Steiner75 wrote:biscuit boy wrote:It's a typical first turn typically wins type of map.
I must admit, I thought that first turn represents a huge advantage, but upon checking my games I was probably suffering from a confirmation bias.
Total Games completed 33 (Team games with 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, 3 vs 3 or 4 vs 4, some polymorphic)
out of these:
15 won by the team/player moving first and 18 won by the team moving second. So in conclusion no indication that it is a "first turn typically wins" map.
I really like the map as it makes for exellent gameplay with chances to turn around "lost" situations.
Great job by cairnswk!!!
of 35 completed 1v1, standard, auto-placement, sequential, no spoils, chained, fog, non-trench games with unlimited rounds, from
Game 13580110 to
Game 14047345,
the first player to move won 28 games, while the second player won only 7 games. the most popular settings therefore show a significant first-turn advantage.
Steiner75 wrote:Only one thing I am suggesting to change: If possible, the same team / player should not hold both Gendarmerie and Kum Kale with the initial drop. That really makes for too much of an uphill fight for the team not in posession of these two pieces of real estate.
Steiner75 wrote:Frogmanx82 wrote:Seems like it would be more fair if the territories that can bombard landing ships always start out neutral. Especially in the south were once the landing ship is lost, you can't get it back.
Well, the Artillery Pieces certainly did not start off as neutrals in 1915, even though many blokes from OZ and NZ would have considered that to be more "fair"...
Nevertheless, holding Kum Kale AND / OR L06 Landing ship / Halil-Eli does represent a huge advantage, I aggree.
One way to alleviate that situation would be to assign Kum Kale and L06 / Halil-Eli to different teams, or in case that is not possible, to at least reduce the number of neutrals on In-Tepe and F5 from 6 to 3
of the 35 games i analysed above, the same player started with both gendarmerie and kum kale in 13 games. this player lost 9 and won 4. of the 9 games lost, this player also started with gaba tepe. the high loss rate is not because the coastal batteries suffer from an inherent handicap, but because they are each paired with one of the ineffective minesweepers. i'm fairly confident that
cairnswk, as an aussie who knows his history, will not be assigning neutral starts to the coastal batteries.
Frogmanx82 wrote:I think it would add strategy to the straights if MS4 to MS9 also got the landing ship bonus or at least a 1 autodeploy. Most games the straights don't even come into play. There is just not the incentive.
Still think kum kale has to start neutral. Its just too key. You should have to earn the right to use it.
Nola_Lifer wrote:Think this map is perfect. Hate to see it changed like what happened to cricket because so many complained because they didn't know how to play properly. I think some games will be totally unfair drop but that will be few. MS1-3 do need an incentive to be used. Make make the other spots that don't revert to neutral +1 or +2 but other than that I think the map is pretty solid. Played enough games to see that despite what may seem a bad drop you can work through it.
j1mathman wrote:Enjoy this map, and agree with Nola and Frogman about Kum Kale and the M(S)1-9.
Dropping Kum Kale is an advantage, but it with the opening bonus being small, I don't think it is overpowered. Making In Tape less of a neutral value would be a mod to make a counterattack on Kale possible earlier.
M(S)1-9 is a little confusing it's a really long entry so I've left my Landing Craft sit there unused for several turns. The aa guns on the shore in the south are interesting, but i hardly ever use those, even if my opponent comes out in the later rounds, usually they are 1s and not important anyway. You could also shorten the landing area, making it longer arrows, and just 2 neutrals between you and the shore? Maybe the MS 1,2,3 could hit M3, then go to MS8 and 9?
of the 35 games i analysed above, the player who started with kum kale won 18 games and lost 17 games, which shows no advantage. as mentioned above, i believe this is because the player who starts with kum kale is handicapped by also having a minesweeper. we shall not be changing the minesweeper attack routes, which are well-established and not defective
per se. however, adding a +2 auto-deploy bonus to the minesweeper locations ms4 to ms9 is well worth considering, needing only a one-character change to the legend and no change to the map itself.
i especially recommend that we reduce the first-turn advantage by increasing the neutrals on 12 of the landing beaches from n3 to n4 and on l06 from n6 to n7, which stops so many of the beaches from being overrun before player two has even had a turn.
ian.
