[Capital Competition] Middle Ages

[the.killing.44]

Quick thing: "Barrack" should be "Barracks."

[thenobodies80]

I'll fix it asap

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

How's the fixing of the last detail going? We've just passed the one month anniversary of the last map and XML being submitted and still no Middle Ages map to play in beta

[thenobodies80]

How's the fixing of the last detail going?

It's going well. I've fixed the mispelled name and changed prefecture in town hall on both images (updated versions not posted yet).
Need to do the same thing with the xml and recheck it, that's all...
Unluckily, I can't work on it before tomorrow.
But, in the meanwhile, why not to take a look at my other map ? (click on the signature)

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

How's the fixing of the last detail going?

It's going well. I've fixed the mispelled name and changed prefecture in town hall on both images (updated versions not posted yet).
Need to do the same thing with the xml and recheck it, that's all...
Unluckily, I can't work on it before tomorrow.
But, in the meanwhile, why not to take a look at my other map ? (click on the signature)

So it sounds like we should be seeing the map in beta within a week or so? If so, that would be awesome

I took a quick look at your other map too and it looks interesting. It's nice to see a map with an objective that's fairly easy to obtain

[MrBenn]

Things here are looking pretty good... the reason things are being held up should be be made clear shortly

[Victor Sullivan]

I think I need to stress my previous point again: It's hard to distinguish between the different bonus areas at a glance, and you have to constantly consult the legend and check the names of the territories to keep track of where the borders are. IMO, this has got to be fixed before Beta.

-Sully

[thenobodies80]

I think I need to stress my previous point again: It's hard to distinguish between the different bonus areas at a glance, and you have to constantly consult the legend and check the names of the territories to keep track of where the borders are. IMO, this has got to be fixed before Beta.

-Sully

This map will not have coloured names or regions, exactly for this reason:

The map already has so many colours in it, adding the colourful glows is just too much...

Buildings are coloured, cities have labels also written on the map...other bonuses are easy to distinguish using names and a bit of open mind......i think it's enough.
But VS, i took a note about it, don't worry...just let me see how it goes with it as it is now.
Anyway, it looks me absurd to read: "you have to constantly consult the legend"
1. where and when you played it? Sorry i'm joking. But i think that the mix between graphics and gameplay make this map really easy to understand/play. I bet you'll need no more than a couple of turns to understand what should be your move during the next turn, what you have to do to hold a bonus, etc...in other word how to play it...
2. Isn't the legend on the map exactly for being consulted?
There's no map that can be played without reading costantly the legend, or at least till you've learned how to play it. The legend is exactly the part of the map that give you the final word about something that is not yet clear for you.

**************************

Now, here the latest files

http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/3/21/ ... eAges2.xml
http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/3/21/ ... Ages.S.png - Small version
http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/3/21/ ... Ages.L.png - Large version

The small version is now 646x600 to increase readability.
Also the legend is less dark for the same reason

[MrBenn]

[MrBenn]

• • • • Beta - Quenching

---The Final Forge period has concluded for the Middle Ages Map. All objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Beta Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready for BETA Play. After an extended period of time in BETA and once all quirks and issues have been resolved, the map will be put into Full Play (barring any Lack vetoes).

Conquer Club, enjoy!

• • • • • • 

While the map is in BETA Play, there are a couple of administrative tasks that are required of the mapmaker(s) in addition to the initial gameplay testing:

• 1. Please ensure that the first post of the thread contains all the necessary information to help future visitors to the development thread; it's particularly important to ensure the most recent images are there, along with any helpful guides (such as gameplay quirks/nuances or the location/size of any starting neutrals etc.)
  2. Please update the Map Information Portal with details of your map
  3. Finally, it is the responsibility of the mapmaker(s) to ensure that they respond to further feedback in a timely and constructive manner.

--MrBenn

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Let me be the first to say hooray! and thanks Mr. Benn and Nobodies

[MrBenn]

This map has now been uploaded for Beta Play

[OliverFA]

¡Congratulations on making to map to the beat stage! I will join some games to see if I can provide some humble feedback.

[phantomzero]

Very interesting to see how the new Capital XML gameplay works. I couldn't believe that when I took my opponents last castle I automatically one the game. I didn't need to wait for him to start! Very fun so far.

The small map seems a little small for my eyes to read but I'm getting used to it.

[tec805]

"Yana palace isn't 9 neutral like Nyw palace"

Triples Game 8452370. If the holding team was to go first they would probably be able to hold an additional city. Unless I'm doing the rolling, because the dice gods do not like me

[thenobodies80]

You are right.
I'll fix this asap

[thenobodies80]

The new file was sent to Lack.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/3/21/ ... eAges3.xml

[DJENRE]

Congrats!
Your map is really interesting. Bonus are good as it's more intereting to hold a city than outside bonuses. Keep it like that it's perfect.
I gonna send u a pm regarding a tourney on middle age.
Thanks
DJENRE

[thenobodies80]

The new xml was uploaded by lackattack

[DJENRE]

good to know.

