Re: 1588 Spanish Armada [16.01.14] V45 Fixes

[kizkiz]

Sure i've been misreading that losing condition
Is it effectively, you lose if you only hold treasury regions?
In that case, the assassin game wouldn't be quite such an issue if that condition was working properly

[Jippd]

Ways to lose with the current condition are:

Don't hold an S or B
Don't hold a non treasury region


I think starting off by increasing ship regions to n2s as starters may be a good change. n3 may be a little too high but it might not be so bad either.

[cairnswk]

Just propogating this forward to current discussion so i can see what is going on to change things.

Version 41 with V9 XML

Click image to enlarge.

[cairnswk]

Towards Assassin Games.

My proposal is to increase some regions around the Command ships to n3 and n2 to stop Round 1 raiding the neighbouring vessels and thereby ending the game in Round 1.

Here is V42 starts and neutrals

Click image to enlarge.

[Gilligan]

Hmm...how about this:

1) starting positions include Bow, Stern and the Ship. This way, you have to get both from the ship to eliminate someone.
2) Remove bonus for holding both the stern and bow.
3) change the conditional border for the Monarch to include the Bow, Stern, and the closest territory with your flag (IE: You need Bull, Rainbow Stern, and Rainbow Bow to take the monarch).

this still does not completely eliminate the problem, though. someone could easily drop 4 to Rainbow Bow, take Tiger and bomb Margate LB. This is 6 taking out 3,2 still to win.

[cairnswk]

Hmm...how about this:

1) starting positions include Bow, Stern and the Ship. This way, you have to get both from the ship to eliminate someone.
2) Remove bonus for holding both the stern and bow.
3) change the conditional border for the Monarch to include the Bow, Stern, and the closest territory with your flag (IE: You need Bull, Rainbow Stern, and Rainbow Bow to take the monarch).

this still does not completely eliminate the problem, though. someone could easily drop 4 to Rainbow Bow, take Tiger and bomb Margate LB. This is 6 taking out 3,2 still to win.

Gilligan, how do you mean "the Ship"?

I don't think assaulting the Monarch is the issue...it's being able to conquer your opponent on first go, especially if they are next door.
I think the bonus for the Command ship is fine.

Idea
What if we increase the neutral part of the command ship to say n4...
and make it a conditional that in order to assault from the Command ship (B or S) you have to hold both B & S.
That way anyone would have to conquer their own command ship first and then once they have both regions, they can start assaulting neighbouring ships.
This would slow the process down and allow everyone at least in 12 player assassin to take their own command ship before being assaulted.

[Jippd]

Idea
What if we increase the neutral part of the command ship to say n4...
and make it a conditional that in order to assault from the Command ship (B or S) you have to hold both B & S.
That way anyone would have to conquer their own command ship first and then once they have both regions, they can start assaulting neighbouring ships.
This would slow the process down and allow everyone at least in 12 player assassin to take their own command ship before being assaulted.

Someone could stack a non treasury region to take out an opponents S/B and bypass that idea.

[cairnswk]

Idea
What if we increase the neutral part of the command ship to say n4...
and make it a conditional that in order to assault from the Command ship (B or S) you have to hold both B & S.
That way anyone would have to conquer their own command ship first and then once they have both regions, they can start assaulting neighbouring ships.
This would slow the process down and allow everyone at least in 12 player assassin to take their own command ship before being assaulted.

Someone could stack a non treasury region to take out an opponents S/B and bypass that idea.

Yes, i agree, but is it likely to occur in the first round or second for that matter.

[Jippd]

It won't make it any harder to get to an enemy S/B for a kill. You could easily achieve a kill from starting on a non treasury and non S/B region with your stack. If you only changed the part that I quoted you could still easily get a kill in round 1 from some areas to another.

Take san juan to santa ana for example. I could stack S/B on san juan or stack Paxat San Esteban to make a kill run to santa ana. I would easily be able to stack paxat san esteban as it is just as far away from santa ana as San Juan.

I don't think the answer to the easy kills is an added conditional border for S/B to attack out but it is a unique idea. I think increasing the neutrals between S/B's is an option. The other option is changing the elimination condition.

