Lunar War [GP, G, X] files on p.1

[natty dread]

Mmm I was about to pick font #4 until I saw your map showing it... Can we propose you other font options? I did that to [player]RedBaron0[/player] with the Japan map =P

Sure, but the fonts need to fit the theme and visual style of the map...

[Kabanellas]

Hi Natty & Isaiah, interesting map you've got here!

I'm voting for font #4 - more legible and less space consuming.

[natty dread]

Hi Natty & Isaiah, interesting map you've got here!

I'm voting for font #4 - more legible and less space consuming.

Thanks! I'm also starting to like font #4...

[isaiah40]

Hi Natty & Isaiah, interesting map you've got here!

I'm voting for font #4 - more legible and less space consuming.

Thanks! I'm also starting to like font #4...

Same here! Totally different seeing it by itself and then on the map.

[natty dread]

Ok, unless fumandomuerte can provide us with a font that everyone considers superior, we'll probably be going with font #4... It seems to be the most popular and also seems most legible. Anyway it should be good enough to serve it's purpose for now, I'm sure the font issue will get re-evaluated once the map hits the graphics workshop...

Until then, anticipating on the transfer to Gameplay workshop that (hopefully) is soon to come, I think we should all start concentrating on the gameplay side more.

Things to consider:

- are all the bonuses balanced?
- are all the starting positions balanced?
- are there any flaws in the gameplay that need to be corrected?

Now would be a good time to get some feedback from the gurus of mapmaking. Also thanks to everyone who has contributed to the thread so far, you have been most helpful.

[sully800]

Do you have a version tested with armies? I'm wondering how beneficial the flag backgrounds are since they will be covered by armies. Most likely the flags will still be identifiable, but it's important to consider.

[natty dread]

Do you have a version tested with armies? I'm wondering how beneficial the flag backgrounds are since they will be covered by armies. Most likely the flags will still be identifiable, but it's important to consider.

I have tried them with the armies on... IMO it looked fine, but I'll post a version with some army numbers on later.

[natty dread]

OK, here it is with some army numbers sprinkled on top...

[bigimg]http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/2929/moonmapv9wn.png[/bigimg]

[ender516]

OK, here it is with some army numbers sprinkled on top...

[bigimg]http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/2929/moonmapv9wn.png[/bigimg]

I hope you will forgive a few more graphics comments before I go away to consider gameplay.
I'd say that font 4 is working out well. Because it is compact, you may be able to eliminate all the abbreviations, which would free some legend space. Then you could layout the Landing Sites legend in three columns of two, and expand the entire globe by a fraction, thereby giving more room around all elements of the map, which usually improves legibility.

To clear those abbreviations:

• put the Sinus Aestuum label in one line directly to the right of the icon
• move the Manilius label above its icon, and put the Mare Vaporum label where that was, leaving room to spell out Eralosthenes
• move the Ptolemaeus label to the left and possibly up to make for the Albalegnius label above its icon
• you may have room to spell out Alphonsus where it is, but if not, shift the Mare Nubium icon to the left or even left and down

By the way, did Kepler lose its "r"?

[natty dread]

I hope you will forgive a few more graphics comments before I go away to consider gameplay.

Of course!

I'd say that font 4 is working out well. Because it is compact, you may be able to eliminate all the abbreviations, which would free some legend space.
Then you could layout the Landing Sites legend in three columns of two, and expand the entire globe by a fraction, thereby giving more room around all elements of the map, which usually improves legibility.

Aagh... you probably have no idea how much work "extending the globe" even for a few pixels would be, if you want to do it so that it looks good...

To clear those abbreviations:

• put the Sinus Aestuum label in one line directly to the right of the icon
• move the Manilius label above its icon, and put the Mare Vaporum label where that was, leaving room to spell out Eralosthenes
• move the Ptolemaeus label to the left and possibly up to make for the Albalegnius label above its icon
• you may have room to spell out Alphonsus where it is, but if not, shift the Mare Nubium icon to the left or even left and down

But getting rid of the abbreviations would be neat. So I might still try it, to see if there's a viable way to do it... A few problems though:

- Sinus Aestuum can't be moved to the right of the icon, since it would go on top of the connector tube from Triesnecker to Mare Vaporum.

- Moving Manilius label above the icon would cover the border between Mare Vaporum & Mare Serenitatis, making it unclear if the two Mares connect or not...

So until I can figure out a way to deal with these problems...

By the way, did Kepler lose its "r"?

Hmm? Wasn't it always Keple? oops...

[soundman]

I was looking at the bonuses and was wondering if "All landing sites of 2 rockets" meant the two US/RU rockets or two different countries rockets?

[soundman]

I was looking at the bonuses and was wondering if "All landing sites of 2 rockets" meant the two US/RU rockets or two different countries rockets?

Maybe a better way of stating that would be, do the two US rockets count as one rocket together or two? Same for the RU rockets.

