First Nations of South America!

by **army of nobunaga** on Tue May 11, 2010 9:34 am

i think meso america should be reduced a territory and reduced in bonus (as it stands I think the maps unofficial name will be "The Fight over meso america") . but other than that I got nothing. This should play a little different than the other south american map.

by **Tisha** on Tue May 11, 2010 9:38 am

natty_dread wrote:It seems to me the bonus for Northern Andes is a bit low... IMO 3 would be more appropriate.

because Quinto and Macu can be held.. and defend two bonus.. and people were freaking out.

by **Ace Rimmer** on Tue May 11, 2010 9:53 am

I like the dead ends, and think that the gameplay looks good.

by **natty dread** on Tue May 11, 2010 9:54 am

Good point there, but the bonus area will still have 3 borders... meh, it's not a big deal. 2 will work too...

Also AON has a point, but maybe it could be solved by adding another sea route to meso-am. This would make it less isolated... Not sure where it should be put though. :-k

edit. If you put it between Guaymi and Chimu it would solve both problems

by **Tisha** on Tue May 11, 2010 10:57 am

natty_dread wrote:Good point there, but the bonus area will still have 3 borders... meh, it's not a big deal. 2 will work too...

Also AON has a point, but maybe it could be solved by adding another sea route to meso-am. This would make it less isolated... Not sure where it should be put though.

edit. If you put it between Guaymi and Chimu it would solve both problems

I don't like that route. I have already lowered the bonuses, why does another route need added? +2 for 4 territories isn't THAT bad.

by **lord voldemort** on Tue May 11, 2010 11:35 am

i like the dead ends....originality...

by **Tisha** on Wed May 12, 2010 9:42 pm

ANYTHING ELSE?

GAMEPLAY WISSEEE

by **army of nobunaga** on Wed May 12, 2010 9:50 pm

you guys that never even post in this section, well I dont know what you are doing other than kissing ass.

I didnt make the comment because I thought that dead ends or bad or that I thought 4 territorys is not a lot. But holding a bonus is not even really about the territory size, its about being able to hold the bonus.

You can do what you want, I dont care, ill play this one about as much as the north american one :S but there will be a fight over meso america and whomever lands it first will probably win... unless its large man esc or something.

and all you gus that follow this mapmaker around on the forum because you have a crush, try posting comments on other maps, that way it wont look so obvious or pathetic.

gl with this one, im out.

by **Tisha** on Wed May 12, 2010 10:10 pm

army of nobunaga wrote:you guys that never even post in this section, well I dont know what you are doing other than kissing ass.

I didnt make the comment because I thought that dead ends or bad or that I thought 4 territorys is not a lot. But holding a bonus is not even really about the territory size, its about being able to hold the bonus.

You can do what you want, I dont care, ill play this one about as much as the north american one :S but there will be a fight over meso america and whomever lands it first will probably win... unless its large man esc or something.

and all you gus that follow this mapmaker around on the forum because you have a crush, try posting comments on other maps, that way it wont look so obvious or pathetic.

gl with this one, im out.

really? because I'm female.. they must be posting here to kiss my ass? shut up...

my comment about 4 territories or dead ends wasn't even directed toward you..

I HAVE to have 52 territories.. this was already a big deal. so I'm definitely NOT taking a territory away. reducing it in territories will only make it easier to hold anyways....and I can't have a plus one for a five territory region.

by **The Bison King** on Thu May 13, 2010 1:07 am

but there will be a fight over meso america and whomever lands it first will probably win.

I disagree. Bonuses like that, that are so obviously attractive are usually a focal point of conflict and aren't usually taken until near the middle or end of the game. A lot of time 2 yahoos will fight over it and exhaust each other while other players who hold steady in the heart land grow with out the distraction. Even if you do take it doesn't guarantee anything. I totally disagree, I think it's fine.

by **isaiah40** on Thu May 13, 2010 11:32 am

I'm really liking this map

IMO everything looks good, a very strategic map that is going to require a little more planning to win. Let's get this into the graphics workshop ASAP please!?

by **Bruceswar** on Thu May 13, 2010 8:33 pm

I also agree... lets move this one along..

by **The Bison King** on Thu May 13, 2010 9:14 pm

Agreed

by **Evil DIMwit** on Fri May 14, 2010 2:02 pm

Ian and I have been discussing how best to set up start positions for this map. Now, North America has three 3-terr. bonuses and no start positions, and according to Ian:

iancanton wrote:between 15% and 25% of 1v1 games on that map have player 1 starting with a bonus, his 70%-plus win ratio is, as for most large classic-style maps, probably more influenced by the high region count than anything else, since u can do quite a lot of damage with a deployment of 7.