I think terminator and standard escalating games could go quickly as someone leap frogs from one start spot to the next even with increased neutrals. The problem is that not holding S/B is too easy to accomplish for an elimination. The S/B areas are easily accessible from many regions so defending them is very hard. The S/B regions also do not have enough of a neutral buffer between you and the enemies. The fact that they can be bombarded from regions 2 away only makes elimination harder.

What about changing elimination condition to "if you only hold treasury regions"

[cairnswk]

It won't make it any harder to get to an enemy S/B for a kill. You could easily achieve a kill from starting on a non treasury and non S/B region with your stack. If you only changed the part that I quoted you could still easily get a kill in round 1 from some areas to another.

Take san juan to santa ana for example. I could stack S/B on san juan or stack Paxat San Esteban to make a kill run to santa ana. I would easily be able to stack paxat san esteban as it is just as far away from santa ana as San Juan.

I don't think the answer to the easy kills is an added conditional border for S/B to attack out but it is a unique idea. I think increasing the neutrals between S/B's is an option. The other option is changing the elimination condition.

I think terminator and standard escalating games could go quickly as someone leap frogs from one start spot to the next even with increased neutrals. The problem is that not holding S/B is too easy to accomplish for an elimination. The S/B areas are easily accessible from many regions so defending them is very hard. The S/B regions also do not have enough of a neutral buffer between you and the enemies. The fact that they can be bombarded from regions 2 away only makes elimination harder.

What about changing elimination condition to "if you only hold treasury regions"

Understand, OK, that is plausible.
the xml would only have one big long list of regions that are not treasury.

[Gilligan]

What if we just restrict this map from assassin games?

[kizkiz]

What if we just restrict this map from assassin games?

Still lets the first person to have a turn get a free shot at eliminating their nearest opponent and so on down the chain in games with enough players to only have one starting boat

[cairnswk]

What if we just restrict this map from assassin games?

Mmmm. do you really think that is a good outcome?
IMHO, no.

After having played a few games now, i think that increasing those neutrals lateraly between vessels on each side will achieve something towards that objective.
It will also make it slightly hard in all normal games e.g. 1v1 etc.

Increasing the non-start neutral side of the Command ships to n4 at least, will
1. use more initial resources to conquer from both the starting side and the Monarch cannot assualt the starting position of Command Ships, only the Treasury can.

If a change is made so that Command Ships do not sart,
in conjunction with changing the losing condition to as suggested by Jippd above "if you only hold treasury regions"
would this not solve the assassin issue, plus make it harder because of start neutral changes being increases around the command ships.
This would give each player a 3 region start 2 ships/LBs and M.

EDIT: I think by not having the B or S of the Command Ship in the losing condition, it will force players to actually assault all regions of the opponent's forces.

Suggestions?

[Jippd]

I don't think the answer should be to block the map from assassin. The problem is also present in terminator games.

I think we could first try with increased neutrals on the ship regions on the map...from there if need be the lose condition could be tweaked too.

[cairnswk]

I don't think the answer should be to block the map from assassin. The problem is also present in terminator games.
I think we could first try with increased neutrals on the ship regions on the map...from there if need be the lose condition could be tweaked too.

So your suggestions for this to occur i.e. numbers etc.

[EricPhail]

I feel this map definitely needs bigger neutrals - the advantage of going first in 1v1s is huge. It's to easy to really hurt an opponents bonus right from the start. (Tbh with less players a cap on starting ships might not be a bad idea)

Suggestions at least n3 for all ships that aren't a stern/bow

[cairnswk]

I feel this map definitely needs bigger neutrals - the advantage of going first in 1v1s is huge. It's to easy to really hurt an opponents bonus right from the start. (Tbh with less players a cap on starting ships might not be a bad idea)

Suggestions at least n3 for all ships that aren't a stern/bow

Good suggestions, and thanks for the numbers.

How does this look?

V42a

Click image to enlarge.

[Jippd]

I still see some problems where it could be an issue.

IE I have Ark Royal and I'm going for revenge. I could stack poole LB and if they start with revenge B it is only one n3 away to bombard and eliminate them.

Same for SS Bazana going for Santa Ana B.

