Knights

[thehippo8]

in the end it is the mapmakers decision on what direction he/she wants to go as long as the gameplay is balanced for the most part.

Yeah but that was my point, that the gameplay won't be balanced!!!

LOL ... you are funny ... one moment you complain that there is too much symmentry (balance) so you want bonuses etc ... yet now you complain that the game is not balanced ... if this was Mafia Wars there would be a big FOS!

[Victor Sullivan]

in the end it is the mapmakers decision on what direction he/she wants to go as long as the gameplay is balanced for the most part.

Yeah but that was my point, that the gameplay won't be balanced!!!

LOL ... you are funny ... one moment you complain that there is too much symmentry (balance) so you want bonuses etc ... yet now you complain that the game is not balanced ... if this was Mafia Wars there would be a big FOS!

Natty's argument is coherent, actually. He means that too much symmetry does not make a well-balanced map. I think I have to agree with natty on this one. You need something, I think, whether it be a bonus or whatever. As gimil mentioned, anything other than escalating is going to be a real drag.

-Sully

[natty dread]

in the end it is the mapmakers decision on what direction he/she wants to go as long as the gameplay is balanced for the most part.

Yeah but that was my point, that the gameplay won't be balanced!!!

LOL ... you are funny ... one moment you complain that there is too much symmentry (balance) so you want bonuses etc ... yet now you complain that the game is not balanced ... if this was Mafia Wars there would be a big FOS!

you don't even know what you're talking about

[thehippo8]

in the end it is the mapmakers decision on what direction he/she wants to go as long as the gameplay is balanced for the most part.

Yeah but that was my point, that the gameplay won't be balanced!!!

LOL ... you are funny ... one moment you complain that there is too much symmentry (balance) so you want bonuses etc ... yet now you complain that the game is not balanced ... if this was Mafia Wars there would be a big FOS!

Natty's argument is coherent, actually. He means that too much symmetry does not make a well-balanced map. I think I have to agree with natty on this one. You need something, I think, whether it be a bonus or whatever. As gimil mentioned, anything other than escalating is going to be a real drag.

-Sully

Ahhh, and the prnny drops! My misunderstanding of what Natty was saying. So, let's go with option 3 ... actually Koontz I don't see the bonus region idea as materially taking away anything from your concept ... it adds another lawyer of complexity and ... like I said earlier ... adds to the chessieness of the map by highlighting the importance of the central squares. Big breath ... go with it!

[koontz1973]

It is obvious that the bonus version has the most vocal supporters. natty's argument does have merrit, same as DiMs. I see no reason why the original version would not work as no one has given me any good reason why it would not work. The issue has been resolved by the mods so we can all get on and make a map.

show: version 7

Now lets move on and get this one into beta faster than a Concorde.

[natty dread]

You want to do it fast or you want to do it right?

Are the bonuses for holding all of those coloured dots? Meaning you get +2 for holding 4 pink dots or 4 red dots, etc. ? If so they could stand to be a bit larger.

[koontz1973]

You want to do it fast or you want to do it right?

Are the bonuses for holding all of those coloured dots? Meaning you get +2 for holding 4 pink dots or 4 red dots, etc. ? If so they could stand to be a bit larger.

I want to do it right.
I tried the larger dots, coloured squares and lines going around the zones, and they all detract from the look. I will get some images up today for you all to see what I mean,

[charmir]

version 1 with no bonuses.
Sorry for the delay buddy.
Charmir

[koontz1973]

version 1 with no bonuses.
Sorry for the delay buddy.
Charmir

To late now, bonuses are the order of the day.

[koontz1973]

Here are the two versions. One with the larger dots and one with the squares. Both have some benefits but the square one will cause confusion as it is not clear if you need to get hold of the middle 4 for the bonuses. To put a second line in looks bad so will not be doing it. Take my word on it.

[thehippo8]

Koontz ... here's another couple of ideas ... I did a copy and paste into Inkscape...
'




Sing out if you want me to delete these Koontz ... thought you might like to see these ideas if you hadn't thought of them!!

