[Abandoned] Defend America

[koontz1973]

It possibly can be done, but then I would have to change the name of the map and call it "Attack America"

It could be possible with 6 players or less, you all attack America. A name change might be appropriate.

I wonder if more or less people would play "Defend America" vs "Attack America."


--Andy

Any way we can find this out. Maybe a poll or something?

[AndyDufresne]

It possibly can be done, but then I would have to change the name of the map and call it "Attack America"

It could be possible with 6 players or less, you all attack America. A name change might be appropriate.

I wonder if more or less people would play "Defend America" vs "Attack America."


--Andy

Any way we can find this out. Maybe a poll or something?

My post was more of an idle rumination than a real interest in a poll. But I am still curious.


--Andy

[koontz1973]

Going to sticky this now isaiah40 and send you on your way in a couple of days.

[Gillipig]

Nice map !

[isaiah40]

Reworded some of the instructions a bit to try and make it a little clearer.

Click image to enlarge.

[AndyDufresne]

Looking good, Isaiah. In regards to the legend, since you said you were just working on it, have you thought about flipping the 4th column (I.E. 'You will only.. / All empty regions... / All units withing...') to the left side of the legend? The information therewithin seems like info I'd want to read over first before moving onto the icon information (reading left to right more so).

Additionally in terms of the legend, I am always in favor of adding bullet points if you aren't using space to separate main ideas (like the 4th column does with spacing).

I'll check back with some other feedback soon hopefully!


--Andy

[isaiah40]

Looking good, Isaiah. In regards to the legend, since you said you were just working on it, have you thought about flipping the 4th column (I.E. 'You will only.. / All empty regions... / All units withing...') to the left side of the legend? The information therewithin seems like info I'd want to read over first before moving onto the icon information (reading left to right more so).

Additionally in terms of the legend, I am always in favor of adding bullet points if you aren't using space to separate main ideas (like the 4th column does with spacing).

I'll check back with some other feedback soon hopefully!


--Andy

All of the above are good suggestions and will be done for the next updatre.

[koontz1973]

As promised before the strike (communism at its finest ), here is your stamp. Good luck.

koontz

[isaiah40]

A quick update, just switched the legend around per the monkeys suggestion, * hands Andy another banana*

Click image to enlarge.

[nolefan5311]

The first thing that comes to mind is that the legend needs some clarification as far as what can and can't be attacked. The attack routes all seem a little incoherent. So I think the best solution is to list what can't be attacked as opposed to what can be attacked. That'll significantly reduce space usage in the legend and clear things up quite a bit.

Suggestions:

Empty Regions
Can attack all adjacent regions

INF
Can attack all adjacent regions except for Bombers.

Fighters
Attack range of 1
Bombard range of 2
(since there appears to not be any restriction on what Fighters can attack)

Bombers
Attack range of 2
Bombard range of 3
Can't attack Fighters or other Bombers

Hover-Tanks
Attack range of 2.
Can't attack Fighters or Bombers

Cities
Can attack all adjacent regions

Assuming this is all correct, what do you think?

[tkr4lf]

The first thing that comes to mind is that the legend needs some clarification as far as what can and can't be attacked. The attack routes all seem a little incoherent. So I think the best solution is to list what can't be attacked as opposed to what can be attacked. That'll significantly reduce space usage in the legend and clear things up quite a bit.

Suggestions:

Empty Regions
Can attack all adjacent regions

INF
Can attack all adjacent regions except for Bombers.

Fighters
Attack range of 1
Bombard range of 2
(since there appears to not be any restriction on what Fighters can attack)

Bombers
Attack range of 2
Bombard range of 3
Can't attack Fighters or other Bombers

Hover-Tanks
Attack range of 2.
Can't attack Fighters or Bombers

Cities
Can attack all adjacent regions

Assuming this is all correct, what do you think?

This would be a much better way of listing the information. As it is, it's very unclear what attacks what.

Nolefan's suggestions would go a long way towards clearing up the attack routes.

My 2 cents.

[isaiah40]

The first thing that comes to mind is that the legend needs some clarification as far as what can and can't be attacked. The attack routes all seem a little incoherent. So I think the best solution is to list what can't be attacked as opposed to what can be attacked. That'll significantly reduce space usage in the legend and clear things up quite a bit.

Suggestions:

Empty Regions
Can attack all adjacent regions

INF
Can attack all adjacent regions except for Bombers.

Fighters
Attack range of 1
Bombard range of 2
(since there appears to not be any restriction on what Fighters can attack)

Bombers
Attack range of 2
Bombard range of 3
Can't attack Fighters or other Bombers

Hover-Tanks
Attack range of 2.
Can't attack Fighters or Bombers

Cities
Can attack all adjacent regions

Assuming this is all correct, what do you think?

I can deal with these suggestions with the exception of the Bombers bombard range. I would prefer to leave it worded as it is now "Bombards 3 regions away". Bombard "range" denotes up to the regions.

[nolefan5311]

The first thing that comes to mind is that the legend needs some clarification as far as what can and can't be attacked. The attack routes all seem a little incoherent. So I think the best solution is to list what can't be attacked as opposed to what can be attacked. That'll significantly reduce space usage in the legend and clear things up quite a bit.

Suggestions:

Empty Regions
Can attack all adjacent regions

INF
Can attack all adjacent regions except for Bombers.

