Good Morning Woodboro (V7.X) -- Home for the Holidays

[Evil DIMwit]

Aren't these Graphics issues anyway? Not Gameplay? Just sayin.

Clarity of information can be seen as a subset of gameplay, or at least important to gameplay development.
So nyah.

[natty dread]

That's essentially what it's like right now, where pirates don't need to go through an antenna to assault Fanatics like regular stations do, with the drawback that they occupy more central and thus less easily-defensible positions. Do you think that's balanced?

So... is it so that stations and pirates can only attack fanatics, or can they also attack adjacent territories?

If they can only attack fanatics, then there needs to be more of them. But either way this should be made more clear in the map.

[yeti_c]

It's like most maps - adjacent territories can attack adjacent territories!?

C.

[Evil DIMwit]

Yes, stations and pirates can attack adjacent territories. I didn't think this needed to be specified.

[natty dread]

It's like most maps - adjacent territories can attack adjacent territories!?

C.

I get that, but the territories are also surrounded by roads and many maps have roads as impassables... I'm just trying to consider every possibility here, it could be that someone would be confused about it...

Oh well, it's not a big issue. Just thinking out loud here.

[yeti_c]

It's like most maps - adjacent territories can attack adjacent territories!?

C.

I get that, but the territories are also surrounded by roads and many maps have roads as impassables... I'm just trying to consider every possibility here, it could be that someone would be confused about it...

Er - the roads are the borders...

It would be a pretty lame map if you could only attack 2 squares!?

C.

[natty dread]

Well I thought maybe you had to go through the fanatics and then you could attack from them to everywhere else. But now that I think it the gameplay really wouldn't work like that...

I guess I was just having a brain fart.

[carlpgoodrich]

Sorry if this has already been discussed, I have not read the entire thread, but I think there might be a disadvantage to the player who starts in Quickbuy. His closest path to the BLAH station is through Banda, but Banda also is accessible by the starting location Mitch's. However, Mitch's can also get to BLAH through Warren. With every other station, the two connecting territories are only accessible by one starting location. This will make it harder for Quickbuy to take BLAH than for anyone else to take either of their closest stations. IMHO, I think the connection between Mitch's and Banda should be broken (maybe an impassible rush hour traffic jam, or a guard dog ).

-carlpgoodrich

[natty dread]

Sorry if this has already been discussed, I have not read the entire thread, but I think there might be a disadvantage to the player who starts in Quickbuy.

Quickbuy is a sponsor, not a starting point.

[carlpgoodrich]

Natty, you are right of course. I should have been more careful before posting. However, I believe the imbalance in play still exists. The player starting on BLAH can capture two sponsors by taking just 3 territories, while every other player will have to take at least four. Maybe you disagree, but I believe this to be a considerable advantage.

-carlpgoodrich

[natty dread]

You have a point there.

[Evil DIMwit]

Natty, you are right of course. I should have been more careful before posting. However, I believe the imbalance in play still exists. The player starting on BLAH can capture two sponsors by taking just 3 territories, while every other player will have to take at least four. Maybe you disagree, but I believe this to be a considerable advantage.

A good point. Here's a new version:
[bigimg]http://dimagic.webs.com/ConquerClub/Woodboro_v10.png[/bigimg]

[natty dread]

Ooo, we're back in business! Nice.

Anyway, as for changes... The pirates vs. regular stations could still be a tiny bit imbalanced... so perhaps you could fix this by having regular stations start with 1-2 more troops.

Btw, you could maybe post a version with all troop numbers in place? Neutral values and starting point values... it'd be easier to evaluate and suggest changes for them. As I see it, troop counts are just about the only thing left to decide for this map, after that is done you could pretty much award yourself a GP stamp...

[Evil DIMwit]

Anyway, as for changes... The pirates vs. regular stations could still be a tiny bit imbalanced... so perhaps you could fix this by having regular stations start with 1-2 more troops.

If there is an imbalance, I don't think it's in favor of the pirates. They are in the center, which means they have more direction to worry about attacks from.

As for the troop numbers, my current thoughts: [bigimg]http://dimagic.webs.com/ConquerClub/Woodboro_v10n.png[/bigimg]

(Incidentally, I just noticed the label for Roma was misaligned; I'll fix it in the next update.)

[natty dread]

Well.. the first thing that glares out to me is that when you look at stations vs. pirates, there are places where there's only 3 troops on 2 territories between a station and a pirate. So, both start with 3, station gets +2 autodeploy and +3 deploy, on top of that 3 troops... That's 8 troops, so then if the station player starts first, he'll have 8 troops, 3 in between and 3 on the pirate station. There's a distinct possibility of 1st round eliminations there.

I think you'll need to increase the neutral count around pirates.

[Hopscotcher]

Well.. the first thing that glares out to me is that when you look at stations vs. pirates, there are places where there's only 3 troops on 2 territories between a station and a pirate. So, both start with 3, station gets +2 autodeploy and +3 deploy, on top of that 3 troops... That's 8 troops, so then if the station player starts first, he'll have 8 troops, 3 in between and 3 on the pirate station. There's a distinct possibility of 1st round eliminations there.

I think you'll need to increase the neutral count around pirates.

Also Antenna's right? Because you can take over stations in much the same manner.

To avoid easy early kills, you need to install a mechanism to buffer between the radio stations.

