Duck & Cover [Quenched]

[rebelman]

your borders to be protected are are as follows
us 2
europe 3
africa 2
russia 7
asia 4

Not sure how you figured this... russia doesn't even have 7 territories.

woops it is bordered by 7 countries this should have been a 5 not a 7

[I GOT SERVED]

This is a very cool map, I must say.

I think you should most definitely add the korean peninsula. More territories would be good, I'd say.

As for cuba, maybe you could add that, but make it a part of the russia bonus, with a yellow mushroom cloud. Also, maybe you could connect it to western europe with a basic attack route.

I'm still not sure about adding turkey, though.

[edbeard]

sorry if this was mentioned just popping in quickly...


alaska and siberia connect directly, but also alaska can bombard siberia. will this be an XML problem? I don't think it will allow you to do both options.

someone might say to this, "if you can attack it, why would you want to bombard it?" well because if I bombard, then I don't have to send one of my armies over AND there is a still 1 neutral army there as an extra border to alaska.

[DiM]

sorry if this was mentioned just popping in quickly...


alaska and siberia connect directly, but also alaska can bombard siberia. will this be an XML problem? I don't think it will allow you to do both options.

someone might say to this, "if you can attack it, why would you want to bombard it?" well because if I bombard, then I don't have to send one of my armies over AND there is a still 1 neutral army there as an extra border to alaska.

nope not possible to do both things.

[Coleman]

sorry if this was mentioned just popping in quickly...


alaska and siberia connect directly, but also alaska can bombard siberia. will this be an XML problem? I don't think it will allow you to do both options.

someone might say to this, "if you can attack it, why would you want to bombard it?" well because if I bombard, then I don't have to send one of my armies over AND there is a still 1 neutral army there as an extra border to alaska.

nope not possible to do both things.

I'd like to see what the game tries to do if you code it that way. I'm guessing the site might just outright reject the xml in such a case though.

[oaktown]

sorry if this was mentioned just popping in quickly...


alaska and siberia connect directly, but also alaska can bombard siberia. will this be an XML problem? I don't think it will allow you to do both options.

someone might say to this, "if you can attack it, why would you want to bombard it?" well because if I bombard, then I don't have to send one of my armies over AND there is a still 1 neutral army there as an extra border to alaska.

Huh, good catch edbeard. I could certainly code it so that only the central US plane can bombard Siberia, but you're right in that there would be times that you'd rather bombard. Better to just move/remove either the plane or the target. I'm thinking the plane might be better in either western US or Greenland anyway, since Alaska is already in position to attack the russians.

[oaktown]

Two changes:
• Added Korea, which is nice because now Japan isn't a dead-end, and Asia has one more non-border territory.
• Moved the Alaska bomber back to Western USA to avoid problems

We're up to 25 territories... much larger and it isn't a 'small' map anymore for game play purposes. I think if I add any more I will also start removing others to keep the number down. This is a map for kids, after all!

[Incandenza]

I dig this concept. I had an idea for some sort of eschaton map, where every territory could bombard every other territory that it didn't share a border with, but I think this more limited nuclear exchange works better.

Plus the duck-and-cover theme is deadly. I remember watching that 'atomic cafe' movie in high school, which had a lot of those fifties-style in-case-of-nuclear-attack spots, so this takes me back.

[casper]

Great map Oaktown! Reminds me of the intro to the original Fallout video game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkBNKa2KXZE

[Rictus]

Love the concept, love the map - please keep it small!!! Looking forward to seeing this develop.

[I GOT SERVED]

Since you got rid of the airplane on Alaska, I think you should add an airplane on Greenland. But that would make it an un-even amount of airplanes, maybe add another airplane on China?

[bonobo`s son]

only the lettertype of bonuses has to change for the rest a perfect map

[oaktown]

Since you got rid of the airplane on Alaska, I think you should add an airplane on Greenland. But that would make it an un-even amount of airplanes, maybe add another airplane on China?

I thought about putting the second airplane in greenland rather than western US. I'd rather just move it than put a plane in china - I don't believe China was much a nuclear force from 1951-1955, the intended era of this map. The greenland plane would make more sense anyway - as a border country you'd already have forces there, so you a nuclear attack from there would come as more of a surprise than west us where forces can mean only one thing.

