[Vacation until Dec] Clash of Kings - [14.03.14] - V18.1

[zimmah]

i'd like to bring this back.

latest images:
large:

Click image to enlarge.

small:

Click image to enlarge.

I think i may need to review the XML on this one, it's probably sub-optimal considering the changes.

I'll see if i can get it done somewhere later this month. As i am quite busy.

[DiM]

after talking to zimmah, it seems i need to add 2 terits on this map, one for each side, a king and a general. those terits will not play a major role but they'll be unattackable. this way zimmah will be able to code the bonuses properly.

V18:
*added a king and a general
large: http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250 ... -L-V18.jpg

Click image to enlarge.

[zimmah]

Correct, I asked DiM to add an unattackable territory for both sides because otherwise a 'basetrade' would make it impossible to know which player is on which side, and it would make it impossible to properly code the losing conditions and bonuses. By just adding these two territories which hardly have any effect on gameplay, this issue is fixed.

[zimmah]

I also included card-immunity to the suggestion. As obviously if the general or king would get hit by a nuclear spoil, the owner of that territory would lose all their bonuses or even the game. Therefore these territories should have an immunity to spoils. (They should be excluded from the card pool) there's currently no way to have that in the XML.

However if they do not listen to my suggestion, we could ask to have the option of nuclear spoils and zombie spoils disabled for this map. As both of these options would totally imbalance the game (a single lucky spoil can really turn the game in someone's favor, or even outright win you the game).

[DiM]

huh, i think those spoils were added while i was gone and after checking how they work i agree they'd have to be excluded from this map if there's no way to prevent certain terits from appearing in spoils.

[DiM]

V18.1
*made the small version with the new terits (king/general)
*added a line of text in the middle legend saying that the king and the general can't be attacked.

large:
http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250 ... -V18-1.jpg

Click image to enlarge.

small:
http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250 ... -S-V18.jpg

Click image to enlarge.

[zimmah]

Some things to consider

• Maybe add some cavalry into the mix
• It's a bit funny how the towers can attack, but the gate can't (more detailed suggestion follows)
• The color behind the 1 in the second line of the besieged looks more dark/grey than the others, probably an illusion, but maybe you can still look at it.

Changing 1 or two of the attack routes will probably be not a good idea, as it may have bad effects to the gameplay. I tought of a way that may make a little more sense, realism-wise and still be viable gameplay wise.

The Besieger attacking 'though' the walls (by the towers) is not all that strange, (they could blow a hole in the wall or use ladders), however the besieged attacking from the walls to the outside, while at the same time not being able to use the gate, is a bit strange.

Therefore, i'd suggest:

East and West tower change to bombards (7th can still 1way attack the east tower)
Gate tower becomes two-way assault
Have the ship that is not attacking/defending become a supply/dropship that can either directly attack 7th or attack a regiment at the beach. Have a small regiment graphically be present at the open field near the east tower and a few small boats like you have at the landing point. If there is a territory for them, make it a 2-way attack between 7th and the regiment, if there's no territory for them, make the ship 1-way attack 7th.

Would make a little more sense realistically in my opinion, and would be more consistent with the bay tower.

Also, since it wouldn't really make sense for the Besieged to be able to board the ships from the landing point, maybe have the landing point only being able to board the ships for the Besieger (not sure how this would affect gameplay though). In other words, if the Besieged wants to get rid of the ships, he'd have to use his own fleet to kill the ships, or his bay tower.

[DiM]

[*]Maybe add some cavalry into the mix

you mean adding some extra terits with cavalry regiments or simply adding some horses to the current regiments?

[*]It's a bit funny how the towers can attack, but the gate can't (more detailed suggestion follows)

the gate has sustained heavy fire from the enemy artillery and that's why it can't attack.

[*]The color behind the 1 in the second line of the besieged looks more dark/grey than the others, probably an illusion, but maybe you can still look at it.

it was interfering with the grunge i had there. i fixed it.

Would make a little more sense realistically in my opinion, and would be more consistent with the bay tower.

that's precisely what i'd like to avoid. i made the bay area and the gate area completely different in terms of attack routes. one has regular attacks and bombardments while the other has just one-way attacks. i could have made them identical but i'm not sure that would have been better. i feel like having 2 totally different clash zones will add more spice to the map. but obviously if it turns out there's a gameplay problem i'll modify them, though i'd still stay clear of symmetry.

Also, since it wouldn't really make sense for the Besieged to be able to board the ships from the landing point, maybe have the landing point only being able to board the ships for the Besieger (not sure how this would affect gameplay though). In other words, if the Besieged wants to get rid of the ships, he'd have to use his own fleet to kill the ships, or his bay tower.

can this be done? like put a condition that only the player that holds the general can attack from the landing point to the ships?
wouldn't it overcomplicate things?

[zimmah]

[*]Maybe add some cavalry into the mix

you mean adding some extra terits with cavalry regiments or simply adding some horses to the current regiments?

I mean just graphically adding horses to the already existing regiments. It would probably make the most sense to have them at the flanks of 5th, 6th and 7th

Also, since it wouldn't really make sense for the Besieged to be able to board the ships from the landing point, maybe have the landing point only being able to board the ships for the Besieger (not sure how this would affect gameplay though). In other words, if the Besieged wants to get rid of the ships, he'd have to use his own fleet to kill the ships, or his bay tower.

can this be done? like put a condition that only the player that holds the general can attack from the landing point to the ships?
wouldn't it overcomplicate things?

That's very easy to do. The below map has a similar mechanic (you need to hold the key to be able to pass the gate).

Click image to enlarge.

[Gilligan]

[*]Maybe add some cavalry into the mix

you mean adding some extra terits with cavalry regiments or simply adding some horses to the current regiments?

I mean just graphically adding horses to the already existing regiments. It would probably make the most sense to have them at the flanks of 5th, 6th and 7th

Also, since it wouldn't really make sense for the Besieged to be able to board the ships from the landing point, maybe have the landing point only being able to board the ships for the Besieger (not sure how this would affect gameplay though). In other words, if the Besieged wants to get rid of the ships, he'd have to use his own fleet to kill the ships, or his bay tower.

can this be done? like put a condition that only the player that holds the general can attack from the landing point to the ships?
wouldn't it overcomplicate things?

That's very easy to do. The below map has a similar mechanic (you need to hold the key to be able to pass the gate).

Click image to enlarge.

I think he means over complicating gameplay, not the XML. But conditions in the XML are extremely easy to do.

[iAmCaffeine]

I love it. I think this is probably the best looking map I've seen. My only criticism would be that Clash of Kings is a bit hard to read.

[WILLIAMS5232]

as a colorblind person, the red and black arrows are hard to distinguish.

making them more bold would help.
changing the colors would be ideal. ( blue/black, white/black, yellow/blue ) basically contrasting colors. a light color and a dark color of any color would be fine.