[koontz1973]

Ideas I had had and rejected for one reason only. The colours change over the different woods which would cause confusion. The only way around that would be to do the squares as a colour without the wood underneath. That is a step too far away from the concept.

The larger dots (only 2 pixels larger) look to large IMO and detract from the board.
The squares look ugly and will cause confusion over the 4 and 5 bonus zones.
The coloured squares as shown by hippo have many different problems as the colours change over the different woods. To remove the wood and have coloured squares instead removes the whole look of the board. But I will have another look at it today.

[thehippo8]

Ideas I had had and rejected for one reason only. The colours change over the different woods which would cause confusion. The only way around that would be to do the squares as a colour without the wood underneath. That is a step too far away from the concept.

The larger dots (only 2 pixels larger) look to large IMO and detract from the board.
The squares look ugly and will cause confusion over the 4 and 5 bonus zones.
The coloured squares as shown by hippo have many different problems as the colours change over the different woods. To remove the wood and have coloured squares instead removes the whole look of the board. But I will have another look at it today.

These were my thoughts too ...

[natty dread]

You want to do it fast or you want to do it right?

Are the bonuses for holding all of those coloured dots? Meaning you get +2 for holding 4 pink dots or 4 red dots, etc. ? If so they could stand to be a bit larger.

I want to do it right.
I tried the larger dots, coloured squares and lines going around the zones, and they all detract from the look. I will get some images up today for you all to see what I mean,

...the bonuses. The bonuses should be larger. +2 for holding 4 territories with 4 borders is a bit inadequate.

[koontz1973]

...the bonuses. The bonuses should be larger. +2 for holding 4 territories with 4 borders is a bit inadequate.

That might be true natty, but I really do not want to get players into the thinking of bonuses in the first place. The numbers if done would be very high. I want to keep the players away from the bonus zone mind set and having large numbers would shorten games dramatically.

With your comment on the 2 being low, it is for the above reason, but no other map has a bonus zone of 4 territs that can be attacked by 20 different territs. The centre zone has the same 4 territs but can be attacked by 32. The large blue zone can be attacked by all but 4 territs. By giving any of these areas large / normal numbers you get a bonus that can finish of a game after it is held for one turn. That is not what I want. I went down the bonus route natty against my better judgement but these numbers have to be kept small. Very small.

[natty dread]

I don't think so.

By making the bonuses too small, you could just as well not have them at all. No one's going to try to hold a bonus when the payoff is so small compared to the effort, and in effect the bonuses will just be ignored.

But why do you have to have bonus areas anyway? Think outside the box a bit... How about a collection bonus? Mix up that bag of coloured tiles a bit, and make a "+2 for any 3 same coloured tiles" bonus. Or something like that.

[Victor Sullivan]

I don't think so.

By making the bonuses too small, you could just as well not have them at all. No one's going to try to hold a bonus when the payoff is so small compared to the effort, and in effect the bonuses will just be ignored.

But why do you have to have bonus areas anyway? Think outside the box a bit... How about a collection bonus? Mix up that bag of coloured tiles a bit, and make a "+2 for any 3 same coloured tiles" bonus. Or something like that.

This. I think natty's got the right idea.

-Sully

[thehippo8]

I don't think so.

By making the bonuses too small, you could just as well not have them at all. No one's going to try to hold a bonus when the payoff is so small compared to the effort, and in effect the bonuses will just be ignored.

But why do you have to have bonus areas anyway? Think outside the box a bit... How about a collection bonus? Mix up that bag of coloured tiles a bit, and make a "+2 for any 3 same coloured tiles" bonus. Or something like that.

Yes, I think Natty is onto something here. Although I agree tha tthe central squares could be considered unique, thinking outside the box may be better ... remember this is the essence of the game only. Maybe plus one for every 2 after holding XX number of same coloured squares?

Such an idea unclutters the look again and is even easier to understand although potentially harder to play! Remember every knight move alternates between different coloured squares.

[natty dread]

It depends on how you arrange the coloured tiles.

[thehippo8]

It depends on how you arrange the coloured tiles.

Lol ... what were you thinking Natty?

[koontz1973]

I don't think so.

