Lunar War [GP, G, X] files on p.1

[isaiah40]

I would still like if both of the missile bases border more territories. So how about if Roris Base would also connect to Frigoris and Medii base would also connect to Vaporum?

Alternatively, Roris base could connect to northern Imbrium, and Medii base could connect to Ptolemaeus.

Roris sounds good. How about we move Medii over to Mare Nectarus and then connect it to Piccolomini? That way it is clearer and won't look as cluttered. Of course you would have to rename it Nectaris Base.

That's a great idea actually. Piccolomini is close to 2 starting points, but there would be 4 troops in between the landing site and the base, so it's just 1 troop less than what we now have in Roris...

Only thing is that "Nectaris base" doesn't sound as cool as "Medii base"...

But when I think about it, it would make sense to have the bases at opposite ends of the moon. One in NW corner, one in SE... I'll do a version with the nectaris base.

Actually, nectaris sounds like a sweet base to have, being nectar and all!

[natty dread]

v14.

Isaiah, I swapped US2 and RU2 landing sites: I thouhgt it wouldn't be good to have both russian landing sites close to a missile base.

Click image to enlarge.

[Coleman]

I am quite satisfied with all changes and have no further suggestions for game-play improvements. The math is much more satisfying now and the neglected starting locations are now closer to missile basses. I am concerned that Russia may still have an advantage, but since I can not quantify it then it may just be something we'll have to keep in mind for when beta comes around, foundry willing. You can fiddle with neutrals to correct an imbalance if statistical analysis of beta games demonstrates the existence of one.

Good luck on progressing to graphical nit picking, my advice has run dry, as I said, I am satisfied with the current state of the gameplay on this map.

[natty dread]

Good luck on progressing to graphical nit picking, my advice has run dry, as I said, I am satisfied with the current state of the gameplay on this map.

Aww... you know, I'm sure there'll be several gameplay changes before we get to graphics shop... that's how these things usually go... and when that happens I would love to have your advice, to rebalance the gameplay again after the changes have been made.

You see, we just got to the gameplay shop... and they will want to keep us here for a while, until it's sure that the majority of those following the map are satisfied with the gameplay. More importantly the gameplay mods need to be satisfied... and they're a tough audience

So if you'd like to stick around, and at least pop in once in a while if you notice we're about to do something stupid that will ruin the map, I'd appreciate it.

[natty dread]

Sorry for the delay everyone. Me and isaiah have been pondernig on the gameplay. We removed some of the craters that were redundant now that the crater bonus exists no more... and some were moved a bit. Map should be a bit less cluttered now.

Also some graphical tweaks, mainly concerning the rockets and the legend, and their clarity. The missile base - rocket relationship should be more clearly explained now, I had to make some room to fit in a better explanation.

Anyway, here's v15:

Click image to enlarge.

btw Coleman, nice of you to advertise us. Really appreciate it

[natty dread]

After a quick conference with Isaiah, a few additional changes were made. See if you can spot them all!

v15a

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

One more minor tweak: JP2 <-> CH2 place swap.

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

Hey, things have been a bit slow. Isaiah is working on new landing site icons.

I had a thought: what do people think of an objective of holding all rockets?

It would mainly be a way to shorten games where the winner is already known... if you can hold all the rockets you'll probably win the game anyway.

[MarshalNey]

It occurs to me that taking out the rockets might be the last thing that happens regardless, since you're looking at a 10 killer neutral barrier.

In general, I get the feeling when looking at the neutral values that games will go very very slowly at first. And, too, the end of the game will go slowly, since taking out the rockets in one swoop will require a massive buildup. This isn't a problem necessarily if that's what you intend, just an observation.

Anyway, the victory condition is probably unnecessary given the current neutral values... a player would have to have something like 40+ troops to snatch all of the rockets. I know that I wouldn't gamble that many troops, I'd probably just seize all of the bonuses on the moonside first.

Still love the map, btw. Hope it moves on soon.

[natty dread]

Thanks ney.

