[Abandoned] Massacre à Paris

[sempaispellcheck]

I just don't get the point...

what is there about this you don't understand Dukasaur?

There's simply too many terts. It will be impossible to estimate your relative strength just by having a look. You will need to use either an add-on like BOB or some manual accounting system to keep track of your armies and plan your attack, and at that point it becomes more work than play.

The key to a map that's fun to play is that you can tell at a glance what is your strength in various areas without having to actually count your armies. And that could be achieved here, I think, if the total number of duellers was reduced.

Initally, i had conceived that this map might be ideal for a Battle Royal map of about 116 or 58 with two starts.
Would it suit that better?

Yeah, actually, I think this size and scope would be good for a Battle Royale.

Even has the right theme!

Agreed - and your autodeploy idea would probably work for a Battle Royale, since everyone only starts with 1 or 2 territs.

sempai

[cairnswk]

I just don't get the point...

what is there about this you don't understand Dukasaur?

There's simply too many terts. It will be impossible to estimate your relative strength just by having a look. You will need to use either an add-on like BOB or some manual accounting system to keep track of your armies and plan your attack, and at that point it becomes more work than play.

The key to a map that's fun to play is that you can tell at a glance what is your strength in various areas without having to actually count your armies. And that could be achieved here, I think, if the total number of duellers was reduced.

Initally, i had conceived that this map might be ideal for a Battle Royal map of about 116 or 58 with two starts.
Would it suit that better?

Yeah, actually, I think this size and scope would be good for a Battle Royale.

Even has the right theme!

Agreed - and your autodeploy idea would probably work for a Battle Royale, since everyone only starts with 1 or 2 territs.

sempai

I wonder if this rule still applies?

All Battle Royale map projects must start and finish as BR map.

[koontz1973]

Do not know about the BR rule now but send nobodies a pm and ask. It is not a bad idea for this.

[cairnswk]

Do not know about the BR rule now but send nobodies a pm and ask. It is not a bad idea for this.

Koontz, promise to do something about this after exam on Monday.

[cairnswk]

Do not know about the BR rule now but send nobodies a pm and ask. It is not a bad idea for this.

Koontz, promise to do something about this after exam on Monday.

OK. after discussion with another...i'd like this to be considered for a Battle Royal map, if it within the scope of the rules...and can be tested in the new beta testing phase.
there is no hurry, so will forward this to tnb80 where he and others can consider this.

[koontz1973]

Any word from nobodies over the BR application?

[cairnswk]

Any word from nobodies over the BR application?

No. if there was, i would have posted

[thenobodies80]

I wonder if this rule still applies?

All Battle Royale map projects must start and finish as BR map.

Yes it still applies (in general), but...
If we look at the guidelines we can see that the above is the only point that can't be chaeck on that list of requirements.

Development is public, the map is certainly unique, imo it add something to the site, yeah connections are maybe an headache, but it's a carinswk map, you know that you need to learn how to play it if you want to play it well (the map must be clear and easy to understand anyway ), the map fits in number of players/regions, fits sizes, fits gameplay types.

So imo it's stupid to keep it out just because this topic was started before the creation of the BR policy.
I will ask to admins for the final say but if it was just for me you would have the go ahead now.

Said that please make connections a bit more clear/easy to get at glance if you can.

Nobodies

[degaston]

I know I'm late to the party here, but I've recently restarted a map and have started looking into others in the foundry.

My first thought is that something still needs to be done about showing the attack routes. Why does H34 border H35 and CJ border CK, but C05 does not border H05, C06 does not border H06, H38 does not border H39 and C21 does not border H24? It seems very arbitrary as to what constitutes the "immediate vicinity". As a side note, why do most of the top territories use two letter identifiers and the rest of the map uses a letter and two digits?

After skimming through 14 pages of comments, I was surprised that no one has asked why Catholics would attack Catholics and Huguenots would attack Huguenots? Logically, wouldn't each dueler only attack his neighbors of the opposite persuasion? I realize this would require a pretty major overhaul of the duelers, but I think it could help to make the attack routes more clear in the end, and possibly even remove the need for the border assault symbols.

I'm not sure I really understand the bonus structure, and I have no clue as to whether the gameplay will work with it. I was asking for the ability to do a pre-beta test when I started my map 2 1/2 years ago. Maps like this really need it, and being able to experiment with xml without having to worry about finishing the graphics would save an enormous amount of time and effort, and could lead to the development of more interesting maps.

