Ziggurat [24/Nov/2017] v14.3 (p7)

[jonofperu]

Click image to enlarge.

In this update:
1) Reduced/altered neutrals
2) Drew a couple of sample camps: please see A08 & A15.
3) Minor graphics tweaks

1) Neutrals: Reduced the neutrals (again), but kept the corners slightly higher. I like the look of the staggered neutrals. The idea is it should be tempting to punch through the "landing" spot on a level and hit the lower neutrals to either side... BUT you risk leaving weak defense.
2) Camps: The original idea was a fire pit (brown center - A08) but I've tried a grey color for a kind of plaza (A15). Will need to draw the rest in and then tighten up some of the empty space - the whole map should be slightly smaller in final version.

[iancanton]

1) Neutrals: Reduced the neutrals (again), but kept the corners slightly higher. I like the look of the staggered neutrals. The idea is it should be tempting to punch through the "landing" spot on a level and hit the lower neutrals to either side... BUT you risk leaving weak defense.

i think the b corners (b01, b07, b13 and b19) ought to have the smallest number of neutrals, in this case n1, as the corner positions are the most difficult from which to expand.

the diagrams help somewhat when trying to work out the 90 degrees of bombardment. however, what can c10 bombard? is it b14, b15 and b16?

ian.

[jonofperu]

To what extent are the 2's on the B corners offset by the opportunity to bomb them from one side, then punch through them to one of the 1's beside them (which are only bombardable from one side of the ziggurat)? This would probably only be true with 2-4 players. I felt like lowering the other B-level territs to 1's let me keep the corners at 2, but I'm open to bringing them down more if needed.

Yes, C10 can bomb B14, B15, B17. Same as D06 can bomb C12, C11, C10 and below in the legend example.

[iancanton]

each b middle square is one-way attacked by no more than 1 camp. when a player occupies a b middle square directly from a camp, that b middle square is always safe (for that player) from one-way attack.

each b corner square is one-way attacked by 2 camps. in singles games, b corner squares can never be shielded from one-way attacks.

middle squares are therefore more attractive than b corner squares in the early part of the game. since starting neutrals affect mainly the start of the game, it follows that b corner squares ought to have lower starting neutrals to make them easier to capture.

ian.

[jonofperu]

Considering how starting positions are assigned in 1-4 player games, in a 1v1 game players would either share one corner and be alone on one other, or would be alone on both corner SP's. Here's the Starting Position layout from a previous post:

Where a player shares a corner with another player the fact they can both one-way attack is certainly disconcerting. Especially with fog since you won't know SP's they're on until they attack!
The other consideration is that corners can be bombarded by two entire sides of SP's... I'm starting to appreciate that fact more as I look at this again. I've been thinking of it as an advantage for attacking: a neutral 2 could be bombed from the side, then taken from the corner as a neutral 1. BUT your comments and those of others earlier are finally sinking in to make me realize defense is the greater consideration. I'll go ahead and lower the B corners to 1. The strategy will probably be to get through and off the corner as quickly as possible if you do attack there.
I think Koontz had said the corners on C-D should have MORE troops, though the C level will still have the problem of becoming exposed to more bombardments. That reflects the advantages/disadvantages of high ground I suppose. But should I raise the neutrals to 2 on C corners?

I like how this will play. With low neutrals, high rewards and wide bombard zones there should be a lot of action. This looks like a map where you can't consolidate an area and comfortably move out with regional bonuses. You're always exposed until you make it to D.

[koontz1973]

I like how this will play. With low neutrals, high rewards and wide bombard zones there should be a lot of action.

This will produce very little action. First out with good dice, once you get the higher auto deploys defended, you can sit back and win the game. The quicker to the top wins the match, that equals who has the best dice wins. Not very good to play if on the losing end.

One thing to compensate for this would be to lower the B corners to 1 as suggested, and make all of C level 2 neutrals and only a +1 auto deploy. This will allow players to freely move up and use it to bombard down but also stop gridlock which is what will happen now. Once you have held any territ on C for 2 rounds, you will have 5 troops minimum on it. The longer you hold it the worse this becomes. Last thing, make the D level a higher neutral.

One other thing that you need to think about. With the introduction of a setting that means no reinforcements to be made, I would not like to see this map played that way. I would also think trench would be a really bad thing to play on with this map.

