Re: 1588 Spanish Armada [16.01.14] V45 Fixes

[Jippd]

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???

Regarding your first point you should be able to assault M if you hold the S/B of the same banner.

Regarding your second point M does not assault S/B. You need a T region of the same banner to assault the S/B of the same banner. Do you hold a T of that banner? if so that is how you forted from M to the S/B of the same banner? Your fort line went from M through the T to the S/B. If you don't hold a T of the same banner I'm not sure how you forted.

[cairnswk]

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?)

OK Eric, thanks for those suggestions, Done. Changes will appear in about half-hour in map above, although i don't think all neutrals - especially those at the bottom out edge need to be 3....i'll do 2, otherwise we risk them not being taken at all, and there is a bonus attached to them also.

[cairnswk]

V42a adjusted as per Eric's suggestion above.

[cairnswk]

And this is my solution V43.

It follows on from previous players discussion, but there are lots more impassables between players regions, and at least 11/12 nuetrals to conquer before someone can get hold of their neighbour. Players will actually have to build some strengths before trying to conquer.

What this will do in essence is force the fighting more to the middle of the maps in the Battles regions, and make it much harder to conquer opponents.

It will also not be so easy in smaller player games.

Thoughts?

Click image to enlarge.

[EricPhail]

1st Thoughts on the new structure:
Nicely seperates out the leaders and allows time to build

Issues:
Number placement in the treasury is a bit odd and slightly misaligned (if this is just temp placement it doesn't matter, if xml based...)
Still one short elimination that I can see Sao Mateus to San Cristobal Bow:
Swap Sao Mateus for Esayas/Zabra Julia?

Army de Parma is almost a freebie for the san Martinho group (the command ship bombards/assaults all routes/chokepoints)
possible solution: Zuniga to connect to army antwerp + SS Santiago el Mayor given a (1w?) land assault route to army leper/tielt

[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???

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.

This morning it works normally. I don't have a "?" and can see the troop number.
But yesterday I was seeing a "?" and my opponent too.

EDIT : supressed some remarks, was wrong.

And I think I was able to fort from M to S/B without having all T regions, but I will check that

[Donelladan]

Also, if I have only the last treasure ( with 5 auto), from that region I can attack S and B of corresponding shield. Is that normal? I didn't have the M or any other T of that treasure.

Can someone explain me the losing conditions? If i have no S and no B I am dead is that it?

[cairnswk]

Also, if I have only the last treasure ( with 5 auto), from that region I can attack S and B of corresponding shield. Is that normal? I didn't have the M or any other T of that treasure.

Yes that is normal.
Even if you don't hold the M, you can still attack the S and B of the same shield from any T region. This simply gives you opportunity to gain the command ship back again, if you have enough treasury.

Can someone explain me the losing conditions? If i have no S and no B I am dead is that it?

Yes
The losing condition currently works in two parts, and comes from two "continents" if you like.
1. One continent is any Command Ship region....there are 24 altogether.
2. Other continent is any non-treasury region (command ships excluded as above)
Both parts of the requirements is tied together with an "and" statement, which mean you have to hold both parts.
So if you have a non-treasury region and a B or S of any command Ship, you will still remain in the game.
If however, your opponent conquers/bombards your B and S, or the last non-treasury region you hold, you will be eliminated.

Now, that is what is currently in play.
From the above map, there is a suggestion to change this, so that an opponent has to eleminate all non-treasury regions and all Command ship regions for you to lose.
Thoughts on any suggestion for the losing condition?

[cairnswk]

Thanks for your thoughts Eric.

1st Thoughts on the new structure:
Nicely seperates out the leaders and allows time to build

Good.

Issues:
Number placement in the treasury is a bit odd and slightly misaligned (if this is just temp placement it doesn't matter, if xml based...)

How do you mean misaligned?

Still one short elimination that I can see Sao Mateus to San Cristobal Bow:
Swap Sao Mateus for Esayas/Zabra Julia?

Ooh yes, thank-you for that pickup. Will fix...somehow.

Army de Parma is almost a freebie for the san Martinho group (the command ship bombards/assaults all routes/chokepoints)
possible solution: Zuniga to connect to army antwerp + SS Santiago el Mayor given a (1w?) land assault route to army leper/tielt

OK two things here. Historically de Parma was waiting in Kales to be shipped across the channel, not at Antwerpen. Also France was not involved in this war in any way.
Even for gameplay, i cannot make a 1-way from SS Santiago el Mayor, and really i shouldn't do that for Zuniga either, as that vessel didn't make land.
If we change the historical aspects too much it doesn't become the same battle.
So yes, that does give the San Matinho group a bonus, but that is what was supposed to happen. From there they should have been able to invade England.