By making the bonuses too small, you could just as well not have them at all. No one's going to try to hold a bonus when the payoff is so small compared to the effort, and in effect the bonuses will just be ignored.

But why do you have to have bonus areas anyway? Think outside the box a bit... How about a collection bonus? Mix up that bag of coloured tiles a bit, and make a "+2 for any 3 same coloured tiles" bonus. Or something like that.

I see no reason why a larger bonus would benefit the map. The pay off may be small but it is the only pay off available so players will not ignore them. They may take there time, going for them, holding them, using them, but I see no reason why that cannot be a style of game play. Not every map has to have the ability to be finished of in round 3.

All you will get with the +2 for 3 squares is a land grab style of play (same as in Antarctica). Players moving forward as quickly as they can to get as much as they can in the hope that in round 2 they have a larger troop count to play with. That is not the style of GP for this map. This is another reason why the reinforcements will be set at a level of 3 or 5.

With the +2 for 3 squares, you get the huge problem of where to put the squares. As all the squares in the centre two rows can be attacked by the front row of knights, you could only put a set number on either side. In your example 2 only. So you would get 4 different zones with 2 squares on rows 4 & 5. This would be the only way to solve the bonuses in round 2 issue, and then you have the increase of luck of the dice. If you make the numbers higher (+3 for 5) you could get 2 different zones, but again, it would be very easy to grab one in round one if you make a land grab. Any game that would allow that to happen would be over in round 2 as no one would be able to come back from that. I did put some thought into this right at the beginning when I developed the map. This is why I put the column bonus before the continent bonus, as it would be harder to get. I wanted a style that would force players to think. With the bonuses, all you seem to want is to make them easy to get and hold, and therefore make the games shorter.

natty, you said to think outside the box, I am going to say the same to you. All you have done is said the map needs bonuses as maps have them, the map needs to have larger bonus numbers as maps have larger numbers. That to me is just the status quo thinking that has produced map after map the same.

[natty dread]

natty, you said to think outside the box, I am going to say the same to you. All you have done is said the map needs bonuses as maps have them, the map needs to have larger bonus numbers as maps have larger numbers. That to me is just the status quo thinking that has produced map after map the same.

You don't design a gameplay based on what is "different" or "unique", you design it based on what WORKS. What is FUN TO PLAY. Do you get that?

Sure, I can make a map where every territory attacks every other territory, and the map image would be goatse in inverted colours. That'd be original and unique, that'd be thinking outside the box. But that'd make a fucking awful map.

[koontz1973]

You don't design a gameplay based on what is "different" or "unique", you design it based on what WORKS. What is FUN TO PLAY. Do you get that?

If that was the case, games would of stayed the same over the last couple of thousand years. There are many different styles of games with many more copies of those games, but every one of those games is different. Do you get that?

Sure, I can make a map where every territory attacks every other territory, and the map image would be goatse in inverted colours. That'd be original and unique, that'd be thinking outside the box. But that'd make a fucking awful map.

Now you are getting into the realm is being silly. That is not thinking outside the box, that is thinking during a coke fuelled bender. I did not and have not ever said that that type of game would be good.

[thehippo8]

Well Natty, I did ask you to make some suggesstions regarding what you meant about alternates to Koontz' dot suggestion. Seems you are a little intent on being antagonistic. Can I suggest we get back to the issue now?

If you have no alternate suggestions then Koontz dot idea seems the best on the table. As to whether this map works is fun and gets supporters well ... hay ... that's what Beta is for.

Great you are vocal but unless you have some other ideas maybe you can stop rattling Koontz's cage now?

[koontz1973]

Now that all of the arguing is out of the way (I hope), lets talk numbers.

Starting troops. Normal 3 for now but this can be changed. My initial thoughts was for 5 but that seemed like to much. 3 to me seems normal and OK.
Neutrals, a single on all of the middle territs. Should this be raised?
Troops for deployment. The normal map had 5, this one has 3. Should this go to 5 or stay at 3. Remember, this is for all territs held, even if you have 63 of the 64. Again, this is designed to stop the land grab players.

If one of these numbers goes up, the rest should as well. Any suggestions. If these numbers change, then the bonus values will change in accordance.