TRAFALGAR [12.4.2012] QUENCHED (V65)

[cairnswk]

EDIT..see below...

[cairnswk]

...

I take it you're not the pet type then?

C.

au contraire...i luvs la chien
but i read this

neutering - noting or pertaining to a gender that refers to things classed as neither masculine nor feminine.

and didn't think it applied to m/f gender...how stupid of me.
I plead tired after a couple of lecture on business organisations and personal business skills

[cairnswk]

Well - if they're there - they can be fought over - and could provide someone a little haven to attempt to build a bonus from...

I like the idea of neutering them.

C.

I'm kinda on board with C on this one. I'd prefer to have them stay to ensure there is no outcry from the historians.
Neutralizing those two ships is better if it assists with the bonus (why didn't i think of that )

[Incandenza]

Jesus, you guys slay me. "Outcry from the historians"? Seriously? You guys do realize that the median age on this site is like fifteen, right? So on the off chance that a Trafalgar buff or two has a problem with the exclusion of those two ships, you'd rather have two totally worthless neutral terits that the thousands of people who will play the map will see and wonder "why on god's green earth did that butterfly fellow leave those ships in?"

C'mon, historical accuracy is historical accuracy, and I'm one of the biggest history weenies on the site, but given that there are sound gameplay reasons for getting rids of those ships (not to mention reducing the number of safe terits at the tail of the british column), and basically zero sound gameplay reasons for keeping them as neutrals (no one will ever ever EVER take those two terits, unless they're neutral 1's, and even then, what's the bloody point?), can't we just lose the ships? Please?

[the.killing.44]

You guys do realize that the median age on this site is like fifteen, right?

But yes, I'm still with Inc. The ships are so out of the way sitting in the back, surrounded by fellow Brits and hold no value beyond the fact that they contribute to the British bonus with rather large requirements (8 ships), and that coupled with all that's going on in the middle of the battle — commanders, smaller bonuses, other … crap — I doubt they'll come into play in the least. Basically you'd need to be in an unlimited game with a great drop of those British on the left to take even one, then the other by the next turn. You then have reached the point where you've passed the halfway point of the British bonus, which is giving you the advantage of one whole troop while you have to hold at least 3 more ships than the Spaniards and French, plus you just hit 6 troops from 2 terts of neutrals! Gratz!

The British bonus is pretty annoying as is, even with that stronghold up to the northwest. I'm not against it, as it's pretty good for balancing out the bonus structure, but I don't think it'll come into play often, and most definitely not if there are 3 neutrals sitting in the wayyyy back. Getting rid of them and dropping the ship req. to 7 would be best, not only from the drop % standpoint but, like said, it'll bring the Brits into play more, and not just for the "1 per 3 terts" standard bonus.

.44

[cairnswk]

Just a map bump
Current version 34 is below:

[cairnswk]

Jesus, you guys slay me. "Outcry from the historians"? Seriously? You guys do realize that the median age on this site is like fifteen, right? So on the off chance that a Trafalgar buff or two has a problem with the exclusion of those two ships, you'd rather have two totally worthless neutral terits that the thousands of people who will play the map will see and wonder "why on god's green earth did that butterfly fellow leave those ships in?"

C'mon, historical accuracy is historical accuracy, and I'm one of the biggest history weenies on the site, but given that there are sound gameplay reasons for getting rids of those ships (not to mention reducing the number of safe terits at the tail of the british column), and basically zero sound gameplay reasons for keeping them as neutrals (no one will ever ever EVER take those two terits, unless they're neutral 1's, and even then, what's the bloody point?), can't we just lose the ships? Please?

Fair comment, and i here you.

..