[EricPhail]

Re: numbers several most notably Hugo de Moncado's seem as if they're impinging on the lower border of there territories (the physical placement of the number looks slightly off)

Re: de Parma my comments were primarily based around balance rather than historical accuracy. If you believe the position as is is fine, then thats Ok.

You may wish to have that be a lower priority start pos. if sucht hings are possible

[cairnswk]

Still one short elimination that I can see Sao Mateus to San Cristobal Bow:
Swap Sao Mateus for Esayas/Zabra Julia?

Ooh yes, thank-you for that pickup. Will fix...somehow.

OK, I've swappeed those two territories
..but also changed the arrangement of La Caridad and San Juan Bautista, plus those neutrals between San Martinho Bow and San Cristobal Stern so there are 12 Neutrals to overcome.

Re: numbers several most notably Hugo de Moncado's seem as if they're impinging on the lower border of there territories (the physical placement of the number looks slightly off)

Oh OK, this is not xml generated...manually generated on map to show new number.

Re: de Parma my comments were primarily based around balance rather than historical accuracy. If you believe the position as is is fine, then thats Ok.

thanks. I'd like to keep it like that, unless others have a great issue with it.

You may wish to have that be a lower priority start pos. if sucht hings are possible

Mmm. please explain further?

[cairnswk]

if no-one has any objections or further suggestions, then i will start the xml to change this gameplay as per the map above.

[Jippd]

Sao mateus to san cristobal B is only 8 neutrals for a kill
Zuniga to vanguard S/B is either only 4 or 3 neutrals
Paxat San Esteban is 7 neutrals to santa ana B

I'm sure there are other positions like this on the map. Is your goal for there to be 12 neutrals from any start position to a point where you can eliminate an opponent based on their start positions?

[cairnswk]

Sao mateus to san cristobal B is only 8 neutrals for a kill
Zuniga to vanguard S/B is either only 4 or 3 neutrals
Paxat San Esteban is 7 neutrals to santa ana B

I'm sure there are other positions like this on the map. Is your goal for there to be 12 neutrals from any start position to a point where you can eliminate an opponent based on their start positions?

Jippd, thanks for pointing those out.
I had forgotten about the bombardments.
I think 12 would probably be ideal as a goal, don't you?
I'll re-exmaine those borders.

[Jippd]

Sao mateus to san cristobal B is only 8 neutrals for a kill
Zuniga to vanguard S/B is either only 4 or 3 neutrals
Paxat San Esteban is 7 neutrals to santa ana B

I'm sure there are other positions like this on the map. Is your goal for there to be 12 neutrals from any start position to a point where you can eliminate an opponent based on their start positions?

Jippd, thanks for pointing those out.
I had forgotten about the bombardments.
I think 12 would probably be ideal as a goal, don't you?
I'll re-exmaine those borders.

12 sounds good but there are lots of different positions where it is less than 12. You have to think about not only start S/B but the other two non M start positions too. Then it has to be 12 to get from that position to a position that can bombard an S/B or both non S/B/M start positions.

That makes for very many possibilities

[cairnswk]

...
12 sounds good but there are lots of different positions where it is less than 12. You have to think about not only start S/B but the other two non M start positions too. Then it has to be 12 to get from that position to a position that can bombard an S/B or both non S/B/M start positions.

That makes for very many possibilities

OK. i think this might do the trick.
see what you think.

[cairnswk]

I have placed notice in all existing active games for feedback on the map above.

If there is no further feedback within the next week i will implement the above map in new xml.

[Jippd]

Truro LB to eliminate Sun and Penzance LB is only 8 neutrals
Pool LB to swiftsure and truro LB is only 8 neutrals
London LB to brighton LB and scout is 8 neutrals

[EricPhail]

You may wish to have that be a lower priority start pos. if such things are possible

Mmm. please explain further?

I don't know precisely how start positions are generated but: given the slight advantage Sao Martinho has due to the army de Parma
it may be an advantage to code things such that Sao Martinho doesn't get drawn as a start position in games where some will be empty (eg. It's always passed over in 5 player and 7-11 player games, to avoid that advantage coming up, to be precise if at least 1 position will be left neutral Sao Martinho will be the (first) left empty)

[cairnswk]

You may wish to have that be a lower priority start pos. if such things are possible

Mmm. please explain further?

