The CUBE

[paulk]

And just as a comparison, this is another background I contemplated, but I find it slightly more distracting.

[RedBaron0]

I like that background of the Earth at night, simple, mostly black, yet you know it's more.

[paulk]

in that case... the green really bugged me by some reason, so I changed it to brown.

[Xero-88]

i love this map, now we would just need a hypercube map for 4d attack

[paulk]

Now, how do I get this map out of the recycling bin?

[RedBaron0]

Gotta pm someone in blue, and show them your update.

[isaiah40]

Gotta pm someone in blue, and show them your update.

Mr.Benn, thnobodies80, or iancanton to be specific.

[paulk]

I have PM'd Mr.Benn an additional time now.
I'll try PM the other two as well.

Thank you RB and isaiah40.

[thenobodies80]

[Moved]

Moved in the main foundry. But not stickied.
since a long time has passed, please be patient and give us the time to check that something hasn't been forgotten about gameplay

Have a nice day

thenobodies80

[paulk]

Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you!

This maps first draft was 2007 12 03 and it has developed through 4 (!) threads (12+6+124+275=417 posts) and is on its 27th (current map size) update. I hope you won't go through them all, lol.

[Industrial Helix]

Wow... this hard to read and I thin kits because the circles are all the same size instead of in the same perspective as the lines suggest. I'd say start with the necessary size circles in the back and then grow gradually bigger.

It's an interesting concept, but wow... its hard to read.

[Beko the Great]

Hello fellow! I love this idea, Cubes are nice thing indeed! I just have two ideas:

Gameplay:
Add more bonus, like hold the 4 vertices of the big cube = 2 and hold one line between the main vertexes (don't know the exact word in english... In portuguese is "aresta"), that means 4 territories as well, = 2... Don't know, just to diversify the gameplay

Graphic:
Give the spheres a more three-dimensional look. They seem without volume, just white cyrcles.

Anyway, congratulations on the idea and I hope you can go on!

[paulk]

I'd say start with the necessary size circles in the back and then grow gradually bigger.

I am concerned that if I make the circles gradually bigger then they won't fit in the smaller map version. I have tried this before and it looked real bad. But thank you for your comment. When I make the smaller map version I will try to see if I can fit in a slight increase.

Add more bonus, like hold the 4 vertices of the big cube = 2 and hold one line between the main vertexes (don't know the exact word in english... In portuguese is "aresta"), that means 4 territories as well, = 2... Don't know, just to diversify the gameplay

Honestly, I don't understand what you mean? I think you wanted to say:

1) Increase the bonus for each mini square to +2 instead of +1
My answer to that is that I wanted to make this a map with many small bonuses.
Maybe time will prove that you are right, but until then I want to go with the original idea of +1/mini square.
Why? Because I believe it makes it more tactically interesting to play this map.
It makes gameplay less desperate because players don't have to make raids into enemy territory each turn to crush all the bonuses, or face certain loss.
Also, since there are 108+27+8=143 bonus combinations with a combined value of 197 troops, I think that is plenty enough with bonuses.

2) Hold 2 connected yellow balls for an additional +4
My answer to that is that I think there are plenty bonus possibilities already and additionally I don't want to make the bonus system more complicated.

Give the spheres a more three-dimensional look. They seem without volume, just white cyrcles.

They already have a slight 3D feeling with a shadow side and a lighter side, just as on the rods between the balls.
And when the troop numbers get on top of the balls it won't make a difference, instead it will just make it harder to watch the map, if there is more shadow on the balls.
I already tried this, but thank you for your comments, they are appreciated.

[paulk]

Before I go ahead and work on the smaller map I wonder if it is possible to get the big map approved from the mods?

[karelpietertje]

@ karelpietertje

Thanks for commenting, although I really didn't understand what you wanted to say.
Maybe you spent too much time in the 5th dimension?

Ah in my always way too much altering of a post I make, I actually forgot to specify what I meant by making the attack routes more interesting.
In the 2D maps there are things like mountains or rivers, impassables.
have you thought about this? because symmetrical maps turn out to get a little boring.
and with this extra dimension, this has even more symmetries

[isaiah40]

Before I go ahead and work on the smaller map I wonder if it is possible to get the big map approved from the mods?