It's possible that dropping Chilean or Eastern Forest won't give a player too much of an advantage, but I doubt it. At any rate, the options on the table are:
1. To leave the start positions alone and figure it's not such a big deal.
2. To pick one (but not both) of the small zones to apply start positions to, so that it's impossible in 2-3 player games to start with that bonus region.
3. To do #2, and expand the other zone to 4 territories, either by stealing a neighboring territory or creating a new one entirely (as it happens, 53 is also a safe number).

by **lord voldemort** on Fri May 14, 2010 4:45 pm

army of nobunaga wrote:you guys that never even post in this section, well I dont know what you are doing other than kissing ass.

I didnt make the comment because I thought that dead ends or bad or that I thought 4 territorys is not a lot. But holding a bonus is not even really about the territory size, its about being able to hold the bonus.

You can do what you want, I dont care, ill play this one about as much as the north american one :S but there will be a fight over meso america and whomever lands it first will probably win... unless its large man esc or something.

and all you gus that follow this mapmaker around on the forum because you have a crush, try posting comments on other maps, that way it wont look so obvious or pathetic.

gl with this one, im out.

number of post by aon in foundry topics...144

number of posts by me in foundry topics.....186....so you can be quiet now yer

a) ive been on this map from the get go....
b) i follow near to every map in the foundry :roll:

c) im doing the xml on this map

so now that i have dropped knowledge on you...will you still stay away?

anyway

i personally dont think it will take away the feel of the map or gameplay to have a neutralin both chilean and easter forest

by **Evil DIMwit** on Fri May 14, 2010 5:48 pm

lord voldemort wrote:i personally dont think it will take away the feel of the map or gameplay to have a neutralin both chilean and easter forest

Once again: It would, because that would reduce the number of deployable territories to one that can lead to an unfair distribution. Until the game engine is somehow modified to get around this problem, we can't have a map start with 50 territories split among the players -- that would give an advantage to the first player in 4p games.

by **army of nobunaga** on Fri May 14, 2010 7:42 pm

I dont understand those comments LV.. try to keep your personal grudge out of this. I just made a point I pretty much knew the map author(s) would ignore.

you want stats? Lord harrypotter - 140 maps completed 123 maps won |2912 completed games------- Me- |157 maps completed |155 maps won |5362 completed games

So I will give you this... You have played more maps and games than a lot of ppl in this section in the forums... But I will tell you this, I know what im talking about, and you guys accept criticism like little genius kids; which is to basically ignore it.

Im not an expert. Im wrong pretty much like 1000 times a week. I admit when im wrong. Im just trying to help a map be a little playable. In classic there is some stat floating around that in most settings you win 60% of the time if you get aussie early. I just see this map something similar.

What I will do, is this... there are two people I know without a doubt are CC map playing geniuses (blitz, and HA) and I will defer to them, Ill ask them to come and take a look, if Im wrong so be it. and soooooorrrrryyyy to hurt you. gl in the map and take care.

by **Tisha** on Fri May 14, 2010 9:34 pm

army of nobunaga wrote:I dont understand those comments LV.. try to keep your personal grudge out of this. I just made a point I pretty much knew the map author(s) would ignore.

you want stats? Lord harrypotter - 140 maps completed 123 maps won |2912 completed games------- Me- |157 maps completed |155 maps won |5362 completed games

So I will give you this... You have played more maps and games than a lot of ppl in this section in the forums... But I will tell you this, I know what im talking about, and you guys accept criticism like little genius kids; which is to basically ignore it.

Im not an expert. Im wrong pretty much like 1000 times a week. I admit when im wrong. Im just trying to help a map be a little playable. In classic there is some stat floating around that in most settings you win 60% of the time if you get aussie early. I just see this map something similar.

What I will do, is this... there are two people I know without a doubt are CC map playing geniuses (blitz, and HA) and I will defer to them, Ill ask them to come and take a look, if Im wrong so be it. and soooooorrrrryyyy to hurt you. gl in the map and take care.

you said take a territory from Meso-America and make it a plus one.. not a fantastic plan you had there.. As I said, taking a territory away from it would only make it easier to hold, and I'm not going to have a five territory bonus, with two borders +1
So whether Blitz likes that idea or not, it's more than likely not going to happen... there has to be a better solution. I'll hang around in gameplay until something better comes up.

the north isn't like Classic's Australia that much. This if five territories with two borders, for a plus 2.

just because I missed your first post, didn't mean you had to post that second time and be rude about things.... it's easy to pass over someones post when you have them on ignore.