I don't know precisely how start positions are generated but: given the slight advantage Sao Martinho has due to the army de Parma
it may be an advantage to code things such that Sao Martinho doesn't get drawn as a start position in games where some will be empty (eg. It's always passed over in 5 player and 7-11 player games, to avoid that advantage coming up, to be precise if at least 1 position will be left neutral Sao Martinho will be the (first) left empty)

Oh OK. Eric, i understand but i don't think that is possible with the current game engine.
Nice thought though.
The allocation as i understand it happens randomly.

[cairnswk]

Truro LB to eliminate Sun and Penzance LB is only 8 neutrals
Pool LB to swiftsure and truro LB is only 8 neutrals
London LB to brighton LB and scout is 8 neutrals

Updated Jippd....please F5 to see changes...

[/quote]

[iancanton]

good work on the neutrals!

the beacon bonus wording is vague and can be interpreted in several ways. in particular, it is far from obvious that, by holding all 12 beacons, a player receives a +10 bonus. this can be solved be including each combination of 3 consecutive in the bonus description.

it is not intuitive that a closed beacon cannot attack (or, using the legend's terminology, be seen by) the surrounding region. this ought to be mentioned.

remove the solid black arrow in the beacon movement section, to stop players from looking for such arrows when there aren't any.

is são bernado supposed to be são bernardo?

to avoid the confusion caused by having, for each commander, a command ship, which is sometimes called the commander's ship (u have explained that this is necessary), is it permissible to replace command ship by flagship and commander's ship by commander's flagship wherever these appear in the legend?

so that players do not interpret the command ships as being treasury regions (since they are described as being not non-treasury regions), why not remove are not part of the non-treasury region from the legend?

the losing condition ought to read: if a player holds only treasury regions, the player will be eliminated.

the maximum starting positions is 3 (3 positions of 3 regions each); the maximum starting regions is 9.

hell this map makes my head spin. just one small thing Plymouth, Truro and the eddystone not really in the right places

if u wish to retain the eddystone name on the mainland, even though it's only a collection of rocks several miles off the coast, then we cannot move it; otherwise, we can rename it as truro. as for truro lb, which was named as such on my suggestion, barnstaple lb (or barnstable lb, to use the spelling in vogue at the time) appears to be a worthy successor, having supplied 5 ships to fight the armada.

http://www.barnstaple.co.uk/what-have-w ... /heritage/

ian.

[Jippd]

the losing condition ought to read: if a player holds only treasury regions, the player will be eliminated.

This is not a true statement though. A player could hold treasury regions and an S/B and still be eliminated. They could also hold treasury regions and non treasury regions but if they have no S/B they would be eliminated.

[cairnswk]

good work on the neutrals!

Thank-you ian, and most importantly to Jippd fot that work

the beacon bonus wording is vague and can be interpreted in several ways. in particular, it is far from obvious that, by holding all 12 beacons, a player receives a +10 bonus. this can be solved be including each combination of 3 consecutive in the bonus description.

it is not intuitive that a closed beacon cannot attack (or, using the legend's terminology, be seen by) the surrounding region. this ought to be mentioned.

Re-worded as per map.

remove the solid black arrow in the beacon movement section, to stop players from looking for such arrows when there aren't any.

Done

is são bernado supposed to be são bernardo?

Yep, done

to avoid the confusion caused by having, for each commander, a command ship, which is sometimes called the commander's ship (u have explained that this is necessary), is it permissible to replace command ship by flagship and commander's ship by commander's flagship wherever these appear in the legend?

Sure, done

so that players do not interpret the command ships as being treasury regions (since they are described as being not non-treasury regions), why not remove are not part of the non-treasury region from the legend?

ian, i've left that in there, but simply removed the not

the losing condition ought to read: if a player holds only treasury regions, the player will be eliminated.

Done.

the maximum starting positions is 3 (3 positions of 3 regions each); the maximum starting regions is 9.

Changed to Maximum starting regions: 9

hell this map makes my head spin. just one small thing Plymouth, Truro and the eddystone not really in the right places

if u wish to retain the eddystone name on the mainland, even though it's only a collection of rocks several miles off the coast, then we cannot move it; otherwise, we can rename it as truro. as for truro lb, which was named as such on my suggestion, barnstaple lb (or barnstable lb, to use the spelling in vogue at the time) appears to be a worthy successor, having supplied 5 ships to fight the armada.
http://www.barnstaple.co.uk/what-have-w ... /heritage/
ian.

changed to Barnstable all round.


Version 44a

[Jippd]

Has the losing condition been changed now from the original

Be eliminated if:
-you hold no S/B's
-If you hold no non treasury regions?