Solar System ERROR FIX v1.0.2 (w/ PSD files) [Quenched]

by **Night Strike** on Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:44 pm

maxdetjens wrote:the masses have spoken. 3 it is.

PWNED!! (Sorry, I had to say it) Anywho, back to those bonuses????

by **Keredrex** on Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:31 pm

I think it should be 4...If you think about it .... When the 1st player goes He will deploy and have at least 6 men on an adjacent territory.... so To keep the chances a bit more even i think 4 would be a good #.... otherwise... 3 works

by **Night Strike** on Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:32 pm

Keredrex wrote:I think it should be 4...If you think about it .... When the 1st player goes He will deploy and have at least 6 men on an adjacent territory.... so To keep the chances a bit more even i think 4 would be a good #.... otherwise... 3 works

Actually, probably not a bad idea.

Website · by **Bad Speler** on Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:43 pm

true, but then trying to break into a continent, one would have to go through 8 neutral, which i think is too much.

by **yeti_c** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:58 am

maxdetjens wrote:If i didn't say anything I'm sure no one would notice. But then come live play time people would have a fit so I'll say it now and make sure you all notice and have a chance to comment.

I've added the XML for the jump gates to start neutral as previously decided. But It allows me to specify how many. I've started each gate with 6. IT makes them more of a late-early game or early mid-game factor than simply a bonus to be had on round 2 (in a freestyle game the effects might be more noticeable than a sequential game) It also puts the players in a quandary Should they leave the gate alone and count on the 6 armies to stop any attackers? Should they grab two gates and surprise attach a player using the 6 as a shield? I kinda like it but I'm not married to it. I could see 3, 4 or 5 as well. Its a new wrinkle

XML for jump gate bonuses is spot on.

C.

by **maxdetjens** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 4:27 am

---- REGION AND BONUS EFFECT CHART

---- PROPOSED BONUSES
So here is my thinking.
3 - Inner Planets
1 - Any two of: Earth Moon Mars
4 - Asteroid Belt
1 - Any 4 Families
5 - Jupiter and Moons
2 - Jupiter's Surface
4 - Saturn, Rings and Moons
1 - Saturn's Surface
3 - Uranus and Moons
1 - Uranus' Surface
8 - Kuiper Belt
2 - Plutinos: Pluto, Charon, Orcus
4 - Neptune, Trojans and Moon
1 - Neptune's Surface
And change the Jump Gates to
1 = 0
2 = -1
3 = 2
4 = -1
5 = 3
6 = -2
7 = 4

And have 3 Neutral Armies on the Gates

---- RATIONALE FOR REGION BONUSES
Here is my thinking. I don't want any region to be less than 3. I think the map is too big not to have at least 3's (especially considering its a grab bag of 1 and 2s)

---------Uranus
I think Uranus is clearly a 3 . Its 1 territory bigger than Neptune but its among the easiest of all of them to hold with a gate. Also it has a sub bonus thats only 3 countries big and easy to defend.

---------Inner Planets
Inner Planets Should also be a 3 with the gate its easy to hold. without the gate its harder than Uranus but its also overall smaller, its on the edge of the map (non-gate attacks have to go through the player holding the asteroid belt) and the sub only requires holding two countries and you have some choice. (a player who lucks into holding two of those three will be well positioned to take the inner planets)

---------Neptune
Neptune should be a 4. its smaller than Uranus by one territory but its requires an extra choke point to hold and isn't even continuous.

---------Asteroid Belt
Asteroid Belt should be a 4 and should have a sub bonus of 1. It has seven proper territories which are in a weird loop (that requires a gate to make a total circuit of) with a tail so its a small logistical challenge just to move your armies through (through all as if to conquer or through some as if to chain fort) It is the non-gate path to and from the inner planets to everywhere else. I think the sub bonus should be any 4 four of the families. without the bonus i think its a contender to be a 5

---------Saturn
Saturn should be a 4 is the biggest one aside from Jupiter. It's layout makes it difficult to conquer in a single sweep. You almost must take the gate so you might be forced to take a penalty to hold it. chained forting might be a bear.

---------Jupiter
Jupiter should be a 5. There is nothing special about Jupiter aside from its far and way bigger than Saturn. Its way to easy to hold for 6 and has a decent surface bonus. Just a note. it take 3 choke points to hold it with or without the gate, but depending on whether you hold the gate those 3 choke points change (how many other maps have cool bs in them like that!)

