Oasis [Quenched]

by **gimil** on Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:06 pm

As long as you can fit it into 630x600 for the small in not going to object

by **InkL0sed** on Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:11 pm

wcaclimbing wrote:
rocky mountain wrote:how about increasing the inner 6 oases bonus to +4 instead of +3? it will also encourage people to go towards the grand oasis as well... just a thought

sounds good to me.

If the inner oases are going to get +4, then the Oasis of Truth (which seems like an inner oasis) would seem too easy to reach. It takes 2 territs to get there from the Fertile lands, while every other inner oasis takes at least 3.

by **rocky mountain** on Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:40 pm

it's close to the grand oasis... does it really matter though? they're all pretty easy to get to. just ones and twos of neutral. its a way to get more people towards the grand oasis to win by the objective.

by **edbeard** on Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:49 pm

I think each oasis giving three armies is enough incentive to go after them. One territory three armies. Not going for them would be silly.

Additionally, you need to kill about three territories to move from oasis to oasis (or the fertile land to an oasis) so you have the potential get +1 from holding three more territories.

by **InkL0sed** on Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:09 pm

edbeard wrote:I think each oasis giving three armies is enough incentive to go after them. One territory three armies. Not going for them would be silly.

Additionally, you need to kill about three territories to move from oasis to oasis (or the fertile land to an oasis) so you have the potential get +1 from holding three more territories.

To add on to that -- maybe we should make it so you start getting extra armies at 6 instead of 12? That way even with 8 players, you can start getting territory bonuses immediately.

by **rocky mountain** on Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:00 pm

edbeard wrote:I think each oasis giving three armies is enough incentive to go after them. One territory three armies. Not going for them would be silly.

Additionally, you need to kill about three territories to move from oasis to oasis (or the fertile land to an oasis) so you have the potential get +1 from holding three more territories.

thats a good point... i hadn't thought of the +1 territory bonus before... i take away my +4 idea unless wcaclimbing wants to keep it. either way.

InkL0sed wrote:To add on to that -- maybe we should make it so you start getting extra armies at 6 instead of 12? That way even with 8 players, you can start getting territory bonuses immediately.

but what about 2 players? you would get lots of extra armies on the first turn. also, it would be the same as any other game with 8 players, which is fine.

by **wcaclimbing** on Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:23 pm

Comments in RED:

rocky mountain wrote:
edbeard wrote:I think each oasis giving three armies is enough incentive to go after them. One territory three armies. Not going for them would be silly. exactly. you wouldn't stand a chance without taking a few.

Additionally, you need to kill about three territories to move from oasis to oasis (or the fertile land to an oasis) so you have the potential get +1 from holding three more territories. Most gaps have either 1 territory or 2 beween them. O-T-T-O or O-T-O. so taking an oasis 2 spaces away would get you an extra +1, cause you have to take 3 territories to take the next oasis.

thats a good point... i hadn't thought of the +1 territory bonus before... i take away my +4 idea unless wcaclimbing wants to keep it. either way. I think I'll leave it out. I added it to the map, but It will just be confusing to explain inner vs outer oases. the +4 is back to a +3 now.

InkL0sed wrote:To add on to that -- maybe we should make it so you start getting extra armies at 6 instead of 12? That way even with 8 players, you can start getting territory bonuses immediately.I think that would make it too easy to keep the fight in the fertile lands. The point is to put all the bonuses in the desert, so people are forced to leave. if they can get a bunch of extra armies just by killing their neighbors in Fertile Land, then they will most likely stay there.

but what about 2 players? you would get lots of extra armies on the first turn. You wouldn't get that much extra. theres ~40 Fertile Lands. that means each player starts with 13 territories in a 2 player game. It still would leave them with the +3 bonus. exactly the same as the minimum 3.also, it would be the same as any other game with 8 players, which is fine.

by **rocky mountain** on Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:42 pm

so when will the next update be shown?

by **wcaclimbing** on Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:56 pm

rocky mountain wrote:so when will the next update be shown?

As soon as there are enough things that actually need updating.