Anyway, the victory condition is probably unnecessary given the current neutral values... a player would have to have something like 40+ troops to snatch all of the rockets. I know that I wouldn't gamble that many troops, I'd probably just seize all of the bonuses on the moonside first.

Gotcha... another thing I was thinking of, was an objective of holding all He-3 mines. This would again change the gameplay quite much... but it would make the He-3 mines more powerful, and that would fit the theme of the map quite well.

But I'm not sure, would that screw with the gameplay too much? What do you think?

[grifftron]

Why has this map not moved forward yet natty? Like coleman said not much more on game play. I mean putting in an objective would be cool, This map is awesome IMO.

-griff

[MarshalNey]

another thing I was thinking of, was an objective of holding all He-3 mines.

Now THAT sounds like an idea

Yes, it would change the gameplay, but for the better in my opinion.

It's not an easy objective- there 6 of them spread far apart.

It's not an impossible objective- although they're 6 neutral each, other players will be knocking away at them for the bonus.

Finally, although it does sort of violate my rule about combining a bonus with a victory objective, it's not the strongest set of bonuses on the map by any means. Yeah, a player might take 2 or 3 just for the bonus, but to take and hold all 6... you've got to really be going for the victory objective, b/c there are much easier ways to get bonuses.

So... I give it a thumbs up.

[grifftron]

Yeah i agree with Ney, they wouldn't be easy to hold, but it would be possible, best example of a map i have played on recently is Europe 1914. The Objectives are also bonuses, but they are not easy to hold. I think its a good idea natty.

-griff

[natty dread]

Ok... I'll check with isaiah how he feels about the idea. If he's cool with it we'll put it on the map.

So the objective would be: hold at least 1 rocket, and all He-3 mines.

Personally I'm really liking this. The he-3 mines are central to the "plot" of the map, so it makes sense for them to be important gameplay-wise.

Thanks guys.

Also @ griff: the map hasn't moved forward because the gameplay development is still not ready yet. The gameplay mods just helped me to get my Nordic map advanced and that was quite a hassle so they're probably all fed up with me for the moment

But, all aspects of gameplay should be considered. Firstly, drops. In this case as we use starting points there are 8 possible drops, so we need to make sure that none of the countries have an advantage. All are approximately equidistant from Missile bases, so that shouldn't be a concern. Half of the countries have easy access to one base, half to the other. But regarding other bonuses, there might be some imbalance that hasn't been found yet.

Well, territory count doesn't need to be considered here since it's a conquest map, so what's next... hmm. There are several ways to win the map (eliminations or objective)... oh. Neutral counts. We have been working on them, but not sure if there are still some that need tweaking.

So if you really wish to help the map get advanced, take a long, long look at the map and try to imagine you were playing it... can you see any imbalance, any feature that would make the gameplay unfair?

[natty dread]

Ok, after a quick chat with isaiah, he's ok with the idea, but suggested that the He-3 mines could do with more neutrals in that case.

So, what would be a good neutral amount for them?

[MarshalNey]

six or lower.... sorry, but really it's the spacing between them and not the neutral value that's going to prevent an easy victory objective win.

I'm not at all convinced that neutral values aren't too high as it stands. Look at Treasures of Galipagos as an example. The 10-stack of neutrals in those maps act as effective barriers; players don't ever bother with them. Those that do (like yours truly) end up getting overwhelmed b/c they 'wasted' all their energy on a relatively mediocre benefit.

If you make the neutral value higher than six, then you're going to create the opposite effect of what you intend. Instead of being the central focus of the map, they'll be ignored altogether.

[natty dread]

Yes... you may have a point there. However I think the 10 stacks on this maps (missile bases) are fairly justified as they are the only way to eliminate other players...

And btw in galapagos, the luggers really don't give a benefit proportional to the amount of neutrals...

[MarshalNey]

well, yes, you're right the benefit of luggers is too low. The luggers have too many neutrals, so that entire element of gameplay (which could've been really cool) is gone from the map. Missile bases provide a better benefit I agree, but they are also killer neutral, so the risk is greater too.