Continue working on the large map, and then when everything is just about right then you can work on the small map. This way you won't have to work on two at the same time

[paulk]

In the 2D maps there are things like mountains or rivers, impassables.
have you thought about this? because symmetrical maps turn out to get a little boring.
and with this extra dimension, this has even more symmetries

Yes, of course I have thought of this.
Very much indeed.
And that is also why I made the bonuses so low. +1 / mini square and +3 mini cube and +1 ad / yellow.

I believe and calculate that to win this map you have to be a top notch tactician.

First of all, with so many attack routes it will be close to impossible to hold your bonuses by dumping a big army on one spot.
Instead you have to spread them out and make it less desirable to raid through "all" your bonuses, because the loss wouldn't measure up to the gain.

Example:
In a 4 player game you will start with 14 balls = 4 armies, or 16 balls = 5 armies if I go back to dividing the yellow balls between the players.
If one of your opponents have a mini square next to you, will you place them all on your ball next to it and make a daring attack?
Or will you save and fortify to hit harder later? Or will you hit another ball to get your own square/s?
Will you have to save a huge army on one spot to be able to make raids into enemy territory?
Or will you spread them out to prevent others from attacking your squares?

Second, I believe that it will also take a good bit of visual imagination to comprehend this map, and making impassables wouldn't help the game play, just make it harder in an annoying way.

But of course I could be wrong. Please, do tell me how you would place and demonstrate impassables?

[paulk]

Continue working on the large map, and then when everything is just about right then you can work on the small map. This way you won't have to work on two at the same time

Exactly my plan then

[ustus]

just a concern, but if the yellow squares in the center are autodeploy, then they need to start off neutral. If you play a 5 or more player game as i understand the map now, it is impossible for all players to start evenly.

Second, +1 for a 4 territory region which can be attacked at 4 points? i would never want to take said region. it's just not worth the effort (though, i guess if there are no better regions...) Also, you said in the current version (as posted on p1) that the squares are worth +1 and the little cubes are worth +3. I would assume that holding a cube would still get you the +6 for the 6 squares that compose the faces of the cube? so, +9 for each cube in total? or are you reducing the bonus when one takes the last point of a cube?

[paulk]

additionally +3

[SultanOfSurreal]

Is the center too powerful? Every territory is getting +1, plus +1 for each square, and +3 for the cube. Holding the whole thing nets 17 troops, for 8 territories. Granted you have to keep every one of them defended to hold it for a turn. But even still...

[paulk]

Is the center too powerful? Every territory is getting +1, plus +1 for each square, and +3 for the cube. Holding the whole thing nets 17 troops, for 8 territories. Granted you have to keep every one of them defended to hold it for a turn. But even still...

I would love to try out different versions of game play to see what might fit best.
But since that not is possible (as I have understood - until you get the map into BETA stage) I can only speculate what works best.
The map has no "bottle necks" where you can put one big army to defend the entrance to all the territories behind it.
So I figured that a lot of small bonuses would be the ticket. You don't loose the game if someone else get a few bonuses and you don't win either. It is when the bonuses combine to cubes and involve yellow balls the bonuses go up. But of course, a minicube has 8 attack points...

Honestly, I don't know. I can only guess. I am open for suggestions to game play, bonus systems etc. Just write your suggestions down.

[paulk]

Open question: What is missing for getting this map some stamps so it can proceed?

[iancanton]

just a concern, but if the yellow squares in the center are autodeploy, then they need to start off neutral.

agreed. in a 2-player game, if u allocate start positions and no neutrals to the yellow points, then player 1 will start with 7 troops to deploy plus 4 auto-deployed, while player 2 is likely to have only 6 to deploy plus 2 auto-deployed, since player 1 will attack player 2's yellows immediately. this is a substantial advantage for player 1. whether each yellow ought to start with 1, 2 or 3 neutrals is a matter for debate. welcome back to the foundry, [player]paulk[/player]!

ian.

[paulk]

Initial placement:
All yellow verticles/balls start with neutral 2.

Old trashed idea:
To avoid unfair starting positions the yellow vertices are divided between the players so you get 2 yellow vertices in a 2-4 player game and 1 in 5-8 player games.
The rest of the inner yellow vertices start as neutral.
All other (outer) vertices are randomly divided.

I had that explained on page 1
Thank you Ian.