[ps2civxr20]

you could shrink it by just making a east and west usa and have egypt absorbed into north africa

[cairnswk]

Oaktown...sorry for the delay in posting on this here your map.

Looks likes a great small map concept that everyone might enjoy.

Coleman, i'm OK to move this to the Foundry.

[oaktown]

Changes to this version:
• Merged the African territories as suggested; we're back to 24, which is nice, and it eliminates what would have been a bottleneck in a pointless region of the map.
• Moved the second B-52 to Greenland; now both USSR and N. America have a plane in a border territory, which is nice or balance.
• Changed the fun font, as suggested. I think this is still fun and 50s, only much easier to read. The bonus text looks a bit dark now - I can turn it down with the next update.
• Took the blast target off of UK, and dropped the bonus to +1.
• Actually made the overall size smaller... 645 x 645, and this is the LARGE map. I haven't fussed with a small map yet.

I'd still like feedback regarding the bonuses, which i haven't really put much thought into. I prefer to play the larger maps where you can get away with any crazy bonuses - in this map it is important to get it right.

[asl80]

looking good.
text font is better - but looks a little cramped.

(Asia +4 seems a little much, with only one bombing spot, but if each retreat to their respective sides of America | Russia, for example {which would be nice for gameplay} then the east is set up with a much better capacity to hold and amasss armies, if they say held siberia and scandanavia then begun to annex the rest of the east. So - maybe increase america to +5) - although, if all america has to do is hold 8
territories then focus on bombard they would be ok, except that they have five nuke spots to defend.
Also, one could just head straight for asia - defend only 4 territories and get as much as america who needs to defend seven.

Sorry, all this is not clear, but the point is that asia has too much at the moment.

8 to 4 - West vs East, hmmm.
Maybe you could put a wall (i.e. quasi Berlin wall) between western europe and east bloc and somehow incorporate europe etc. into the wetern block? Say - link b/w east US and West Europe, but keep the bonus for europe low. (West europe would still have to defend against africa - though might be good if it had to defend from middle east as well)

If too sketchy - will try and clear up when my head get's that priveledge itself.
Good Luck.

[unriggable]

You should get rid of africa altogether.

[yamahafazer]

this looks like it would be a pig to play... but at the same time stragely fun too...

[oaktown]

You should get rid of africa altogether.

I've been thinking the same thing. We would still have two routes from europe to asia, so africa doesn't add anything to the game play. It would mean inserting another territory, because I'd like to stay at 24, which is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6. 23 is prime and useless for CC. So, thoughts on where the 24th territory should go?

I think I need to add an attack route from eastern US to the UK, to achieve the East v. West effect that asl80 was disjointedly trying to suggest. It makes Europe harder to hold, so it could bump back up to a +2, but doing so makes Europe a more valuable starting position and it gives the N. American player somewhere to go other than crashing through what will probably be a large stack in siberia.

I'm also concerned that, for a small map, it will be awfully hard for a player to grab that first bonus. Europe is achievable - though hard to hold - but I probably need a second or even third smaller bonus region.

edit Possible solution: I'm going to rework the map to turn asia into two continents: Asia, with five terits/2 borders, and Middle East, with 3 terits/2 borders; Middle East will be Persia, Turkey, and Arab States. Both will be easier to take and have smaller bonuses, maybe 3 and 1 respectively. The addition of turkey brings us nck to 24. I'll post something next week... out of town this weekend.

[I GOT SERVED]

edit Possible solution: I'm going to rework the map to turn asia into two continents: Asia, with five terits/2 borders, and Middle East, with 3 terits/2 borders; Middle East will be Persia, Turkey, and Arab States. Both will be easier to take and have smaller bonuses, maybe 3 and 1 respectively. The addition of turkey brings us nck to 24. I'll post something next week... out of town this weekend.

I have some ideas about this extra territory business to replace africa. But I'll wait and see what you do with the next update.

[owenshooter]

i'm down with it...

[unriggable]

Unsure if this would be accurate, but you could add hawaii as a back door type-of thing.

[jako]

hawaii wouldnt work. hawaii's location is more north-east of western US. its not close enough to russia for a sea route attack. it would just be another dead-end.

[Chirondom]

Theoretically, if you dropped Africa you could add in France and Spain as seperate territs, but I like having Africa.