A minor issue with the legend - it appears that Marguerite has been replaced by another Henri on the map, but not in the Bonus Royale description.

[iancanton]

huguenots & catholiques battle at the louvre to keep france catholic sounds wrong. to me, it gives the impression that huguenots and catholiques are on the same side and both want to keep france catholic. perhaps catholiques battle huguenots at the louvre to keep france catholic is better?

the royal bonuses ought to be skewed, for example so that henri de navarre doubles each huguenot bonus but charles ix (with higher starting neutrals) triples each catholique bonus. after all, this was a massacre and not an equal battle.

what is the gameplay significance of the two women? do they affect the bonuses?

i've copied the comments below from page 12 to ensure that they are not forgotten.

3. Implement half bonuses for holding half a region i.e. "min requirement"

using the word region here is unnecessarily confusing. i presume u're trying to say half a continent in xml-speak. neighbourhood bonus or bonus vicinale will avoid confusion with the meaning of region as used in the game log. try to design the map so that the smallest continents are away from the corners, otherwise u fail the gameplay aim of having many ways to win; an example of a map that fails this test is battle of actium, where virtually every game follows the same basic strategy of grabbing the base camps. a modified half-bonus therefore sounds like a decent plan if it does not apply to the corner bonuses.

ian.

[cairnswk]

...
So imo it's stupid to keep it out just because this topic was started before the creation of the BR policy.
I will ask to admins for the final say but if it was just for me you would have the go ahead now.

Said that please make connections a bit more clear/easy to get at glance if you can.

Nobodies

Is there any news from the admins?

Re the connections...I looked at Colesseum...and it has "Players can assault anyone in the same area, except for..." <- this causes a lot of confusion for me because "at a glance" it is not totally clear who can assault who, particularly in the arena.
Without drawing connection lines all over the place to indicate who can assault who...
I think myself that we have arrived at the best combination (for the discussion that took place) of how assaults occur.
Yes, it is not immediately clear, but i think the combination of words and picture of how assaults occur provides a coverall for everyone.
As to the borders, those are coded and this obviously helps.
Having said that, if someone can arrive at another method, i'd be happy to hear it, if it blends in with the sword-fighting gfx that are the obvious idicator of the period in play.

[cairnswk]

I know I'm late to the party here, but I've recently restarted a map and have started looking into others in the foundry.

My first thought is that something still needs to be done about showing the attack routes. Why does H34 border H35 and CJ border CK, but C05 does not border H05, C06 does not border H06, H38 does not border H39 and C21 does not border H24?

Mmmm. obviously there are errors in the assault map, which are now altered...thanks for picking these up.

As a side note, why do most of the top territories use two letter identifiers and the rest of the map uses a letter and two digits?

well it started out as alpha but ran out of characters....but this also makes a bit of a difference in the drop list.

After skimming through 14 pages of comments, I was surprised that no one has asked why Catholics would attack Catholics and Huguenots would attack Huguenots? Logically, wouldn't each dueler only attack his neighbors of the opposite persuasion? I realize this would require a pretty major overhaul of the duelers, but I think it could help to make the attack routes more clear in the end, and possibly even remove the need for the border assault symbols.

That would make logical sense, but it doesn't make sense for gameplay under the current layout for differentiation.
If you had all the Huguenots in one clump, i could offer the same reasoning to say why would you assault all you fellow Huguenots?

I'm not sure I really understand the bonus structure, and I have no clue as to whether the gameplay will work with it. I was asking for the ability to do a pre-beta test when I started my map 2 1/2 years ago. Maps like this really need it, and being able to experiment with xml without having to worry about finishing the graphics would save an enormous amount of time and effort, and could lead to the development of more interesting maps.

I can assure you there will be large gameplay testing on this before being released for BETA, now that sandmode is in place.

A minor issue with the legend - it appears that Marguerite has been replaced by another Henri on the map, but not in the Bonus Royale description.

To be fixed next version.
Thanks for your time on this.

[cairnswk]

huguenots & catholiques battle at the louvre to keep france catholic sounds wrong. to me, it gives the impression that huguenots and catholiques are on the same side and both want to keep france catholic. perhaps catholiques battle huguenots at the louvre to keep france catholic is better?

I agree, thank-you

the royal bonuses ought to be skewed, for example so that henri de navarre doubles each huguenot bonus but charles ix (with higher starting neutrals) triples each catholique bonus. after all, this was a massacre and not an equal battle.