But yes, I'm still with Inc. The ships are so out of the way sitting in the back, surrounded by fellow Brits and hold no value beyond the fact that they contribute to the British bonus with rather large requirements (8 ships), and that coupled with all that's going on in the middle of the battle — commanders, smaller bonuses, other … crap — I doubt they'll come into play in the least. Basically you'd need to be in an unlimited game with a great drop of those British on the left to take even one, then the other by the next turn. You then have reached the point where you've passed the halfway point of the British bonus, which is giving you the advantage of one whole troop while you have to hold at least 3 more ships than the Spaniards and French, plus you just hit 6 troops from 2 terts of neutrals! Gratz!

The British bonus is pretty annoying as is, even with that stronghold up to the northwest. I'm not against it, as it's pretty good for balancing out the bonus structure, but I don't think it'll come into play often, and most definitely not if there are 3 neutrals sitting in the wayyyy back. Getting rid of them and dropping the ship req. to 7 would be best, not only from the drop % standpoint but, like said, it'll bring the Brits into play more, and not just for the "1 per 3 terts" standard bonus.

.44

What about making Ajax and Agamemnon neutrals so that they have to be conquered.
Afterall, we simply want to reduce the number of starting terts so that is brings down the chances of getting an easy start bonus in 1v1 games.

[the.killing.44]

Hmm … I was going to propose that, but decided to give it a bit more thought. I think that making one of the two (Ajax and Agamemnon) neutral would be good, but both would create a bit too much of a wall, especially because the ships behind them can't get around the two. So ideally (IMO) we'd start one of them — I'm thinking Agamemnon might be the better of the two — neutral 3 and another somewhere on the map. I'm thinking along the lines of Teméraire or Spartiate — the Teméraire is in the middle of things but is a bit of a stretch to get the British bonus (as it connects to only one other Brit) while the other is sitting in the back. Spartiate's probably the better of the two. so, my proposal is:
Agamemnon and Spartiate start neutral, everything else stays as is.

About my point that holding 8 ships for just a +3 and a 1 troop advantage over the others … eh, it still stands but it's fine. I don't see the bonus coming into play mid-game, but hey, same goes with Asia

.44

[cairnswk]

.... so, my proposal is:
Agamemnon and Spartiate start neutral, everything else stays as is.

Sound goods. Noted on the map.

About my point that holding 8 ships for just a +3 and a 1 troop advantage over the others … eh, it still stands but it's fine. I don't see the bonus coming into play mid-game, but hey, same goes with Asia
.44

See what C and Inca say about this one.

[cairnswk]

Still waiting on inca and yeti's comments.

[Incandenza]

The thing I dislike about agamemmnon starting neutral is that it renders africa kind of worthless, the sort of terit that'll only be taken at the end of the game.

If you're bound and determined to keep britannia and spartiate and not eliminate any of the ships of the line involved with the battle, then make them both neutral 2's. It does the least amount of damage to the rest of the gameplay, I reckon.

[cairnswk]

The thing I dislike about agamemmnon starting neutral is that it renders africa kind of worthless, the sort of terit that'll only be taken at the end of the game.

If you're bound and determined to keep britannia and spartiate and not eliminate any of the ships of the line involved with the battle, then make them both neutral 2's. It does the least amount of damage to the rest of the gameplay, I reckon.

Nice compromise ! I like it.

[Incandenza]

Did we ever come to a consensus on what the commander terits should start as? Since both terits per commander are going to be starting neutral, 3 seems good to me (4 or 5 would be better if it was just the one).

[the.killing.44]

Did we ever come to a consensus on what the commander terits should start as? Since both terits per commander are going to be starting neutral, 3 seems good to me (4 or 5 would be better if it was just the one).

Agree. 3 if both, 4 for one.

.44

[Blitzaholic]

I would need to examine this further, i just do not want this to turn into another pearl harbor map, but I am glad you took my suggestion on PH and going to adjust it a bit to make game play a little more balanced

[Blitzaholic]

cairns i have been noticing you using butterflies for your sigs lately, this your new sig for all your maps?

[cairnswk]

cairns i have been noticing you using butterflies for your sigs lately, this your new sig for all your maps?

yes.

[yeti_c]

The thing I dislike about agamemmnon starting neutral is that it renders africa kind of worthless, the sort of terit that'll only be taken at the end of the game.