[Commander62890]

I wrote this for my buddies, but I figured I'd post it here as well:




I love this map... there's so many different strategies!

The unique thing about this map is the fact that everyone starts with 9 armies on their Palace(s), but that it's not a conquest map. There are really only a few neutrals. The 9-stack is behind your own lines, so you need to fort out of it to get those armies in play (unless your enemy makes a bad move and exposes your Palace without being able to do any damage to it).

However, unless you fort directly to your own territory that is blocking your Palace (the Square), you expose your Palace to attack. If you lose all your Palaces, you are immediately eliminated from the game and all your troops go neutral.

In trips and quads, you need to be very careful about that... everyone only starts with 1 Palace. Killing enemy Palaces and protecting your own will probably be the main goal of your team. On the one hand, you need to protect your team's Palaces. On the other hand, you should really try to play it aggressive - clear the area around your own Palace, thereby protecting it, and fort your Palace to a teammate... who then tries to take out an enemy Palace for an elimination! If you can't accomplish this, then just fort your Palace to your Square, so that it's at the very least in play, and you can use it next turn. By doing this, the enemy still needs to go through 11,1 to kill you, so it's a very good defensive play, with some offensive opportunities for the next round. The only problem with that plan is that you probably won't be able to reach an enemy Palace, so it's not going to help you get an elimination in the near future.

Now, in doubles, it's very different. You start with 2 Palaces rather than 1, so you can afford to fort one wherever you like with no fear. You can fort one to a teammate in round 1, giving him a quick 11 stack, even if that exposes your Palace... because you have another Palace with 9 armies on it. The Palaces are not a bonus, and are therefore less important in doubles. You still need to be a little bit careful, though, especially if you lose 1 Palace or when cards come out.
In doubles, it's much more about bonuses and territory count (and later, cards) than trying to kill a Palace and protecting your own. There are a few pretty good bonuses, and you must decide which ones are the best choices for your drop. It's very important to fort out of your Palaces in rounds 1+2, to get them in play and help increase your territory count.

It's important to get the 9 Palace armies in play in trips and quads as well, but sometimes you'll want to leave it where it is for defense (if they're targeting you), or only fort it to your Square (which borders the Palace) for defense. Also, I haven't fully mastered trips and quads - there may definitely be situations where you'll want to go for bonuses, some of which are fairly easy to obtain (especially in trips). However, from what I've seen, the fight for Palaces usually takes precedence. I had a game where they stacked a player with 22 armies in an attempt to take one of our Palaces, but we took out that player's Palace right before his turn, turning his 22-stack into neutral.

All in all, it's an incredible map, partly because the strategy in doubles is so very different from the strategy in trips and quads. I'm still figuring out all the complexities of trips and quads, but I think I've got doubles pretty much down pat.

My only concern right now is "first turn advantage," which is probably pretty big.
Nothing you can really do about that, and I'm not even sure yet if it's an issue.

[LewisJB3]

Yayt has 4 territories to defend and only receives a 3 man bonus. Seems disproportionate to some of the other cities. Just a thought.

Oh, btw, love the map

[MrBenn]

My only concern right now is "first turn advantage," which is probably pretty big.
Nothing you can really do about that, and I'm not even sure yet if it's an issue.

When developing the gameplay for the competition map, we took care to ensure that the 9-stack cannot be used to attack in the first round, thereby reducing the attackers advantage in round 1. I don;t think there's really much else that can be done about it to be honest...

[Commander62890]

My only concern right now is "first turn advantage," which is probably pretty big.
Nothing you can really do about that, and I'm not even sure yet if it's an issue.

When developing the gameplay for the competition map, we took care to ensure that the 9-stack cannot be used to attack in the first round, thereby reducing the attackers advantage in round 1. I don;t think there's really much else that can be done about it to be honest...

Right, and that helps a lot.

But the first team can still fort out of their Palace first and use it first... it can make a difference.

There's nothing that can be done about it, though, if you want to keep the map as interesting as it is right now
- The 9-stack is a big appeal, and its pros far outweigh this con.



Also, I've been looking at this a bit, and it looks like Aery Palace is a damn tough place to start in team games. With the neutral 2 on Gate C bordering 5 territories, that basically means that the guy on Aery Palace can't fort his stack out if the other team knows he's done it. This is in contrast to some of the other Palaces, where, if you clear the area around you, you can leave your Palace relatively unguarded and still feel safe. Not so with Aery... you need to keep a stack there at all times, lest an enemy come through Gate C from any direction. I'm about to learn this the hard way in a trips game.

If you want, just take a look at the Aery/Gate C issue and maybe contrast it with the situation in other Palaces and let me know if you understand what I'm talking about.

[MrBenn]

If you want, just take a look at the Aery/Gate C issue and maybe contrast it with the situation in other Palaces and let me know if you understand what I'm talking about.

I suppose it would be possible to remove one/two of those connections/borders?? If so, which would you suggest to leave attacking options open but improve defensibility?