So a +2 bonus... is that worth killing off 7 or 8 neutrals? If you had average luck (and remember players are always keen to remember bad times over the good ones) against 6 neutrals you'd lose 6 troops... this would mean you'd have to hold it for three rounds just to recoup your loss.

Compare this to other possible bonuses, and it's about in line. When you're talking a possible loss of 7 or 8... well, it gets more problematic. Then, you might only get halfway through the stack, or barely take it and then lose it to someone else. The risks become too great.

You go for a sea, on the other hand, and it's no big deal if someone snatches it. After all, it doesn't really give a bonus by itself. I think seas are the way to win this map already, since they're much lower risk and ultimately higher benefit.

As the map currently stands, I'd be inclined to take maybe one HE3 mine early, when the threat of meeting other players in kinda low. But only if it's no worse than 6 neutrals. Even 6 is kind of pushing it, since you're realistically only getting about 6 troops a turn to spare. That means you'd have to devote your entire deployment/reinforcement to taking one. If the game involves spoils, that's a big risk to take, since you might fail to take a spoil.

At 7 or 8 (or higher), I'd utilize the HE3 mine as a barrier with a decent stack nearby (like 6 or more). That way, if someone went for the Mine, I'd have a good chance of snatching it from them. This is not the kind of defensive play I like in a map- it's a favorite of those who play Feudal War, however, so it might prove popular.

[natty dread]

Missile bases provide a better benefit I agree, but they are also killer neutral, so the risk is greater too.

Yes, but they have to be killer. Otherwise we'd just see stacking on the bases...

So a +2 bonus... is that worth killing off 7 or 8 neutrals? If you had average luck (and remember players are always keen to remember bad times over the good ones) against 6 neutrals you'd lose 6 troops... this would mean you'd have to hold it for three rounds just to recoup your loss.

Well, you convinced me. 6 neutrals is probably enough.

You go for a sea, on the other hand, and it's no big deal if someone snatches it. After all, it doesn't really give a bonus by itself. I think seas are the way to win this map already, since they're much lower risk and ultimately higher benefit.

Yes, but you need 5 of them to get any bonus. That's 5 x 5 = 25 neutrals to kill, for a +5 bonus, so taking 5 seas only pays off in 5 turns... However, if you're able to grab more of them, like 7 or 10 then you have a strong position.

As the map currently stands, I'd be inclined to take maybe one HE3 mine early, when the threat of meeting other players in kinda low. But only if it's no worse than 6 neutrals. Even 6 is kind of pushing it, since you're realistically only getting about 6 troops a turn to spare. That means you'd have to devote your entire deployment/reinforcement to taking one. If the game involves spoils, that's a big risk to take, since you might fail to take a spoil.

Hmm. Would you suggest maybe increasing the He3 bonus as well? Perhaps at +3?

At 7 or 8 (or higher), I'd utilize the HE3 mine as a barrier with a decent stack nearby (like 6 or more). That way, if someone went for the Mine, I'd have a good chance of snatching it from them. This is not the kind of defensive play I like in a map- it's a favorite of those who play Feudal War, however, so it might prove popular.

Yeah I agree. I'd like this map to have a more aggressive gameplay.

[MarshalNey]

Yes, but you need 5 of them to get any bonus. That's 5 x 5 = 25 neutrals to kill, for a +5 bonus, so taking 5 seas only pays off in 5 turns... However, if you're able to grab more of them, like 7 or 10 then you have a strong position.

Right, you need a lot of the seas for them to work, so any individual sea will not be as attractive of a target to your enemies, nor will it hurt you or benefit your opponent if you do lose one. On the flip side, however, seas provide mobility and vision (in fog of war) for your forces that the HE3 mines don't (I think all of the mines only connect to two territories). So, really, the seas are less of a risk to lose on a single basis, and ultimately (as you say) of greater potential to pay off. But in the short run, they're a wash, which is why the HE3 mine still remains a viable alternative.

Hmm. Would you suggest maybe increasing the He3 bonus as well? Perhaps at +3?

That's a thought, but if Isiah is already concened about them being too important as a victory objective, that might send him over the edge Really I'd much rather see them as +2 and a victory objective at 6 neutrals, than a +3 and no victory objective.