Perhaps only Sponsors can attack Stations???? Pirate or otherwise?

[Teflon Kris]

Well.. the first thing that glares out to me is that when you look at stations vs. pirates, there are places where there's only 3 troops on 2 territories between a station and a pirate. So, both start with 3, station gets +2 autodeploy and +3 deploy, on top of that 3 troops... That's 8 troops, so then if the station player starts first, he'll have 8 troops, 3 in between and 3 on the pirate station. There's a distinct possibility of 1st round eliminations there.

I think you'll need to increase the neutral count around pirates.

Also Antenna's right? Because you can take over stations in much the same manner.

To avoid easy early kills, you need to install a mechanism to buffer between the radio stations.

Perhaps only Sponsors can attack Stations???? Pirate or otherwise?

To eliminate from a station first turn you'd have to take 7 with 8 (for a pirate, or 8 wuth 8 to take another legal station).

Slight adjustment of neutral values might be all that's needed.

Otherwise, since I last checked-out the map ages ago (sorry ), the pirates / legal stations balance is much better and less likely to result in grumpy players.

[MrBenn]

Out of curiosity, I'm assuming that there's a standard +1 for every 3 terrs with a minimum of +3... this means that you'll get a stack of 8 to start on the first turn (3 from the drop, +2 autodeploy, and +3 standard terr bonus). First round kills seem within the realm of possibility...

If the standard terr bonus is scrapped, then the stack to start will drop to 6 (3 from the drop. +2 auto, +1 terr bonus); this reduces the chance of a first turn kill

You could change all the neutral 1s to neutral 2s... You may need to up a couple of houses in some places to 3 too.

[carlpgoodrich]

If the standard terr bonus is scrapped, then the stack to start will drop to 6 (3 from the drop. +2 auto, +1 terr bonus); this reduces the chance of a first turn kill

You could change all the neutral 1s to neutral 2s... You may need to up a couple of houses in some places to 3 too.

I vote for doing both: scrapping standard terr bonus and increasing all the surrounding neutral 1s to neutral 2. Since it's a small map and there are +2auto's, I would be worried about too many armies in too small a space too early in the game.

Also, for a out of nowhere idea: What about increasing the number of fanatics from 2 to 6, but making them station specific (after all, most people don't listen to EVERYTHING ) In other words, each station would have one fanatic that it would be able to one way attack, but which no other normal station could attack. Then, the pirate stations, being the pirates that they are, could one way attack all the fanatics (or maybe each pirate could attack three of them). This would increase the value of pirates and make people more likely to use the fanatics. Thoughts?

-Carlpgoodrich

[Evil DIMwit]

If the standard terr bonus is scrapped, then the stack to start will drop to 6 (3 from the drop. +2 auto, +1 terr bonus); this reduces the chance of a first turn kill

You could change all the neutral 1s to neutral 2s... You may need to up a couple of houses in some places to 3 too.

I vote for doing both: scrapping standard terr bonus and increasing all the surrounding neutral 1s to neutral 2. Since it's a small map and there are +2auto's, I would be worried about too many armies in too small a space too early in the game.

How's +1 troop for for each 2 regular houses? With 1 troop as a minimum, of course.

Also, for a out of nowhere idea: What about increasing the number of fanatics from 2 to 6, but making them station specific (after all, most people don't listen to EVERYTHING ) In other words, each station would have one fanatic that it would be able to one way attack, but which no other normal station could attack. Then, the pirate stations, being the pirates that they are, could one way attack all the fanatics (or maybe each pirate could attack three of them). This would increase the value of pirates and make people more likely to use the fanatics. Thoughts?
-Carlpgoodrich

Perhaps if this was a bigger map, but having six fanatics essentially guarantees that there will be a fanatic next to a pirate, which would make the pirate far too vulnerable.

[carlpgoodrich]

Also, for a out of nowhere idea: What about increasing the number of fanatics from 2 to 6, but making them station specific (after all, most people don't listen to EVERYTHING ) In other words, each station would have one fanatic that it would be able to one way attack, but which no other normal station could attack. Then, the pirate stations, being the pirates that they are, could one way attack all the fanatics (or maybe each pirate could attack three of them). This would increase the value of pirates and make people more likely to use the fanatics. Thoughts?
-Carlpgoodrich

Perhaps if this was a bigger map, but having six fanatics essentially guarantees that there will be a fanatic next to a pirate, which would make the pirate far too vulnerable.

Good point. I was kinda thinking the same thing. Just wanted to throw it out there...

-carlpgoodrich

[Evil DIMwit]

So then how does this strike you?
[bigimg]http://dimagic.webs.com/ConquerClub/Woodboro_v11n.png[/bigimg]--] Adjusted many neutrals upwards
--] Minimum deployment is now 1
--] Normal territory bonus replaced with audience bonus
--] Label for Roma moved slightly to the right

[carlpgoodrich]

Awesome, I think this neutral count works. One suggestion with the new legend: "+1 every turn to deploy per pair" sounds kinda like every house has a specific pair you have to hold. Maybe something like "+1 for every two listeners"?? I don't think you need to say "to deploy" since this is usually the default unless it specifically says otherwise.
-carlpgoodrich

[army of nobunaga]

great friggin map. Ill play it

[natty dread]

Also you should add to the legend "no regular territory bonus" if that's what you're going for.