[natty dread]

I was looking at the bonuses and was wondering if "All landing sites of 2 rockets" meant the two US/RU rockets or two different countries rockets?

Maybe a better way of stating that would be, do the two US rockets count as one rocket together or two? Same for the RU rockets.

Any 2 rockets. Also I think it's fairly obvious that 2 rockets count as 2 rockets...

How about I change it to "All landing sites of any 2 rockets"?

[ender516]

I was looking at the bonuses and was wondering if "All landing sites of 2 rockets" meant the two US/RU rockets or two different countries rockets?

Maybe a better way of stating that would be, do the two US rockets count as one rocket together or two? Same for the RU rockets.

Any 2 rockets. Also I think it's fairly obvious that 2 rockets count as 2 rockets...

How about I change it to "All landing sites of any 2 rockets"?

That sounds like a good wording.

[natty dread]

Changed. Also changed Keple -> Kepler. Apparently, when Isaiah drafted the gameplay on top of the image which we were using as a map of the craters and seas, one of the doodles had covered the 'R' of Kepler... so I thought it was Keple... it happens...

Now before I post the next update, I'd like to consider this idea:

Currently, the He-3 mines give a bonus when held together with landing sites as pairs. But, if you manage to get more than 3 He-3 mines, then it's very probable that you will have lots of landing sites as well, since the mines are sprinkeld all over the map. Thus making the requirement for a landing site a bit useless...

So I was thinking, how about changing it to: +2 for every Rocket and He-3 mine. That would make sense, since you need something to transport the mined He-3 back to earth... but then, would that bonus be too hard to hold/acquire?

Or how about a stepped bonus: +1 for every mine and +3 for every mine + rocket?

[isaiah40]

So I was thinking, how about changing it to: +2 for every Rocket and He-3 mine. That would make sense, since you need something to transport the mined He-3 back to earth... but then, would that bonus be too hard to hold/acquire?

Or how about a stepped bonus: +1 for every mine and +3 for every mine + rocket?

I like your first idea of +2 for every Rocket and He-3 mine as it does make better sense. But I just thought, we might want to lower the autodeploy on the rocket down to 1. We don't want anyone walking away the game too early. Or we could leave the autodeploy as is and have the rocket+mine as a +1.

Just a couple of thoughts.

[natty dread]

So I was thinking, how about changing it to: +2 for every Rocket and He-3 mine. That would make sense, since you need something to transport the mined He-3 back to earth... but then, would that bonus be too hard to hold/acquire?

Or how about a stepped bonus: +1 for every mine and +3 for every mine + rocket?

I like your first idea of +2 for every Rocket and He-3 mine as it does make better sense. But I just thought, we might want to lower the autodeploy on the rocket down to 1. We don't want anyone walking away the game too early. Or we could leave the autodeploy as is and have the rocket+mine as a +1.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Well, the neutral count on the landing sites will probably be at least 5... Landing sites need to have a high neutral count, so you can't benefit easily from the untaken ones in <8 player games. Also in <8 player games the unused rockets should have 10 neutrals, so it'd be harder to profit from them.

So I think it'd be completely justified to have a +2 auto on rocket, and a +2 for rocket + mine. Since to grab an extra rocket you'd either have to take it away from another player or kill a stack of 10 neutrals + 5 on the landing site... But that's just my opinion.

[natty dread]

V10

[bigimg]http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/5811/moonmapv10.png[/bigimg]

[soundman]

I was looking at the bonuses and was wondering if "All landing sites of 2 rockets" meant the two US/RU rockets or two different countries rockets?

Maybe a better way of stating that would be, do the two US rockets count as one rocket together or two? Same for the RU rockets.

Any 2 rockets. Also I think it's fairly obvious that 2 rockets count as 2 rockets...

How about I change it to "All landing sites of any 2 rockets"?

What has me confused is if I have all the US landing sites and US rocker number 1, but not 2, do I get the +2 bonus? Or does the +2 bonus only apply to CH, JP, IN, and EU? If so then if I hold both US rockets do I get the +5 bonus?

Does that make sense?

[isaiah40]

What has me confused is if I have all the US landing sites and US rocker number 1, but not 2, do I get the +2 bonus? Or does the +2 bonus only apply to CH, JP, IN, and EU? If so then if I hold both US rockets do I get the +5 bonus?

Does that make sense?

It is any 2 rockets and all of those landing sites. For example, you have the US1 and China rocket and hold all landing sites for both then you would get the +5 bonus. The US1 rocket can only attack its landing sites 1 through 3, and #2 rocket sites 4 through 6.

I'll see what natty can do to clear that up in the legend.

