it needs help. you cant eliminate opponents. it makes for a really boring, and dull game. prolly the worst game play on cc. make it to where you can eliminate opponents. maybe start with 3's on the board everywhere that neutrals are for the players....i dont know. i will never play it again if it is the same as it is now.
ronc8649...save your comments you were in an illegal game anyway on the old version The new version has been modifed but is yet unreleased so that game conditions are different.
Last edited by cairnswk on Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
it needs help. you cant eliminate opponents. it makes for a really boring, and dull game. prolly the worst game play on cc. make it to where you can eliminate opponents. maybe start with 3's on the board everywhere that neutrals are for the players....i dont know. i will never play it again if it is the same as it is now.
ronc8649...save your comments you were in an illegal game anyway on the old version The new version has been modifed but is yet unreleased so that game conditions are different.
oh, sorry cairnswk. i made a thread apologizing for that. and wanted to give my thoughts. i didnt realize you changed it up. my fault. scratch what i said buddy.
Whatever happened here, I like the old version of the map better. The starting territories (Jones/J1/J2 etc) don't help you at all on the rest of the map, because they're now not only +2/+1/+1 instead of +2/+2/+2, but they're also autodeployed, and likely trapped behind the neutral at Access Point nearly every turn after people have gone through that. That's why BOB is showing 3 armies instead of 7, you'll get 3 to deploy wherever, and 4 more scattered near your starting location. You'll be near base (3) income for a very long time until you can get over 12 territories, the 60-odd resetting defenders on the big guns are completely out of anybody's league in a no-cards game before turn 50 or so (and heaven help you if you fail your rolls bombing the start locations), and bonuses are very hard to come by even in a mature game. I see the way this is set up now as being far more likely to cause stalemates and frustration than before, unless someone manages to take the whole castle or something, players are always going to have piddly income plus a bunch of autodeployed paratroopers who now highly resist being destroyed from the single AA bombard that can't be restocked nearly as well as the 3 from before. A 2-player game might work okay this way, or an escalating card game, but most game variations I've tried to think through seem to be severely nerfed by the changeover, I can see games going 200 turns easily, mostly at 3-5 armies per turn outside the southwest, before someone can get either all the objectives or bombing the start locations.
(Granted, my games were some of the few that switched over from the old map and there are major problems and confusion from that switch - though it makes for some entertaining logs, and some things seem more streamlined now. But I've looked into several new games that people have started up now too and the income thing doesn't look very easy to overcome. I still love the idea for the map, but I'd say it needs more tweaking).
Tiller wrote:Whatever happened here, I like the old version of the map better. The starting territories (Jones/J1/J2 etc) don't help you at all on the rest of the map, because they're now not only +2/+1/+1 instead of +2/+2/+2, but they're also autodeployed, and likely trapped behind the neutral at Access Point nearly every turn after people have gone through that. That's why BOB is showing 3 armies instead of 7, you'll get 3 to deploy wherever, and 4 more scattered near your starting location. You'll be near base (3) income for a very long time until you can get over 12 territories, the 60-odd resetting defenders on the big guns are completely out of anybody's league in a no-cards game before turn 50 or so (and heaven help you if you fail your rolls bombing the start locations), and bonuses are very hard to come by even in a mature game. I see the way this is set up now as being far more likely to cause stalemates and frustration than before, unless someone manages to take the whole castle or something, players are always going to have piddly income plus a bunch of autodeployed paratroopers who now highly resist being destroyed from the single AA bombard that can't be restocked nearly as well as the 3 from before. A 2-player game might work okay this way, or an escalating card game, but most game variations I've tried to think through seem to be severely nerfed by the changeover, I can see games going 200 turns easily, mostly at 3-5 armies per turn outside the southwest, before someone can get either all the objectives or bombing the start locations. ....
Yes, i agree. the autodeplay is all wrong for this and i think the +1 needs increasing back to +2. That will at least give players some incentive to tackle terts early in the game.
MrBenn wrote:
cairnswk wrote:Game 6511502 Is this written correctly? I hold all three terts, yet BOB is only showing that i should have 3 armies due?