---------Kuiper Belt
Kuiper Belt i think it should be an 8. I'm sure your all going to gnash your teeth at the thought but consider: its pretty big. you have to hold every territory very tightly. It's 2 sub bonus is even hard to hold. in order for holding the gate to even matter you have to own 3 other non-kuiper belt territories. And one of those (Neptune's Trojans) some else will probably want. The only mitigating factors is that only pluto and charon are on the way to anywhere and If you hold Uranus's High orbit, Saturn's High orbit, JG-KB and JG-N you can have both the Kuiper Belt and Neptune for twelve (less the -1 if you only own those two gates).
Through in JG-U or JG-s and you can own one more region (And if its your third gate then get a decent bonus for that too.) Even so You have to hold each of the 7. Thats a likely minimum of 21 armies just to have a prayer. (my dollar says that everyone is going to be gunning to break your bonus)

---- RATIONALE FOR NEUTRAL ARMIES
As far as the neutral armies go: my real goal is to prevent every player (almost by the necessity of not falling behind early) to no be compelled to grab a gate. Its partially not a problem with the plethera of 1's and 2's but I 'd prefer that this map not be a battle over who can own more gates. Thats in a good part handled by the alternating bonus. But I agree. 8 armies to go from your region to the next is too many. Plus enough new stuff is going on in this map. I don't want to be too expiremental otherwise the map wont be accepted by the broader CC audience (and plus using neutral armies to serve as keys to late game areas is a super cool map idea.... no reason to blow my load on the first go)..... Even so I have some concern that 3 wont be enough. So I think that owing the 1st gate should be worth nothing.

---- RATIONALE FOR JUMP GATE BONUS CHANGES
As far as changing the 6 gate penalty to -2: I know some you will hate it. That losing a single territory can hit you for a difference in 6 armies. But I'll tell you why i like it. First what are you doing with 7 gates to loose one? two choices are
1)your an idiot.
2)your taking a long shot gamble.
If its either of those. uh well... suck it. 1.)learn to play better or 2.) you knew it was a risk. (RISK! I kill me) the only other reason to have 7 gates is
3.) its the end game! on a different map you would have a defacto win by now. lets say its not the end game but you and your opponent have split the map: you have 7 gates but only the 4 smallest bonus (and only those territories, no grey ones) regions and your opponent has absolutely everything else. Not a total domination but not an unreasonable time to have 7 gates. With the 7 gates you'd have (Neptune, Asteroid Belt, Inner Planets, and Uranus) thats 33 territories for 11. Neptune for 4, Asteroid belt for 4, Inner planets for 3, Uranus for 3 and the gate bonus of 4 so 29 armies. (11+4+4+3+3+4) Your Opponent would have (Saturn, Jupiter, and Kuiper Belt) so thats 35 territories for 11. Saturn for 4, Jupiter for 5 and Kuiper belt for 8 so 28 armies ( 11+4+5+8). Lose the gate and you go to 22 armies and h's number goes up to 30. Not Ideal but I think you'll survive. (this was with a 1 jg bonuses of 0. The other slop is that taking the territory knocks you bellow 33 and him to 36.) ITs not an ideal situation for you but you opponent managed to grab probably the 3 hardest regions and defend them by not having the gate. So even in the mid game its not the end of the world. (and imagine the drool you'll have if the situation reversed)

If your truly at the end game and you have 5 or 6 regions the loss of 1 gate shouldn't break you but it will give a dying player a last gasp at redemption.

I don't know if that makes any sense but essentially i think that if your going to hold 7 gates you really should be in the process of delivering the death blow or prep yourself for loosing one. And finally, as it sits the drop from 7 to 6 is already 5. So Whats the big deal? Furthermore many many maps (including this one) give you a big blow by losing a single territory from a region. On classic if you loose Alaska... blam! -5 So whats the big deal?

by **Keredrex** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:10 am

Good Point.....I agree

by **Kaplowitz** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:15 am

(nope not gonna say anything.....just stare at the huge post above me that i am way too afraid to even begin reading)

by **maxdetjens** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:57 am

Kaplowitz wrote::shock: (nope not gonna say anything.....just stare at the huge post above me that i am way too afraid to even begin reading)

Just for you I've labeled the sections so its more digestible.

Website · by **Bad Speler** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:13 pm

I agree on most of your huge post which took me too long to read.