Proposal.
B level corners to 1 neutral.
C level to all 2 neutrals.
C level only a +1 auto deploy.
D level corners to 5 neutrals.
Limit the map so trench and no reinforcements cannot be played with on this map.

This should allow you to have epic battles in the lower levels.

[jonofperu]

Updated neutrals

Click image to enlarge.

I updated the neutrals according to Koontz and Ian's suggestions.
I'm not convinced I should lower the auto-deploy for level C, since the main feature is the advantage of high ground and there should be an advantage for gaining a spot on level C => +2 autos.
Drew another camp... still have to draw the rest.

[koontz1973]

Remember you need to go higher to kill camps of. But you do not want higher to mean a win, just a chance of winning. It is that balance of making you go higher for the win because you have to but not finishing the game of too early. Remember, in unlimited reinforcements you can move all of the ADs and chained means the highest will get moved to block.

[iancanton]

I think Koontz had said the corners on C-D should have MORE troops, though the C level will still have the problem of becoming exposed to more bombardments. That reflects the advantages/disadvantages of high ground I suppose. But should I raise the neutrals to 2 on C corners?

I'm not convinced I should lower the auto-deploy for level C, since the main feature is the advantage of high ground and there should be an advantage for gaining a spot on level C => +2 autos.

the b corners cannot bombard anything and are the subject of 2 one-way attacks from the camps, while the c corners can one-way bombard downward while not being one-way attacked from below. it can therefore be logical to have n1 for the b corners, but n2 for the c corners. to guard against someone grabbing all four c corners, especially in team play, reducing the c auto-deploy to +1 is sensible; if u keep the +2 auto-deploy, then the c corners might have to start with n3.

what will be the maximum number of players on the map?

ian.

[jonofperu]

I hadn't thought of limiting the number of players. Should it be? There are 16 starting spots so that's the natural limit. Is it possible to code starting spots for 9-12 players so only one person starts on each corner? In other words eliminate one corner starting spot on each corner if playing with 9-12. From what little I know of the XML, I planned on specific SP's for 2-4 players and random assigning of the 16 SP's with 6-12, but if you can tweak it more specifically for other numbers of players that would be nice.

if u keep the +2 auto-deploy, then the c corners might have to start with n3.

I'm willing to consider it. Remember that two sides of SP's bombard the C corners though, so I don't think they need extra neutrals, nor should it be very easy to grab all 4.

[koontz1973]

Leave the coding for the 2-4 player games. Larger games will get the random drop and while some games will be unbalanced the size of players will negate any problems.

[iancanton]

I hadn't thought of limiting the number of players. Should it be? There are 16 starting spots so that's the natural limit.

i mentioned it only because the map so far has only 4 troop colours.

Is it possible to code starting spots for 9-12 players so only one person starts on each corner? In other words eliminate one corner starting spot on each corner if playing with 9-12.

no.

From what little I know of the XML, I planned on specific SP's for 2-4 players and random assigning of the 16 SP's with 6-12, but if you can tweak it more specifically for other numbers of players that would be nice.

Leave the coding for the 2-4 player games. Larger games will get the random drop and while some games will be unbalanced the size of players will negate any problems.

agreed. code the 8 corner camps as 4 positions of 2 camps each to spread them evenly among the players and leave the middle camps to be randomly allocated? although, in 3-player games, the corner camps will probably be unevenly distributed, the psychology inherent in games involving 3 skilled players will usually prevent someone from gaining an immediate lasting advantage.

if u keep the +2 auto-deploy, then the c corners might have to start with n3.

I'm willing to consider it. Remember that two sides of SP's bombard the C corners though, so I don't think they need extra neutrals, nor should it be very easy to grab all 4.

each c corner can be one-way bombarded by one d corner and by nothing else, while itself being able to bombard one b corner and 2 other b landing points. we can therefore expect sharp battles to control the c corners.

ian.

[jonofperu]

I think you're forgetting the camps bomb UP to level C.
So the C corners can be bombed by 8 starting points.

from my phone

[koontz1973]

I think you're forgetting the camps bomb UP to level C.
So the C corners can be bombed by 8 starting points.

from my phone

Not forgotten. Corners are very powerful even with the bombardments from the camps. You might not stay there but use it to hit downwards while heading up to make sure you are not being followed in a foggy game. The corners are the most powerful spots for this.