Evil DIMwit wrote:
lord voldemort wrote:i personally dont think it will take away the feel of the map or gameplay to have a neutralin both chilean and easter forest

Once again: It would, because that would reduce the number of deployable territories to one that can lead to an unfair distribution. Until the game engine is somehow modified to get around this problem, we can't have a map start with 50 territories split among the players -- that would give an advantage to the first player in 4p games.

so to make two territories neutral 2's in the three territory bonuses, what would my complete territory count need to be?
just wondering.

by **Evil DIMwit** on Fri May 14, 2010 10:32 pm

Tisha wrote:so to make two territories neutral 2's in the three territory bonuses, what would my complete territory count need to be?
just wondering.

Assuming you want something in the 40-55 territory range, your options are 44, 45, 46, 54, or 55 territories in total. (A full list of safe deployment numbers is available in the Foundry Guidelines: Gameplay)

by **Tisha** on Fri May 14, 2010 10:55 pm

Evil DIMwit wrote:
Tisha wrote:so to make two territories neutral 2's in the three territory bonuses, what would my complete territory count need to be?
just wondering.

Assuming you want something in the 40-55 territory range, your options are 44, 45, 46, 54, or 55 territories in total. (A full list of safe deployment numbers is available in the Foundry Guidelines: Gameplay)

don't tell me there is a list of numbers.. my number is on that list, and it's not good enough.
I'm asking for an exact number. 54. I don't know if I can get two more territories. I'm sure someone will then say, this bonus is not obtainable.. or something.

never ending. :lol:

by **Bruceswar** on Fri May 14, 2010 11:04 pm

FFS... just move this already... it will play out great.

by **army of nobunaga** on Fri May 14, 2010 11:23 pm

Tisha wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Good point there, but the bonus area will still have 3 borders... meh, it's not a big deal. 2 will work too...

Also AON has a point, but maybe it could be solved by adding another sea route to meso-am. This would make it less isolated... Not sure where it should be put though.

edit. If you put it between Guaymi and Chimu it would solve both problems

I don't like that route. I have already lowered the bonuses, why does another route need added? +2 for 4 territories isn't THAT bad.

you replyed to a reply to a point and you say you didnt see it.. all class.

have fun with your little map and little friends. I hope you do a first nations all over the globe ;-)

People try to help and you get offended... I really am done here.. kinda below me.

by **Bruceswar** on Fri May 14, 2010 11:35 pm

army of nobunaga wrote:
Tisha wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Good point there, but the bonus area will still have 3 borders... meh, it's not a big deal. 2 will work too...

Also AON has a point, but maybe it could be solved by adding another sea route to meso-am. This would make it less isolated... Not sure where it should be put though.

edit. If you put it between Guaymi and Chimu it would solve both problems

I don't like that route. I have already lowered the bonuses, why does another route need added? +2 for 4 territories isn't THAT bad.

you replyed to a reply to a point and you say you didnt see it.. all class.

have fun with your little map and little friends. I hope you do a first nations all over the globe People try to help and you get offended... I really am done here.. kinda below me.

Really this map will play out fine.... All this back and forth is wasted

by **Evil DIMwit** on Sat May 15, 2010 4:24 am

In any case, it's better to be sure because once the map is in beta, it becomes a terrific headache to change the number of territories in it.

How committed are you to keeping the three-territory bonuses to only three territories? If you make just one of them four territories you can make this map much safer in terms of bonus drops.

by **Tisha** on Sat May 15, 2010 9:39 am

army of nobunaga wrote:
Tisha wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Good point there, but the bonus area will still have 3 borders... meh, it's not a big deal. 2 will work too...

Also AON has a point, but maybe it could be solved by adding another sea route to meso-am. This would make it less isolated... Not sure where it should be put though.

edit. If you put it between Guaymi and Chimu it would solve both problems

I don't like that route. I have already lowered the bonuses, why does another route need added? +2 for 4 territories isn't THAT bad.

you replyed to a reply to a point and you say you didnt see it.. all class.

have fun with your little map and little friends. I hope you do a first nations all over the globe People try to help and you get offended... I really am done here.. kinda below me.

I did see that, and I was like.. what the f*ck is AON? I'm sitting here in game play, and I'll keep sitting here until a suggestion come up I like. don't cry because I turned your shitty suggestion down..
if you don't have any thing productive to add, then stop posting....really

First Nations of South America!

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Re: First Nations of South America.. UPDATE page 8

Who is online