The thing that gnaws at me is how slowly games will move in the beginning rounds. You're starting with 3 troops, plus 3 for regions and a +2 autodeploy. That's 8 troops to take out two 3-stacks, which is only roughly a 2-in-3 shot. That means that a third of the players in the game will have to wait 2 rounds before getting 8 troops per round (effectively with the autodeploy)... if I've got all of the bonuses straight (I think I said 6 earlier- whoops).

8 troops is nice, but you'll be plowing through 5's and 6's to take anything good.

Instead of increasing the HE3 bonus, have you thought about increasing the initial drop of troops on the rockets? It would probably ensure a more fair outcome for players trying to take their initial landing sites. Plus, it would give players more flexibility to pursue their agenda despite bad dice in the very early going. Maybe a starting value of 6-8 troops?

[natty dread]

Instead of increasing the HE3 bonus, have you thought about increasing the initial drop of troops on the rockets? It would probably ensure a more fair outcome for players trying to take their initial landing sites. Plus, it would give players more flexibility to pursue their agenda despite bad dice in the very early going. Maybe a starting value of 6-8 troops?

That's a thought... I'll have to see what Isaiah thinks about it.

[isaiah40]

Instead of increasing the HE3 bonus, have you thought about increasing the initial drop of troops on the rockets? It would probably ensure a more fair outcome for players trying to take their initial landing sites. Plus, it would give players more flexibility to pursue their agenda despite bad dice in the very early going. Maybe a starting value of 6-8 troops?

That's a thought... I'll have to see what Isaiah thinks about it.

Actually we did have a larger drop on the rockets, but as was discussed that would give the first player an opportunity to take another player. If we increase the initial drop then we would have to increase the starting neutrals on the mares and the missile bases to compensate. I think this is good as it stands right now unless more people think otherwise.

[MarshalNey]

OK so I found the time to read through most of this thread and saw the discussion of which you speak.

You lowered the drop value from 5 to 3 along with a host of other changes, but really lowering the drop value doesn't change the odds of a first-turn kill that much... because it lowers the amount each other player has for defense as well.

While it is true that the attacker's odds of success get lower with smaller numbers (a 5 vs. 5 has a lower chance than a 7 vs. 7 for example), the difference goes in small increments, and 'tops' out at around 60% for equal numbers unless you get into ridiculously high troop values.

With 10 to start with, vs. 3, then 5, the best he could hope for would be to have an 8 vs. 10. If a player lost zero troops, then yes a first-turn kill would be *possible* (7 vs. 5). But the odds are easily remote enough that Las Vegas bookies would be drooling for any fool who'd make the bet. And only a Cook would even make the attempt, so the odds are reduced even further b/c most won't even try.

However, I agree that the current setup gives a practical zero chance for a first-turn kill. I just think that raising the drop values doesn't significantly alter the situation. I understand though that I'm the lone voice here, for what is perhaps an unnecessary change. Just trying to suggest tweaks since the map seems to be slated to sit in Gameplay for a little while.

[natty dread]

Hmm...

So let's see, currently we have 3 initial troops... a minimum of 18 troops to kill before you get to attack another rocket. And you get 5 troops in the start.

So currently 1st turn kills are practically impossible.

Let's say if the initial troops were 5, it'd still be very hard to kill 18 troops with 10. That practically never happens... And then you'd still have 5 troops to kill to make the kill. Ok, I don't think killing 23 troops with 10 is much easier than killing 21 troops with 8...

So how about if we make the starting troops 5 again?

[isaiah40]

Hmm...

So let's see, currently we have 3 initial troops... a minimum of 18 troops to kill before you get to attack another rocket. And you get 5 troops in the start.

So currently 1st turn kills are practically impossible.

Let's say if the initial troops were 5, it'd still be very hard to kill 18 troops with 10. That practically never happens... And then you'd still have 5 troops to kill to make the kill. Ok, I don't think killing 23 troops with 10 is much easier than killing 21 troops with 8...

So how about if we make the starting troops 5 again?

Ok, I can go with that.