Duck & Cover [Quenched]

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:04 pm

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

Nah, the territs would be too small. I suggest adding hawaii.

yamahafazer · Post by **yamahafazer** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:09 pm

Ye spliting up middle east would seem to be they easyest way of doing it

I GOT SERVED · Post by **I GOT SERVED** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:45 pm

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

If there was a back door dealy, I'd say add Cuba. But that probably won't happen.

soundout9 · Post by **soundout9** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:59 pm

I love this map final forge it!!!

spiesr · Post by **spiesr** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:04 pm

Perhaps add bombing from turkey & cuba?

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:11 pm

spiesr wrote:Perhaps add bombing from turkey & cuba?

That makes no sense, turkey didnt have those missiles and they certainly wouldnt aim them at cuba.

spiesr · Post by **spiesr** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:39 pm

Turkey bombing Soviets * Cuba bombimg US

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:42 pm

spiesr wrote:Turkey bombing Soviets * Cuba bombimg US

this map takes place in the 1950s - I've already noted above that castro's revolution didn't happen until 1959, and Kruschev didn't try to put missiles there until 1962.

Plus I don't want to add more territories... if anybody has a suggestion for adding a territory it should be accompanied by a suggestion of which territory we'll delete to make room for it.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:27 pm

here's what is new and why:
• Africa is no longer in play. We're going to keep the attention on europe, asia, and north america, which is where it should be for a 1950s Atomic Era map.
• Turkey is new, and is now a part of the Middle East bonus region.
• New "back door" everybody has been asking for is from eastern US to UK.

The bonuses finally make sense, I think. In a two player stand-off it could be played east vs. west where in:
N. America+Europe (west) are worth a total of 7 armies per turn for 11 territories with three borders (not including bombardables), and
Asia+USSR+Middle East (east) are worth a total of 7 armies per turn for 13 territories with three borders (not including bombardables).
That's equal total bonuses for east vs. west. East has more territories to initially conquer, but it will be easier to do so because the asian and middle eastern bonuses will come pretty more quickly than will n. America.

I'm sure somebody will argue that Asia is too low at +2, but it's five territories with just two borders, and bonuses should be deflated a bit given the size of the map. Europe, meanwhile, is a +2 for only three territories, but all three are border states.

This all makes sense to me, but i'd appreciate feedback - bonuses are touchy on a map this size.

Still on my to-do list: fun 50s design work around the border, and I'm thinking I should lose one or both of the Canadian nuclear targets to reduce the number of western states to defend... grabbing N. America is going to be a bitch.

yamahafazer · Post by **yamahafazer** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:48 am

It's looking good oaktown... nice going.

I can see why your thinking of taking out one of the nuclear targets in the west. If you take one out I think as far as gameplay goes taking the one on "Western U.S." would seem best. However if you do take it out I think you sould take one out of the east too so that bouth sides have the same number of nuclear targets. I think "Kazahk" would probably do the job. However the east would still have the disadvantige of the fact that bouth of it's air bases could still be bomed where as the U.S.'s you can only bome one of them, thus making it harder to stop the bombardments coming over to the east.

One last thing. In memory of the fact that the Russia made the biggest Nuc in history seeing as there is space to do it might you think of making the mushroom in Canada bigger. To give you an idea of how big it was incase you don't know, with this one bome they could,(and probably still could if they wanted to

) just by droping one in the center of London, take out EVERYTHING in the south east corner of Briton. Just a thought.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:22 am

Nothing exciting with this update... pulled two nuclear targets that were bothering me - canada and kazahk. Too hard to hold a bonus with five targets in the middle of the continents like that. Also added some touches to the exterior, like the colors behind the legend.

Elijah S · Post by **Elijah S** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:02 am

This is my first look at this... Great idea!

In light of the coming of more and more complicated, highly technical maps, I think this is a breath of fresh air and a lot of people will enjoy playing it!

^5

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:57 am

Is the yellow for the speech bubble supposed to be not perfectly in there? because I love it! Also the color behind the legend looks great.

yamahafazer · Post by **yamahafazer** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:36 am

Nice work oaktown...

Any chance of a big mushroom???

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:52 am

yamahafazer wrote:Nice work oaktown...

Any chance of a big mushroom???

Only if you want there to be.

yamahafazer · Post by **yamahafazer** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:40 am

unriggable wrote:
yamahafazer wrote:Nice work oaktown...

Any chance of a big mushroom???
Only if you want there to be.

Well if you look at the last post on page 4 you'll see why I'm asking if others want one or not.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:00 am

Should be renamed to "Global Thermal Nucler War"!!!!! (See War Games!)

C.

yamahafazer · Post by **yamahafazer** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:10 am

yeti_c wrote:Should be renamed to "Global Thermal Nucler War"!!!!! (See War Games!)

C.

lol that is a good film.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:12 am

yeti_c wrote:Should be renamed to "Global Thermal Nucler War"!!!!! (See War Games!)

C.

Indeed, it would seem that the only winning move... is not to play.

yamahafazer wrote:Nice work oaktown...
Any chance of a big mushroom???

The reference to the largest bomb ever built would probably require some explanation or be lost on most players, who would just wonder why one of the mushroom clouds was twice as big as the others. Anyway, the Tsar bomb wasn't made until 1961, which is a wee-bit past the intended era of this map.

I'm going to work on the planes, which do indeed look too much like commercial aircraft. Maybe some roundels on the wings will help?

yamahafazer · Post by **yamahafazer** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:28 am

oaktown wrote:
yeti_c wrote:Should be renamed to "Global Thermal Nucler War"!!!!! (See War Games!)

C.
Indeed, it would seem that the only winning move... is not to play.

yamahafazer wrote:Nice work oaktown...
Any chance of a big mushroom???
The reference to the largest bomb ever built would probably require some explanation or be lost on most players, who would just wonder why one of the mushroom clouds was twice as big as the others. Anyway, the Tsar bomb wasn't made until 1961, which is a wee-bit past the intended era of this map.

I'm going to work on the planes, which do indeed look too much like commercial aircraft. Maybe some roundels on the wings will help?

Ok then. Just thought I'd ask...

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:57 am

here's a thought... what if the base/minimum army placement was two instead of three, and it went to three at nine, four at 12, etc? This would be easy enough to achieve in the XML, and it would reflect the smallness of the map. With just 24 territories every size game would start you at fewer than 9 territories, thus 2 armies for your first turn, and it would reduce the 'luck of the draw' of getting to go first.

It could also lead to an increase in early action in two and three players games, since adding that 9th territory is huge.

RobinJ · Post by **RobinJ** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:24 pm

This was suggested for doodle earth asd well. Could add more strategy to the map but, then again, perhaps people like the quick domination of doodle earth

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:44 pm

I don't like the idea. Would slow the game down by a lot.

Although it would be fun to try.
CC needs scenario maps...

I GOT SERVED · Post by **I GOT SERVED** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:35 pm

I'm not 100% sure on the idea of 2 armies instead of 3. Both have their pros and cons, but frankly I feel that it would just annoy a lot of players, and there would be a lot of "OMG WHERES MY THIRD ARMY".

I can go either way on this issue.

And I also like the new border designs.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:52 pm

I GOT SERVED wrote:I'm not 100% sure on the idea of 2 armies instead of 3. Both have their pros and cons, but frankly I feel that it would just annoy a lot of players, and there would be a lot of "OMG WHERES MY THIRD ARMY".

yeah, while I think it would be good for small map gameplay, the 3 army minimum may be the one play feature that you don't mess with. And it would really screw somebody once they fell behind.

The biggest reason I'm leaning against it is that it will mess up the simplicity of the board to have to explain it!