedback is absolutely ok by my. Keep it coming.

[Seamus76]

CURRENT UPDATE INFO-2011-08-07:
- Still working on the title, but changed the font for this version.
- Removed the "Part of no bonus" text from the legend swamp text.
- Fixed the bonus region glows where needed.
- *Changed the starting neutrals for the weapons from 2 to 3.

Thoughts? What's left?

Current Version: v5.2

[MarshalNey]

Looking at the bonuses more closely, this map seems to be a bonus-rich environment. So DiM's arguments don't concern me greatly, as there are plenty of regions scattered about that offer high-benefit for medium-risk. No player should be left out of the bonanza, even in 8-player games.

That said, I do think that the Calusa bonus is too low in comparison with the others. Also, some neutral values might benefit from a slight raise (like the Castillo de San Marcos) and some bonuses a slight raise or drop... I'll post a more thorough analysis tomorrow.

-- Marshal Ney

[MarshalNey]

OK, here's what I've gleaned from the map, correct me if I'm wrong please.

Non-continent Bonuses

Chiefs.... 9 available... 5 open deployment... bonus ratio: +3 per 4 regions or +5 per 5 regions
Weapons (tomahawks, bows).... 6 available.... start neutral 3.... bonus ratio: +2 per 1 region
Conquistador and Shell Mound Ruins... 1 available... both start neutral 3... bonus ratio: +2 per 2 regions
Castillo de San Marcos... 1 available... starts neutral 2... bonus ratio: +5 per 1 region

It should be noted that the number of regions that can attack these bonuses is in every case fairly large, except for the Castillo de San Marcos which can only be attacked by the Conquistador region.

Continent Bonuses

Miccosukee".... 1 border.... bonus ratio: +3 per 1 region
Ais*.... 2 borders.... bonus ratio: +3 per 2 regions
Apalachee*.... 3 borders.... bonus ratio: +5 per 5 regions
Creek.... 4 borders.... bonus ratio: +4 per 4 regions
Choctaw.... 2 borders.... bonus ratio: +3 per 5 regions
Calusa*.... 6 borders.... bonus ratio: +8 per 10 regions
Jeaga.... 2 borders..... bonus ratio: +1 per 2 regions
Tequesta.... 2 borders.... bonus ratio: +1 per 2 regions
* denotes that the region can be attacked by the T.W.Z.

It should also be noted at this point that none of these continent bonuses can be dropped, as there is at least one neutral-3 region in each of them.
--------------------------
Okay, assuming that the above info is correct, it seems that your goal was to keep the bonus ratio roughly between +1/1 region and +2/1 region. That's a rich bonus environment compared to most maps, but it could work I think. The outliers to this rough standard are the Castillo de San Marcos and Miccosukee on the high end, and Calusa, Jeaga & Tequesta on the low end.

Therefore my recommendations would be thus:

Miccosukee lowered to +2; at this bonus, it's no worse or better than a weapon- it even starts with the same neutral value. If I remember right in a previous post you wanted to make the continent bonus more attractive than a weapon, but I really think that as it stands the bonus is too attractive.
Jeaga raised to +2; with 2 borders for 2 regions, I think it deserves to fall near the +1/1 region ratio of other bonuses
Tequesta raised to +2; for similar reasons as with Jeaga
Calusa raised to +10, and/or # of borders reduced; even with a weapon inside its borders, this continent bonus is far and away the most difficult to hold, especially since it borders the T.W.Z.

That leaves the Castillo de San Marcos, which at +5 for 1 region is too far off the norm for the map, and yet I understand that it is central to the map concept as part of the Spanish conquest of the area.

So, in order to give it special significance and yet keep it from dominating the strategy of the map, how about some sort of building bonus similar to the tribal chiefs and their warriors? Except make it simpler, such as "+2 per tribal chief with Castillo de San Marcos". That would make the Castillo bonus larger as more tribal chiefs are 'conquered' (held) at a ratio slightly below the high end of +2/1 region... using algebra, it would be a ratio of +2x/(x+1) regions. Also, it would have the benefit of reinforcing the tribal chiefs a central part of the strategy, as they can give a bonus for the Spanish holder or the Indian holders.

Finally, one last minor recommendation would be to make certain that an open-deployment region is adjacent to CA-1 in Ais, either by shifting one of the bordering neutrals somewhere else, or by moving the border between MI=4 and TQ-C south so that MI-4 borders CA-1.

Hope this helps,

Marshal Ney

[Seamus76]

Great feedback Marshal, that's a lot of the info I needed. An update is coming now, but one question would be with regard to the build-a-bonus for the Spanish fort. Do you see that as being in addition to the +5 or lowering the +5 to say +3 (which I have done for this next update), then having the bonus of +2 for each chief held?