I agree this was not a equal battle...but for gameplay...would you want one side having a triple bonus with the other has double.
I can hear the cries from the spectators. It would only lead to someone learning how to farm the map with the triple bonus, yes?

what is the gameplay significance of the two women? do they affect the bonuses?

There is only one woman now - Catherine de Midici - i excluded Margot because who was not Huguenot but rather Cahtolique
Now there is more balance with two of each reglions.

i've copied the comments below from page 12 to ensure that they are not forgotten.

3. Implement half bonuses for holding half a region i.e. "min requirement"

using the word region here is unnecessarily confusing. i presume u're trying to say half a continent in xml-speak. neighbourhood bonus or bonus vicinale will avoid confusion with the meaning of region as used in the game log. try to design the map so that the smallest continents are away from the corners, otherwise u fail the gameplay aim of having many ways to win; an example of a map that fails this test is battle of actium, where virtually every game follows the same basic strategy of grabbing the base camps. a modified half-bonus therefore sounds like a decent plan if it does not apply to the corner bonuses.

ian.

New version has the half regional bonus...except for where the bonus is "1" i.e. in those small two corners.
We can change the wording later....

Connections fixed.

Click image to enlarge.

Version 16.

Click image to enlarge.

[degaston]

After skimming through 14 pages of comments, I was surprised that no one has asked why Catholics would attack Catholics and Huguenots would attack Huguenots? Logically, wouldn't each dueler only attack his neighbors of the opposite persuasion? I realize this would require a pretty major overhaul of the duelers, but I think it could help to make the attack routes more clear in the end, and possibly even remove the need for the border assault symbols.

That would make logical sense, but it doesn't make sense for gameplay under the current layout for differentiation.
If you had all the Huguenots in one clump, i could offer the same reasoning to say why would you assault all you fellow Huguenots?

I don''t think it would require that big a change. Most of the map already alternates green and yellow territories, so with just a few changes like swapping C08 with H08 and C10 with H10, etc. would allow it to work. Mostly it would remove the criss-cross connections like C01-C02 and G-H01-H02. It would make gameplay a little different, though I think it can work either way.

Another idea that just occurred to me is that within a bonus region, all Catholics and Huguenots could assault the opposing type, but not their own.

[iancanton]

the royal bonuses ought to be skewed, for example so that henri de navarre doubles each huguenot bonus but charles ix (with higher starting neutrals) triples each catholique bonus. after all, this was a massacre and not an equal battle.

I agree this was not a equal battle...but for gameplay...would you want one side having a triple bonus with the other has double.
I can hear the cries from the spectators. It would only lead to someone learning how to farm the map with the triple bonus, yes?

the triple bonus will naturally have higher starting neutrals, so a player can choose to attack fewer neutrals for the double bonus or more neutrals for the triple bonus.

New version has the half regional bonus...except for where the bonus is "1" i.e. in those small two corners.

what does "half-regional, inidcated (sic) as M?", mean?

Another idea that just occurred to me is that within a bonus region, all Catholics and Huguenots could assault the opposing type, but not their own.

this is an interesting idea. does it work, or can a player jump from one side of the board to the other too easily?

ian.

[degaston]

Another idea that just occurred to me is that within a bonus region, all Catholics and Huguenots could assault the opposing type, but not their own.

this is an interesting idea. does it work, or can a player jump from one side of the board to the other too easily?

if you structured the borders properly, then I don't think it would be that easy to jump across the board. For example, if you had only Catholics at the borders of a region, then in order to pass through it, you'd have to take take a Catholic to enter the region, take a Huguenot as an intermediary, take another Catholic at a border, and then a Huguenot in a neighboring region. This kind of structure might not always be possible, or might require an adjustment to the regions.

I think it would be interesting, and would give this map a completely unique play structure.

[koontz1973]

cairns, any word on an update?

[koontz1973]

[Moved]

It would appear that development of this map has stalled. The map is moved to the Recycling Box and put into Vacation status for the next 6 months. If the mapmaker wants to continue with the map, then one of the Cartographer Assistants will be able to help put the thread back into the Foundry system, after an update has been made.

koontz

[Dukasaur]

Now more than ever I would love to see this revived. Everyone is bored with Colosseum.

[iAmCaffeine]

Everyone is bored with Colosseum.