BOB's telling me that you're due 7 armies... I think the autodeploys get counted as region bonuses?
What about leaving the autodeploy as is but C1-Y2 get +1 bonus ontop of the autodeploy to add to the standard +3. That gives players +5 to allocate from the drop, and an autodeploy still occuring that side of the checkpoint.
What do you think about that?
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
I'm in a 6 player Game 6517461 that we just started. One player started with 2 chutes? That gives him 4 extra troops per round the first few rounds of the game until we get to AA. Shouldn't it only be possible to start with 1 chute in 5+ player games and 2 chutes in 1-4 player games?
phantomzero wrote:I'm in a 6 player Game 6517461 that we just started. One player started with 2 chutes? That gives him 4 extra troops per round the first few rounds of the game until we get to AA. Shouldn't it only be possible to start with 1 chute in 5+ player games and 2 chutes in 1-4 player games?
Just wondering!
phantomzero
Yes i have the same situation in a game I am in. The starting positions are coded thus:
I thought this code would give each player one position in each of the 4 regions, but it does not. It appears to take the entire list of territories and divy it up randomly.
I would like to hear what the solution is if someone out there knows.
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
Hi cairns. I would like to see the whole XML but my guess is the following:
Some of the starting positions do not start as neutrals.
After allocating starting positions to players (neutrality irrelevant), any non-neutral territories including remaining unassigned starting positions get divvy'd up. If they were starting neutral then they would remain neutral and not get allocated in the pot.
chipv wrote:Hi cairns. I would like to see the whole XML but my guess is the following:
Some of the starting positions do not start as neutrals.
After allocating starting positions to players (neutrality irrelevant), any non-neutral territories including remaining unassigned starting positions get divvy'd up. If they were starting neutral then they would remain neutral and not get allocated in the pot.
chipv wrote:Hi cairns. I would like to see the whole XML but my guess is the following:
Some of the starting positions do not start as neutrals.
After allocating starting positions to players (neutrality irrelevant), any non-neutral territories including remaining unassigned starting positions get divvy'd up. If they were starting neutral then they would remain neutral and not get allocated in the pot.
Game 6510575 In this game when I go to reinforce I'm being asked by the drop down menu to reinforce from Philby however I don't hold Philby I hold Smith. The log is also referring to it as Philby. 2010-02-27 04:37:15 - barterer2002 reinforced P2 with 6 troops from Philby
Also am wondering on the initial drop, trying to fix the double start drop it seems to me there are two options. 1) cut it down so that each player gets one starting position and that's it (which isn't what I'd like as its kind of killing a fly with a sledghammer) or 2) have the code drop twice. Have the starting postions drop and sort to neutral and then have a secondary drop amongst the other positions. Not sure if this is codable or not.
barterer2002 wrote: In this game when I go to reinforce I'm being asked by the drop down menu to reinforce from Philby however I don't hold Philby I hold Smith.
chipv wrote:... Ok, as I suspected, none of the starting positions start as neutral. You would get a more determinate drop if you set them to start as neutral.
Thanks chipv, and also for the live link. I've fixed that with this on each starter.
barterer2002 wrote: In this game when I go to reinforce I'm being asked by the drop down menu to reinforce from Philby however I don't hold Philby I hold Smith.
You hold Philby.
I agree
AAFitz wrote:Is there any way to add a bigger warning to the access point. its not funny how many park everything there ...
I've made the legend text and name text red so it stands out.
cairnswk wrote:... What about leaving the autodeploy as is but C1-Y2 get +1 bonus ontop of the autodeploy to add to the standard +3. That gives players +5 to allocate from the drop, and an autodeploy still occuring that side of the checkpoint.
What do you think about that?
So further to this, this is the code now for example for Yves
Can anyone help with the dasdorf bit in the legend please. It gives +1 for 5 I only see 4 (DD I presume.) Also UC / DC / Ss - there's no bonus associated?
Looks interesting for the dubs and trips games i'm in. Not so sure the multiplayer, that's a lot of neutrals for a small bonus and being a sitting duck. Early days though - we shall see.
P.s got both the above - 1 player with 2 starting parachutes in trips, someone just stacked access...oh dear...