If you're bound and determined to keep britannia and spartiate and not eliminate any of the ships of the line involved with the battle, then make them both neutral 2's. It does the least amount of damage to the rest of the gameplay, I reckon.

This one.

C.

[cairnswk]

The thing I dislike about agamemmnon starting neutral is that it renders africa kind of worthless, the sort of terit that'll only be taken at the end of the game.

If you're bound and determined to keep britannia and spartiate and not eliminate any of the ships of the line involved with the battle, then make them both neutral 2's. It does the least amount of damage to the rest of the gameplay, I reckon.

This one.

C.

Excellent. i'll get onto it later this week.

[cairnswk]

From here.....
1. Spartiate and Argememnon will start neutral at 2.
2. I'd prefer to see commanders start with one tert of 4 neutral.
3. Change made to Flagship wording.

Version 35.

[cairnswk]

So in the xml.....
From the notation for Flagship in the legend.....does this mean that if i get 8 British (W) plus Buccantaure plus Victory i get a bonus of +5.

If i have Buccantaure plus Victory but have 5 Spanish (L) +2, do i get +4?

What i am asking so that i can code the xml correctly, is does the Flagship bonus only apply to each line?
That doesn't appear to be clear from the Flagship notation.

[Incandenza]

Ummmmmmmm:

The thing I dislike about agamemmnon starting neutral is that it renders africa kind of worthless, the sort of terit that'll only be taken at the end of the game.

If you're bound and determined to keep britannia and spartiate and not eliminate any of the ships of the line involved with the battle, then make them both neutral 2's. It does the least amount of damage to the rest of the gameplay, I reckon.

This one.

C.

Excellent. i'll get onto it later this week.

And as far as neutral commander terits, things worked ever so much better when each boat has both terits neutral: best bonus situation, best starting terit situation, best "keeping Inc from blowing his brains out" situation, etc... if you don't think people will take them, then bump 'em up to a +2. As it stands, I think they'll get a lot more business than napoleon and wellington simply due to their place in the map.

[cairnswk]

...
And as far as neutral commander terits, things worked ever so much better when each boat has both terits neutral: best bonus situation, best starting terit situation, best "keeping Inc from blowing his brains out" situation, etc... if you don't think people will take them, then bump 'em up to a +2. As it stands, I think they'll get a lot more business than napoleon and wellington simply due to their place in the map.

So.
1. do you want both flagship terts neutral.
2. if so do you want them at 2, 3 or 4 neutral.
3. if single neutral, is it ok to stay at 4 neutral.

And please look at this one.

So in the xml.....
From the notation for Flagship in the legend.....does this mean that if i get 8 British (W) plus Buccantaure plus Victory i get a bonus of +5.

If i have Buccantaure plus Victory but have 5 Spanish (L) +2, do i get +4?

What i am asking so that i can code the xml correctly, is does the Flagship bonus only apply to each line?
That doesn't appear to be clear from the Flagship notation.

[cairnswk]

I would need to examine this further, i just do not want this to turn into another pearl harbor map, but I am glad you took my suggestion on PH and going to adjust it a bit to make game play a little more balanced

OK, could you please comment on this while we are adjusting bonuses etc. at the moment.

[Incandenza]

So.
1. do you want both flagship terts neutral.
2. if so do you want them at 2, 3 or 4 neutral.
3. if single neutral, is it ok to stay at 4 neutral.

1. please
2. 2's if the bonus is +1, 3's if you bump it up to +2

So in the xml.....
From the notation for Flagship in the legend.....does this mean that if i get 8 British (W) plus Buccantaure plus Victory i get a bonus of +5.

If i have Buccantaure plus Victory but have 5 Spanish (L) +2, do i get +4?

What i am asking so that i can code the xml correctly, is does the Flagship bonus only apply to each line?
That doesn't appear to be clear from the Flagship notation.

Um, xml isn't exactly my forte. That's definitely a yeti question.