Fighters
Attack range of 1
Bombard range of 2
(since there appears to not be any restriction on what Fighters can attack)

Bombers
Attack range of 2
Bombard range of 3
Can't attack Fighters or other Bombers

Hover-Tanks
Attack range of 2.
Can't attack Fighters or Bombers

Cities
Can attack all adjacent regions

Assuming this is all correct, what do you think?

I can deal with these suggestions with the exception of the Bombers bombard range. I would prefer to leave it worded as it is now "Bombards 3 regions away". Bombard "range" denotes up to the regions.

I honestly don't see a difference, but if that's what you want to go with, that's fine.

[isaiah40]

Legend has been updated. Added an outline around the map.

Click image to enlarge.

Now for the in-depth game-play analysis please!!

Updated OP with starting neutrals, autodeploys etc.

[Swimmerdude99]

just a personal opinion, shouldn't the nuetrals for the territories that have higher auto deploy have a higher neutral count? for instance the bommer gets +3, granted it can't attack planes or other bombers, but seriously?! I mean think about it, you kill 3 nuetrals to MAKE up the troops you kill in one turn. I think that will turn into the only type of territ people want, obviously it will be most valuable even if you raise it to a higher nuetral count, maybe the +1 autos could be nuetral 2, then +2 autos are nuetral 3, and then the +3 autos are nuetral 4? just throwing that out there

[iancanton]

Fighters
Attack range of 1

Cities
Can attack all adjacent regions

these ought to be expressed in the same way.

maybe the +1 autos could be nuetral 2, then +2 autos are nuetral 3, and then the +3 autos are nuetral 4?

this idea is well worth considering.

the poor guys in the middle will always have a handicap in multiplayer games. try moving the purple starting fighter from f9 to f8 and the orange one from f11 to f12, so that purple and orange aren't fighting each other and have more expansion room before they tread on each other's toes. slightly more infantry in the middle will also help their cause. what do the coloured areas signify?

seato was actually a real organisation historically, allied to the usa. eato, on the other hand, implies countries that are more northerly, such as china.

south american alliance might sound better as alleanza lat-am or something similar.

ian.

[isaiah40]

Fighters
Attack range of 1

Cities
Can attack all adjacent regions

these ought to be expressed in the same way.

This can be done easily.

maybe the +1 autos could be nuetral 2, then +2 autos are nuetral 3, and then the +3 autos are nuetral 4?

this idea is well worth considering.

This will be done.

the poor guys in the middle will always have a handicap in multiplayer games. try moving the purple starting fighter from f9 to f8 and the orange one from f11 to f12, so that purple and orange aren't fighting each other and have more expansion room before they tread on each other's toes. slightly more infantry in the middle will also help their cause. what do the coloured areas signify?

Moving F9 to F8 and F11 to F12 could be done. How's this, Instead of moving F11 to F12, how about if I move INF15 down to where M2 is, and then move F11 in that spot. I can then add in another INF where F11 used to be.

As for the colored regions, just to have a battle map with different fronts on it. Also to make naming the regions a little easier, and to find the regions easier.

seato was actually a real organisation historically, allied to the usa. eato, on the other hand, implies countries that are more northerly, such as china.

south american alliance might sound better as alleanza lat-am or something similar.

ian. [/quote]
Yea I know about SEATO, and that is was disbanded, which is why I used it. But I can name it EATO. ANd I agree about the SAA, I'll steal your suggestion!

[iancanton]

the poor guys in the middle will always have a handicap in multiplayer games.

this is the guiding principle for most of my comments below.

Moving F9 to F8 and F11 to F12 could be done.

a strategically-placed impassable will be needed to put f8 out of range of b3.

How's this, Instead of moving F11 to F12, how about if I move INF15 down to where M2 is, and then move F11 in that spot. I can then add in another INF where F11 used to be.

m2 is a good choice for an orange fighter because b6 cannot bombard it. moving a fighter to inf15 isn't so good because there's already a fighter in that corner. i prefer a less valuable city (boston?) on ef5 instead, with ef5 going to the current inf15.

there are more options for shifting the blue (did i say purple?) forces southward, away from orange, if wave 3 doesn't connect to las cruces.

alleanza

as it turns out, this is italian! spanish is alianza.

ian.

[nolefan5311]

Any update coming on this one? Been over 3 weeks since the last one.

[isaiah40]

Any update coming on this one? Been over 3 weeks since the last one.

It has!? Oh my, time to get busy again, well, unbusy from RL, and busy in relaxation!

[nolefan5311]

As it appears development on this map has stalled (last update was September 3), this map is being Moved to the Recycling Bin for the time being. If the mapmaker wants to continue with the map, then one of the Foundry Moderators will be able to help put the thread back into the Foundry system, after an update has been made.

[isaiah40]

A small update:

- Changed the colors for the middle two areas
- Renamed SEATO to EATO
- Renamed South American Alliance to Alianza Lat-AM
- Moved F9 starting position down to F8
- Removed LA and Columbia so now all the waves only have direct access to 1 city each

Click image to enlarge.

[koontz1973]

Back in?

[isaiah40]

Back in?

I 'll give one guess, and it may or may not count!

[koontz1973]

Back in?

I 'll give one guess, and it may or may not count!

Well, if you are going to get funny about it, I will just move this.

[Moved]