I think the solution has to be changing the elim condition but a few games could test it out.

[cairnswk]

I still see some problems where it could be an issue.

IE I have Ark Royal and I'm going for revenge. I could stack poole LB and if they start with revenge B it is only one n3 away to bombard and eliminate them.

Same for SS Bazana going for Santa Ana B.

I think the solution has to be changing the elim condition but a few games could test it out.

Ah, no, those starts positions are set, they don't vay between stern and bow, so if you want Revenge Stern you have to go through 2 x 3n
And with max starts = 9 you'd only get standard 3 armies to deploy (plus 1 on each monarch autodeploy)..so thate would give each player an opportnity to fort somewhere.
As for SS Banza, that would prolly have to increase to n6.

I am just thinking further on this.
What if the losing condition was :if a player only holds T Regions, they would be eliminated.
Couple of things there...
1. means the opponent would have to conquer the Command Ship and
2. then the M postion in order to eliminate
3. the neutrals between Command Ships may have to increase further.

As another offering, what if you had to hold two Command Ships in order to attack your opponents.
That would be a great conditional and really slow the game down.

[kizkiz]

I am just thinking further on this.
What if the losing condition was :if a player only holds T Regions, they would be eliminated.
Couple of things there...
1. means the opponent would have to conquer the Command Ship and
2. then the M postion in order to eliminate
3. the neutrals between Command Ships may have to increase further.

As another offering, what if you had to hold two Command Ships in order to attack your opponents.
That would be a great conditional and really slow the game down

The first option sounds good. increase the n values by 1 or 2 and change the lose condition. Only concern is that it could still be a slow death if you lose your ship anyway. the correct n value may be key to this

Not sure about the second one in 12 player. you could never attack another player potentially

[cairnswk]

I am just thinking further on this.
What if the losing condition was :if a player only holds T Regions, they would be eliminated.
Couple of things there...
1. means the opponent would have to conquer the Command Ship and
2. then the M postion in order to eliminate
3. the neutrals between Command Ships may have to increase further.

As another offering, what if you had to hold two Command Ships in order to attack your opponents.
That would be a great conditional and really slow the game down

The first option sounds good. increase the n values by 1 or 2 and change the lose condition. Only concern is that it could still be a slow death if you lose your ship anyway. the correct n value may be key to this

Not sure about the second one in 12 player. you could never attack another player potentially

Doh! Stupid me. that's what comes from trying to think outside the box too much.

[cairnswk]

Just pushing this forward to next page...
V42a

Click image to enlarge.

[EricPhail]

Okay, thoughts on the new map:

1. All neutral ships should be 3 (varying the numbers between 1 and 3, just risks imbalance eg. faster routes to enemy, neutral bonuses, etc)

2. Simplest fix for the SS Bazana - Santa Ana Stern short elimination is remove the border between Bazana and San Buena Ventura.
This means you still need to go through 2x n3 to make the bombardment.

3. Other short assaults: Penzance - Eddystone - Achatae - Revenge stern is currently only 2x n1
Truro LB to Triumph Bow, Swiftsure to triumph Bow are likewise
Eddystone and Plymouth being the problem regions (solution - Achatae not touching land?)

[Donelladan]

Hey, I am playing the map for the 1st time.
I have S and B but I can't attack the corresponding M, why?

Another case, now that I have S, B and M from the same army, I can fort from M to S and B. But when I had M and didnt have S and B, I couldnt attack S and B from M, is that normal?


EDIT : I can attack M having S and B, but I see a "?" instead of seeing a troop number
Ultra fog mode???

[Gilligan]

Hey, I am playing the map for the 1st time.
I have S and B but I can't attack the corresponding M, why?

Another case, now that I have S, B and M from the same army, I can fort from M to S and B. But when I had M and didnt have S and B, I couldnt attack S and B from M, is that normal?


EDIT : I can attack M having S and B, but I see a "?" instead of seeing a troop number
Ultra fog mode???

Can you post a screenshot of you being able to attack the territory but can't see the number? I just tried this with blake and I could see the value. Take a screenshot where you have the attacked territory dropdown open so we can see what you can attack.