I do have 2 disagreements on bonuses though:

I think Jupiter should be upped to a 6, yes its only got 3 borders to defend, but it has a massive amount of territories. For a comparison on the classic map, it has the same amount of border territories but more territories overall then North America. Also, it has about the same amount of territories as Asia.

Kuiper belt in my opinion should be worth 7, just simply because I think its a bit easier to defend. But i'm completely fine with it being an 8.

edit: good new jump gate bonuses, I like it

by **Pious** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:14 pm

Before you make Kuiper Belt's bonus too big, please keep in mind that people will probably hold that with Neptune mid-game.

JG-N, JG+KB, Uranus' High Orbit, and Charon holds a +8 (5+3) with 18 territories with just 4 defending points. It might seem hard, but if someone gets a mixed set and already has Neptune, Kuiper Belt is a natural compliment as it has a comparable number of borders with what they have anyway (4 as compared to 3). A +11 for Kuiper Belt + Neptune combination would be too powerful.

by **Coleman** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:00 pm

I agree with everything except that the Jump Gate should be worth 0 instead of 1. The jump gates are going to be starting neutral, and really probably should start with 4 neutral. So I feel that the extra army for holding one is justified when a player chooses to go for it.

Website · by **Bad Speler** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:27 pm

I disagree with Coleman, the first jump gate shouldnt be worth anything, because having a continent, and then taking the first jump gate will generally reduce the amount of borders anyways, as the borders are reduced, there should not be an extra bonus.

by **Pain Killer** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:59 pm

Bad Speler wrote:Kuiper belt in my opinion should be worth 7, just simply because I think its a bit easier to defend. But i'm completely fine with it being an 8.

i agree with bad speler the kuiper belt should better be 7 than 8, its relative easily to hold if you take the time to think about it.

by **maxdetjens** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:11 pm

Bad Speler wrote:Kuiper belt in my opinion should be worth 7, just simply because I think its a bit easier to defend. But i'm completely fine with it being an 8.

Pious wrote:Before you make Kuiper Belt's bonus too big, please keep in mind that people will probably hold that with Neptune mid-game.

JG-N, JG+KB, Uranus' High Orbit, and Charon holds a +8 (5+3) with 18 territories with just 4 defending points. It might seem hard, but if someone gets a mixed set and already has Neptune, Kuiper Belt is a natural compliment as it has a comparable number of borders with what they have anyway (4 as compared to 3). A +11 for Kuiper Belt + Neptune combination would be too powerful.

So What if KB is 7?

Lets compair some comlements

Kuiper Belt + Neptune
If KB is 7 Neptune 4 and 2 gates is -1 for 10 then the 6 (18/3) for a total of 16 (or if you have one more gate 19). Thats 16 for 4 choke points

Neptune + Uranus
Neptune is 4, Uranus 3 and two gates is -1 for 6 then the 5 (17/3) for a total of 11 (or if you have one more gate then 15). Thats 11 for 5 choke points

Saturn + Jupiter
Saturn in 4, Jupiter is 5 (or perhaps 6) and two gates is -1 for 8 then the 8 (24/3) for total of 16 ( or 19 if you have another gate or another +1 if Jupiter is 6). Thats 16 for 5 choke points

Inner Planets + Asteroid Belt
Inner Planets for 3, Asteroid Belt for 5 and two gates is -1 for 7 then the 4 (14/3) for a total of 11 (or 15 if you have another gate) thats 11 for 4 choke points

Saturn + Uranus
Saturn for 4, Uranus 4, and the two gates for -1 is 7 then the 6 (19/3) for a total of 13 (or 16 if you have another gate) thats 13 for 4 choke points

----
So The Kuiper Belt with Neptune (even with KB at 7) give you a lot of bang for the buck. but the Kuiper Belt hard get even under the best pf circumstances. 7 seems like the max. another solution would be to drop it to 6. if i do that I'd like to at least remove the Varuna Neptune's trojans connection to make it more viable on its own.

by **maxdetjens** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:26 pm

Bad Speler wrote:I disagree with Coleman, the first jump gate shouldnt be worth anything, because having a continent, and then taking the first jump gate will generally reduce the amount of borders anyways, as the borders are reduced, there should not be an extra bonus.

Coleman wrote:I agree with everything except that the Jump Gate should be worth 0 instead of 1. The jump gates are going to be starting neutral, and really probably should start with 4 neutral. So I feel that the extra army for holding one is justified when a player chooses to go for it.