I moved a few things around in the map key, and the neutrals will be reduced, but other than that, nothing has really changed. There hasn't been anything major enough to earn its own update yet.

Do you guys see any problems graphically with the map?
Its getting close to Graphics Stamp time, I think. I want to be able to clear up any remaining graphical issues in the next update.

by **jetpac** on Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:56 am

I'd think you'd have to show how army numbers would look, right? A few of the terits look like there might not be room for them on the small map (Durno, especially) and some others look like the background might make it hard to see the numbers (Payn, Derm, maybe Oasis of Kindness and Wicaia). Maybe there wouldn't be a problem, but it'd be nice if I could see. Other than that small potential issue, I don't see any problem with the graphics.

by **InkL0sed** on Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:01 pm

Can you start posting updates with [bigimg] instead of as tabs please?

by **bryguy** on Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:08 pm

InkL0sed wrote:Can you start posting updates with [bigimg] instead of as tabs please?

yes plz do, but plz when u make the small do the [img] instead of [bigimg]

by **rocky mountain** on Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:47 pm

jetpac wrote:I'd think you'd have to show how army numbers would look, right? A few of the terits look like there might not be room for them on the small map (Durno, especially) and some others look like the background might make it hard to see the numbers (Payn, Derm, maybe Oasis of Kindness and Wicaia). Maybe there wouldn't be a problem, but it'd be nice if I could see. Other than that small potential issue, I don't see any problem with the graphics.

i think thats a good idea.

by **rocky mountain** on Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:34 pm

whats going on with this map now?

by **wcaclimbing** on Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:31 pm

rocky mountain wrote:whats going on with this map now?

I might work on it today.
or maybe tomorrow.
But it wont be too long. its easy to copy/paste army numbers (to see how it looks)

by **rocky mountain** on Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:41 pm

ok great! it's just that there was no activity in this forum for a couple days.

by **MrBenn** on Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:38 am

Just a small point - you'll have less problems with army number placement if you move your territory numbers to the top-left of each area...

by **wcaclimbing** on Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:14 pm

V5.0 finally!

Click image to enlarge.

---the neutral armies you see on the image are how they will be set up for the game. Please suggest changes if you see any.---

Stuff done:
1. added all the armies to the map --- just a bunch of copy/paste to show what it would look like.
2. re-worked the map key again. now it's a bit more organized and has better fonts.
3. changed "sheep" and "grover" territories to "Zora" and "Rocm".
4. made the map 10 pixels taller to fit the new map key setup.
5. changed the Grand Oasis to have 8 neutrals on each section.

Discussion topics:
Is the map key good?
Do you like the graphics with the numbers added?
Graphics stamp time?

by **bryguy** on Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:17 pm

1) Kinda hard to read the 'Capture all 3 parts of the oasis yah de yah de yah'
2) Yes
3) Get the small first

by **ZeakCytho** on Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:21 pm

I don't like the wavy blue dotted line at the bottom of the legend. It doesn't really seem to have a purpose. If you get rid of that, you can move the "Be careful..." line down a bit, which frees up room to increase the size of the objective box, which I think could use a bit more emphasis.

I also don't love the dotted-line boxes in general, but I'm not sure why, or what they should be changed to. Maybe try dashed lines instead?

The numbers look lovely

For the next version, could you put some colored ones in the desert/on oases, as if the game were in play?

by **TaCktiX** on Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:28 pm

One question: did you consider making the inner oases give +4 or +5? Someone suggested that to encourage going for the Grand Oasis instead of annihilating all else. I agree.

by **wcaclimbing** on Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:38 pm

TaCktiX wrote:One question: did you consider making the inner oases give +4 or +5? Someone suggested that to encourage going for the Grand Oasis instead of annihilating all else. I agree.

read pretty much all of page 24. Thats where the discussion was.

by **TaCktiX** on Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:43 pm

wcaclimbing wrote:read pretty much all of page 24. Thats where the discussion was.

I win the inattentive noob award, my apologies.

On a more helpful tangent, any chance of showing all the territories with max 88's on them? That's what gimil will ask you for anyway.