[fumandomuerte]

1. I love how graphics are improving with each actualization.

2. I'm concerned about the gameplay balance.
Made a schematic map of the attacking routes to analize wich rockets are the best to start with. Here's the map (I only named the landing sites):

-If you play with unlimited reinf. US Rocket #1 is the best option, their landing sites are 2 territories away of each other . With the same rocket you can easily assault the Russian Rocket #2 via stacking Mare Serenitatis each round with the +2 autoployed on your rocket and the +2 bonus for holding the 3 landing sites.
-All the landing sites of the Japan Rocket take you to a Mare connected to other rockets landing sites... That sucks.
-The Indian Rocket seems to be the best option to start with, its landing sites 1 & 3 have clear paths to a couple of Helium-3 mines.
-Mare Imbrium is a super node with 11 attacking routes, that's crazy!

3. There are some hard to tell connections between territories.
The red dotted line marked on the map represents a possible attacking route between S. Oceanus Procellarum and Mare Humorum, does it exist? Same question about Mare Nubium and S. Oceanus Procellarum, are they connected? These are just 2 examples of how hard it could be to read the borders.


That's all for now. I think that -before you guys continue the graphical work- the gameplay should be discussed more.

[natty dread]

What has me confused is if I have all the US landing sites and US rocker number 1, but not 2, do I get the +2 bonus? Or does the +2 bonus only apply to CH, JP, IN, and EU? If so then if I hold both US rockets do I get the +5 bonus?

The bonus is only the landing sites. It doesn't matter which rockets you hold... If you hold all three landing sites of a rocket, you get +2. If you hold all three landing sites of one rocket, and all three landing sites of some other rocket (no matter which) you get +5, regardless if you hold the rockets or not. There's a separate (autodeploy) bonus for the rockets.

Like said, I'll try to find a way to make it more clear in the legend. We're a bit short on space but I'll try to fit it in.

1. I love how graphics are improving with each actualization.

Thanks.

2. I'm concerned about the gameplay balance.
Made a schematic map of the attacking routes to analize wich rockets are the best to start with. Here's the map (I only named the landing sites):
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/851/schematicmap.png

Nice one! I'm glad someone is willing to go through the effort to help the development of this map.

-If you play with unlimited reinf. US Rocket #1 is the best option, their landing sites are 2 territories away of each other . With the same rocket you can easily assault the Russian Rocket #2 via stacking Mare Serenitatis each round with the +2 autoployed on your rocket and the +2 bonus for holding the 3 landing sites.

Hmm... The sites can be shuffled.

-All the landing sites of the Japan Rocket take you to a Mare connected to other rockets landing sites... That sucks.

Also can be shuffled with other sites.

-The Indian Rocket seems to be the best option to start with, its landing sites 1 & 3 have clear paths to a couple of Helium-3 mines.

Also... you know. Since you seem to have a clear idea on the landing sites... Do you have any suggestions? Maybe if we take the rocket that is weakest, and trade it's sites with sites of the rocket that is strongest? That sort of thing. We'll get this sorted though.

-Mare Imbrium is a super node with 11 attacking routes, that's crazy!

Yeah... I'd like to divide it in half, but then, it'd make the area even more crowded... However that might be our best bet here.

3. There are some hard to tell connections between territories.
The red dotted line marked on the map represents a possible attacking route between S. Oceanus Procellarum and Mare Humorum, does it exist? Same question about Mare Nubium and S. Oceanus Procellarum, are they connected? These are just 2 examples of how hard it could be to read the borders.

S.O.P. and Mare Humorum yes, SOP and Nubium no, although they're connected via the US5 landing site.

I'll see what I can do to make those connections more clear.

That's all for now. I think that -before you guys continue the graphical work- the gameplay should be discussed more.

I agree 100%. I wish they'd start moving maps to the gameplay workshop already, that seems like the best place to get feedback on the gameplay

Again, thanks a million for all this well thought-out feedback.

[natty dread]

OK, I tried to address some of the issues with this semi-update.

- Most of the unclear Mare borders were fixed to be more clear. If there are still any that can't be easily understood let me know.

- Connector tubes were made more visible.

- Switched Japan #3 and India #3 landing sites. Other landing sites can also be shuffled, but I'd like to get Isaiah's opinion on this, as he has designed most of the gameplay so he should have clearer vision on how to fix all these issues.

The He-3 mine locations can also be shuffled if necessary.

- Also changed the wording on the legend, which should now be clear enough. If someone can't understand the landing site bonuses now, I say let him play doodle earth

[bigimg]http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9410/moonmapv10a.png[/bigimg]


Now... Is the Mare imbrium connecting to that many territories a big issue? If so it can be divided in two halves, but I'm not sure yet on exactly where to cut it... North/south or west/east? W/E would make more sense IMO... I'd make the cut between Plato and Archimedes, so that Plato would be on the west side and Archimedes on the east side, but I'd like some opinions first.

[natty dread]

All right, gameplay has now been thoroughly adjusted...

Lots of switching things around here... Mare Imbrium was divided to north and south halves, RU2 moved to sinus iridum, US1 <-> US5, US3 <-> US6, and then some He-3 mines were moved... Cba to name them all, compare the images if you must know

[bigimg]http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/7914/moonmapv11.png[/bigimg]

[isaiah40]

Well, now that I see everything a little clearer now, I'd say the game play looks good.