[Seamus76]

CURRENT UPDATE INFO-2011-08-08:
- Still working on the title.
- Updated Calusa bonus valued from +8 to +10
- Updated both Jeaga and Tequesta bonus values to +2 from +1
- Moved the upper border of the TQ-C territory down so that MI-4 can now attack CA-1, and CA-1 can now attack MI-4
- Updated the bonus value of the Castillo de San Marcos from +5 to +3

I do like Marshall's idea of a build a bonus for the Spanish fort and chief, which will take some good work to redo the legend, so before doing that what does everyone think? or just keep it at the lower +3? Thoughts?

Thoughts? What's left?

Current Version: v5.3

[MarshalNey]

Great feedback Marshal, that's a lot of the info I needed. An update is coming now, but one question would be with regard to the build-a-bonus for the Spanish fort. Do you see that as being in addition to the +5 or lowering the +5 to say +3 (which I have done for this next update), then having the bonus of +2 for each chief held?

Heh, actually, I saw the +2 per chief bonus as replacing the previous bonus entirely, just for simplicity. But if you wanted to have both, then I'd say make it no more than +2.

As the current stand-alone +3 bonus, I think it works for balance purposes, but of course I'd still be in favor of changing it to the above +2 per chief since it more strongly supports the theme.

Otherwise, it's looking good If my fellow CAs have nothing to add within the next couple of days, I'll send this off to the Map Surveyors. After that, if there are no further suggestions, a stamp.

-- Marshal Ney

[Seamus76]

Thanks Marshal, as always I appreciate the feedback.

While I do like the thought of an added layer of build-a-bonus for each Chief and the Fort, which does support the theme, I would personally like to see if the current setup with just +3 (instead of +5) for the Fort works for the community. Simplicity and clarity have always been a big issue for the map, and again while I like the thought of an additional bonus layer, I think from a potential crowded and confusing legend perspective I would prefer to give it a go with out it. If there are strong feelings to add this in I would be happy to give it a shot though, but I think once it's on paper it might be too much.

[AndyDufresne]

I'm for keeping the map as clear and, not necessarily 'simple,' but intuitive and streamlined, as possible!


--Andy

[TaCktiX]

Here's an idea to pimp out that title of yours. You've got three capital letters that are recognizable enough that if the bottom of them were cut off, people could still read them. What if Tribal War - Florida were in very big letters, with T, W, and F coming from underneath Florida? It'd use up the space and with some color grading (in shades of red, orange, yellow, kinda fiery) it'd look like a really badass title.

[Seamus76]

Thanks for the idea TaCktiX. I think that might be above my graphics level, but I'm working on something for the next version. I'm also working on the small version as well. Before I get too far along with that, were there any other gameplay issues, or anything else anyone can see that needs to be worked on?

[MarshalNey]

If nobody has any gameplay suggestions within the next day or two, a stamp will be forthcoming.

[Seamus76]

CURRENT UPDATE INFO-2011-08-16:
- Still working on the title...yes, still.
- I have failed many things over the years, but this was the first failed Colorblind Test. Because of that, I changed the Ais and Tequesta tribe colors in order to differentiate them from the others. So now, those unfortunate colorblind individuals can still enjoy this map. And yes, that is pink, and I think it's two snap FAB-U-LOUS!! Just kidding, but yes it is pink, and real maps wear pink so I like it.
- In anticipation of the hopeful Gameplay stamp I went ahead and started on the small version. It has been included, but please note I am touching up all of the wording to make everything cleaner and more legible.

CURRENT MAP VERSION:

v6.0 - Large

Click image to enlarge.

v6.0 - Small

Click image to enlarge.

[MarshalNey]

I forgot to mention that the "Part of No Bonus" sign next to San Marcos should probably go. It does give a bonus, after all, so it's just a potential area of confusion for players.

The small map is looking good- can you post a version with the numbers included? (the 888's)

-- Marshal Ney

[TaCktiX]

Here's a rough example of what I mean by "better title":

Click image to enlarge.

[Seamus76]

Well that's pretty cool. And definitely gives me some ideas. Thanks for taking the time to mock that up.

[MarshalNey]

Okeydokey, time for this:



Congrats, Seamus76!

P.S. Don't forget to post a map with 888s, just to make sure they all fit

[koontz1973]

Congrats on the stamp. Been popping in but till I see your new title, most things have been covered.

[gimil]

Tacktix's title doesn't work for me. I think that it is to saturated and to clean a font for this type of title. But you do need something that stands out like his example.

You need a font that really captures the theme here. I don't think any of the default fonts in a windows package will cut it. I had a look around and found this, which I think will work really well on your map:

http://www.dafont.com/tribal.font

But their are millions of fonts out their, it is just a case of finding and installing what you are looking for.

[natty dread]

I agree with Gimil. It's too new looking, it doesn't fit the style of the map.

That font on dafont looks really good, though.

[TaCktiX]

I intentionally didn't fontshop. The image was to show the "under the state" and "Tribal colors" ideas visually.