denominator wrote:Oh, I know. I really don't need much, just the edges. The emphasis on that map was the regions around the cap, so the cap got reduced to 3 territories, whereas the emphasis here is on Antarctica so the other regions would be reduced.
Even getting just the edges on the map, we would need lots of empty sea on the map. This would also probably cut the size of the Antarctic in half of what it currently is. I got to say I'm not thrilled with the idea...
One possibility would be to use insets for it, not sure how feasible that will be...
denominator wrote:Oh, I know. I really don't need much, just the edges. The emphasis on that map was the regions around the cap, so the cap got reduced to 3 territories, whereas the emphasis here is on Antarctica so the other regions would be reduced.
Even getting just the edges on the map, we would need lots of empty sea on the map. This would also probably cut the size of the Antarctic in half of what it currently is. I got to say I'm not thrilled with the idea...
One possibility would be to use insets for it, not sure how feasible that will be...
Yeah, I see what you're saying now. South America is the only landmass close enough to really be feasible, NZ and Australia are both quite far aways and Africa is just way too far. I'll have to rethink one of my objective points, but that will help "uncrowd" the SE area of my map.
Oh, and I really am not a fan of insets. I'd rather scrap the idea than complicate the map further with insets.
Ok, it looks like AON is not coming back, at least for now, and I really want to get this show on the road, so I have decided to go with denominator's plan - it has the most interesting gameplay, I can see potential in it. It was a hard choice though. Thanks to all who offered their ideas for this map.
Figured out a way to make the game work with either an objective win or a regular win. However, I'm not sure that the XML can even be coded that way, and even if it can, it may be too confusing for players. Looking for a consult here:
The 8 dots are just to show 8 starting points, assigned at random. AP stands for airplane (not to be confused with the spot labelled plane - I'll probably change one to helicopter later).
My premise is this - to win via OBJECTIVE you need to hold the Map OR the Compass AND the Plane OR the Boat. As in, one method of navigating and one mode of transportation. I will balance the differences in physical distance by making the territories different sizes.
To win via killing the other players, you'll need to be able to attack the 8 starting points (currently only 1-way attacks out of starting points and starting points do not attack each other). This is where AP comes in - it will be a large stack neutral that can attack the starting points. However, if there is no incentive to go out of the starting point everyone will just stack there, then attack AP and kill the other starting points for the win. So my premise is that once you hold the GPS, the AP becomes "unlocked" for you and you can attack it. You must hold the GPS to be able to attack and kill the other players.
My goal is to make the game multi-dimensional (in fog, you have to choose whether to go for a kill win or an objective win, and be careful that your opponents don't succeed in the other options while you go for yours), while making it fair. The GPS being on the peninsula will make it difficult to balance all 8 starting points, but it can be done. My biggest concern is whether or not it is even possible to code or understand.
However, if there is no incentive to go out of the starting point everyone will just stack there, then attack AP and kill the other starting points for the win. So my premise is that once you hold the GPS, the AP becomes "unlocked" for you and you can attack it. You must hold the GPS to be able to attack and kill the other players.
This would require conditional borders so it can't be done. But it could be done so that you can assault the AP from the GPS...
Also, what about bonus structure? Any plans on that front?
However, if there is no incentive to go out of the starting point everyone will just stack there, then attack AP and kill the other starting points for the win. So my premise is that once you hold the GPS, the AP becomes "unlocked" for you and you can attack it. You must hold the GPS to be able to attack and kill the other players.
This would require conditional borders so it can't be done. But it could be done so that you can assault the AP from the GPS...
That was my backup plan.
natty_dread wrote:Also, what about bonus structure? Any plans on that front?
I was thinking no bonuses except +1 per research station held.
Balancing access to the AP could be done by having multiple GPS sites around Antarctica. Remember, the real GPS system requires multiple satellites in view in order to get a positional fix.
Denominator, I haven't heard from you, so if you have finished that gameplay draft post it now, otherwise I'm going to look for other solutions for the gameplay design.
This is chaos... The French and the Aussies claim the same section... Same with Argentina the Brits and Chile all claim one section... ANother big chunk is unclaimed.... I officially claim that one for Canada... Or maybe just for me... I wonder if there are minerals under that ice.... lol jk..
I like this. Reminds me of my baseball field, but backwards. Sort of an interesting subgenre of conquest maps seems to be developing, with the going out from a common location and then coming back through a big neutral. Isn't 30 rather extreme though? You don't want to get to the point where it's much easier for someone who's winning to blockade all the people in the sectors than it is to eliminate them outright.
Evil DIMwit wrote:I like this. Reminds me of my baseball field, but backwards. Sort of an interesting subgenre of conquest maps seems to be developing, with the going out from a common location and then coming back through a big neutral. Isn't 30 rather extreme though? You don't want to get to the point where it's much easier for someone who's winning to blockade all the people in the sectors than it is to eliminate them outright.
Yes, the numbers will most likely require lots of tweaking. There's plenty of time for that though.
But I'd say that the borders would look better in white.
The ports seem unnecessary. I'd rather you stick with the dotted lines. Since all the starting positions are in a central location, there seems no need for the transportation capabilities of the ports.
I'd rather see names for the bases than the ambiguous Bwhatever.
I think it is South Orkney Islands, not South Orney Islands.
I cannot easily tell which ice shelves are white and which are blue. They almost all seem to be streaked white and blue. Maybe some variation in the label font would help.
The base numbering was done mainly to save space, as was the solution to number all territories. We'll have to see if alternate solutions can be explored, but seems unlikely, thinking of the small map...
Victor, thanks.
Bison, I don't know if the regions will even have bonuses...
Ender, if the ice shelf has a label, then it obviously is not an impassable, like all the white shelves are...
natty_dread wrote:Ender, if the ice shelf has a label, then it obviously is not an impassable, like all the white shelves are...
I wondered if that might be the case, but if, for example, Halley Land 3 is connected to Antarctic Peninsula 1 by that thin strip of the Ronne Shelf, it ought to be more clear which shelves are which.
Stay tuned this weekend for an update!!