[jonofperu]

I was responding specifically to Ian's comment:

each c corner can be one-way bombarded by one d corner and by nothing else

I agree that the corners are powerful, but I also think they are overly exposed to compensate. It's a nice balance and tricky choice how to use them - I like it.

The issue is do the C corners need to have their neutrals increased?
Koontz, your argument earlier was that the exposure of the B corners made them hard to hold so the neutrals should be reduced. Considering the bombardment from 8 camps, should the C corners not be left as is?
Ian, when you consider the camps do you still think they should be increased?

[koontz1973]

Koontz, your argument earlier was that the exposure of the B corners made them hard to hold so the neutrals should be reduced. Considering the bombardment from 8 camps, should the C corners not be left as is?

Thew larger auto deploy compensates for this. Also, when you consider the overall affect when playing all types of games, those 8 camps may not end up being all against the corner. The ability to attack down and to control level C from where they are (you cannot go to D without passing a level C corner) compensates any player for the extra neutral.

[jonofperu]

So... you guys think n3 on the C corners?
I suppose beta testing will help tweak the right balance? Should be pretty easy to adjust neutral levels at any point. I'm a little unclear on how beta is supposed to work. I've made some comments on Spanish Armada while playing the Beta because I think the one-way beacon chain and de Parma Army bonuses create an imbalance in starting spots. I suppose if those kinds of things are identified in beta can you still have to fix them?

[jonofperu]

Click image to enlarge.

Updated C corner neutrals to 3.
Drew a draft version of the camps to give an idea what they will look like. Still need to work them over into final version and adjust the spacing all around.

[koontz1973]

So... you guys think n3 on the C corners?
I suppose beta testing will help tweak the right balance? Should be pretty easy to adjust neutral levels at any point. I'm a little unclear on how beta is supposed to work. I've made some comments on Spanish Armada while playing the Beta because I think the one-way beacon chain and de Parma Army bonuses create an imbalance in starting spots. I suppose if those kinds of things are identified in beta can you still have to fix them?

Beta is just that. Remember that in the foundry we can all say things work one way or another but only beta can really show how a map works. So if you have a problem with a map in beta, discuss it with the map maker. They should listen but do not need to agree with you.

Good to see the map looking like it does. It is taking some nice directions. As a graphical critic, can I ask you to try and do something with the legend. It looks too neat. It could do with some roughing up. Something like an old parchment, or another idea would be to try and do it like an instruction booklet for a board game.

[jonofperu]

I guess I was wondering if there are any meta testing programs run in Beta or if it's just based on feedback in foundry.

How are we looking for a gameplay stamp?

[koontz1973]

I guess I was wondering if there are any meta testing programs run in Beta or if it's just based on feedback in foundry.

How are we looking for a gameplay stamp?

Waiting on ian, but you look like you are good to go from me.

[iancanton]

onward and upward!

ian.

[koontz1973]

Great to see you close jono, but, and we always have our buts, 3 things graphically from me for you to consider.
The legend as I have said before, the photo jpeg in the bottom right corner seems out of place and does not seem to fit the rest of the image. Lastly is the title. You have this weird yellow title that for some reason is bright. Solution for you would be something like this. Use the stepping stones you have for the map for the title. You bring the two together far better and tone the title down. Also you can make the title far bigger.

[jonofperu]

Thanks Ian and Koontz!
I'll think about your suggestions, Koontz. I really like the photo and think it fits, though I can tweak it a bit. It ties in an actual Inka ruin which is very similar in appearance to the map. I'd like to hear more opinions.
The yellow text of the tile matches the legend, but if I change the legend to a stone tablet or something, then the title would probably need to change too. Let me work on the legend and get some feedback.

[koontz1973]

That is all that I can ask.

But the point with the jpeg temple is that is detracts from the map. You have this great looking map and a pasted on jpeg. The yellow is the same but the font is different. To be completely honest, the title looks like an after thought and something that had a max of 5 seconds spent on it. This was the reason I went and said that the title can be made to include the map. At the very least, a continuation of the legend backing to include the title, making it more prominent.