I proposed that the Jump gates should have 6 neutrals (which was way to many) but i have reconsider. They must have 3. First its less weird. And this map has enough new stuff going on that any new weirdness might reduce its acceptance. It can't be less than 3 because i don't want the map to be a mad scramble for a gate. it cant be more than 3 because that would make people mad (see weirdness above). using lots of neutrals to isolate or restrict areas of a map until later in a game is a cool idea but i think for another map. And eight a free shield of 8 between you and the next guy is indeed too much (at least for this map).

If we're not going to 4 neutrals then we need to reduce the incentive to scramble for gates. I think making the first JG worth 0. The only counter argument i can think of is that there are a number of other viable (and early) 1's and 2's and they would be better than sharing a border with every neighbor.

by **Keredrex** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:38 pm

Coleman wrote:I agree with everything except that the Jump Gate should be worth 0 instead of 1. The jump gates are going to be starting neutral, and really probably should start with 4 neutral. So I feel that the extra army for holding one is justified when a player chooses to go for it.

I agree with coleman

by **maxdetjens** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 4:30 pm

I don't feel good about the 4 neutrals.

The Jump gate being worth 1 or 0 I could go wither way.

by **Night Strike** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:24 pm

Oh boy, where to start???

I think dropping the path between Varuna and the Trojans would be a good move. Add Eris to the Kuiper Belt (b/c it is kinda awkward way down in it's one corner) and make the bonus +7.

I think I would prefer having a +1 bonus for the first gate with them all starting at 3 neutrals, but I could go either way on that. Probably a nice touch changing 6 to a -2.

I think a sub-bonus in the Asteroid Belt may be awkward and clutter the key. Just make the overall bonus a +5.

I'd go with Jupiter being a +6 (especially if AB is +5).

That was an insanely long post by you, but a necessary one. Nice job being brave enough to post that one.

by **KEYOGI** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:03 pm

I still feel the legend is a place of clutter and confusion. Are sub-continent bonuses are done deal? You've already got quite a gameplay twist with the Jump Gates, I'm not sure you need such a detailed bonus system for the continents as well. Just something to consider.

by **Coleman** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:30 pm

Maybe this makes me an idiot, but with the jump gates worth 0 for 1 I wouldn't want to use them for anything except decreasing borders. Because if I try to attack just one place with it I'm looking at -1 armies and if I attack more I doubt I'll have the armies to keep them so someone doesn't knock me down to a -1.

Mostly though, if I have a single jump gate, and someone takes it from me and they are getting -1, I'm probably going to consider not trying to get it back. If it was worth an extra army that would change.

by **ParadiceCity9** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:31 pm

damn that original map hurts my eyes

by **maxdetjens** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:13 pm

KEYOGI wrote:I still feel the legend is a place of clutter and confusion. Are sub-continent bonuses are done deal? You've already got quite a gameplay twist with the Jump Gates, I'm not sure you need such a detailed bonus system for the continents as well. Just something to consider.

Nope. All bonuses are up for grabs. I can see the confusion about the sub bonuses. The earth, mars moon one is neat but not necessary. the Plutino bonus could be simplified to just Pluto and Charon(probably for 1) but the scientific rational is even weaker. Though I'd just as soon toss out Kuiper Belt sub bonuses all together.

by **maxdetjens** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:25 pm

Night Strike wrote:Add Eris to the Kuiper Belt

Except its just not part of the Kuiper Belt. I could add it to the continent and switch it back to "Trans-Neptunian Objects.

by **Night Strike** on Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:54 pm

maxdetjens wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Add Eris to the Kuiper Belt
Except its just not part of the Kuiper Belt. I could add it to the continent and switch it back to "Trans-Neptunian Objects.

Hmmm......how about a different idea. You may shoot this down, but hey, why not a shot. Currently, Eris resides at the far edge of your map. I'm looking at the Kuiper Belt on Wikipedia and saw a description of the Kuiper Cliff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt#The_.22Kuiper_cliff.22). It is the far edge of the Kuiper Belt where the size of the objects there drastically drops off. Since it's on the edge of the map, we could name the territory "The Kuiper Cliff" and make it part of the bonus.

Just a suggestion (b/c Trans-Neptunian Objects is a long name [and is "Neptunian" spelled correctly?]).

Solar System ERROR FIX v1.0.2 (w/ PSD files) [Quenched]

4

Re: 4

Interesting

I second

Re: I second

Who is online