Industrial Helix wrote:No no, I'm not saying add more bases I'm suggesting divide the existing bases into two groups. Some with South Pole privileges and others which serve as shelters.
Hmmm ... okay that is a good thought and we can still have all of them as the objective. Though the bases are already shelters as they have no auto decay on them. We just added in a few more safe zones that is all.
Furthermore, no one explained why the penguin shelter area is impassable... can't you just put mountains there? I mean, the penguin is cute and all but I just don't understand why that region is impassable. Is it like a wildlife preserve or something?
Sorry I missed this one It is called "International Penguin Natural Habitat Nature Preserve" Penguin Habitat for short! We would have to add in more territories if we take it out and add in mountains. Personally I think that the map will work with that big impassable.
isaiah40 wrote: Though the bases are already shelters as they have no auto decay on them.
Right... so I see no need for two types of shelters. Its things like that which make a map convoluted, imo.
Sorry I missed this one It is called "International Penguin Natural Habitat Nature Preserve" Penguin Habitat for short! We would have to add in more territories if we take it out and add in mountains. Personally I think that the map will work with that big impassable.
... draw a line of mountains down the middle of the penguin area. Extend the borders so that they create no new territories. End.
IH what do you have against the penguins? The penguin area gives the map some character. And I happen to think preserving wildlife is important. We're kinda sending an important message here: no matter that 2-8 armies are at an all-out war all around the antarctic, they still respect the penguin area and keep it off-limits, because, you know, preserving the wildlife is important. And this is certainly not the first map with more than 1 type of impassable. The penguins also give the map some regional flavour: apart from that one place in southern africa, the Antarctic is the only place in the world where penguins live. I would understand if this was a map about Khazakstan or something, but where do penguins belong if not in the Antarctic?
As for dividing the bases into 2 types, how exactly would that make this less complex than just having bases and safe zones? To me, it would seem more confusing to have "base type a" and "base type b"... at least the bases & safe zones are clearly distinguishable from each other.
Personally, I'd like to hear more opinions on the matter before we start making any drastic changes to the map.
I like the separation of function between safe zones and bases. Because the bases are subject to frostbite, you have to think twice about trying to build a stack on one for an assault on the South Pole and the sectors around it. You can build there and lose a bit each round, or you can build in a safe zone and then have to take a base or reinforce to it before assaulting the pole. It means lightning attacks are improbable, which is consistent with the logistical difficulties of the Antarctic.
Dude... I have no problems with penguins I just get why penguinzilla is an impassable. Hey, you want to have a penguin reserve in the heart of the antarctic, cool by me. Great. I don't think it makes sense but its not an issue I'd be willing to fight over. So leave it in.
As for the bases, I'm not saying add more bases either. I'm saying remove the safe zones and leave the bases where they are. For me, I think, it would make more sense for players to stack on the South Pole and make a play for the bases rather than the safe zones. I just don't see any necessity to having halfway points to bases.
And one last scruple... if all the territories have frostbite, who would go to grab a regional bonus? Perhaps, the regional bonuses aren't needed.
Ok, well I'll have to see what Isaiah thinks of all this. Thanks for all the feedback, we'll be putting out an update soon.
One last thing: what if we give the safe zones a bonus and just remove the regional bonuses? Then the safe zones will have another function besides just providing shelter.
natty_dread wrote:Ok, well I'll have to see what Isaiah thinks of all this. Thanks for all the feedback, we'll be putting out an update soon.
One last thing: what if we give the safe zones a bonus and just remove the regional bonuses? Then the safe zones will have another function besides just providing shelter.
That's a good point and its something I could accept. Though really, the name Safe Zones has got to go. They make it sound like Sonic the Hedgehog level rejects.
natty_dread wrote:Ok, well I'll have to see what Isaiah thinks of all this. Thanks for all the feedback, we'll be putting out an update soon.
One last thing: what if we give the safe zones a bonus and just remove the regional bonuses? Then the safe zones will have another function besides just providing shelter.
That's a good point and its something I could accept. Though really, the name Safe Zones has got to go. They make it sound like Sonic the Hedgehog level rejects.
Yikes... I'd have to disagree with this idea. If this were the case, with no regional bonuses but "safe zone" bonuses, there would essentially be a set pathway for each starting position every game. Players will always go for the safe zones first, stack, then go after the next nearest safe zone/base. There would be many territories that wouldn't be used at all. Just drop the safe zones and make two different types of bases. I honestly don't see the benefits of the option proposed.
Industrial Helix wrote:Why waste time and men taking a safe zone when a round or two will give a better shot at a more rewarding base.
That is the point! to give you an area where you can place your men and not lose any your next turn so you can go for those bases. In a couple of rounds you lose 2 men and you place 8 for a total of 6 if there were no "safe zones". Whereby you take a safe zone, in a couple of rounds you don't lose any men and you place 8 for a total of 8. Now we all know that at times the "Dice gods" will show you that you needed those 2 extra men . So would you be willing to go after a base with 2 less men (or more depending on how long you wait), or have those 2 men to use? I think everyone reading this would agree that having those 2 extra men would be well worth having those safe zones.
Well after a careful review of all the opinions and such, I think we can compromise a little and do the following: 1 - Keep the "safe Zones" but rename them to "Safe Havens" 2 - Add in the +2 for every 2 (or 3) "Safe Havens" or 3 - Also make the "Safe Havens" a +1 Auto Deploy - which would also help in offsetting the cost of losing a man on every territory in each region.
With #3 we can increase all region bonuses by 1 to also help offset the loses, though I think they are fine where they are.
isaiah40 wrote:Well after a careful review of all the opinions and such, I think we can compromise a little and do the following: 1 - Keep the "safe Zones" but rename them to "Safe Havens" 2 - Add in the +2 for every 2 (or 3) "Safe Havens" or 3 - Also make the "Safe Havens" a +1 Auto Deploy - which would also help in offsetting the cost of losing a man on every territory in each region.
With #3 we can increase all region bonuses by 1 to also help offset the loses, though I think they are fine where they are.
I would suggest against an auto-deploy (number 3). A bit too overpowered, I think the safe havens have become.
Looks mighty fine, nathan dreadlocks! Do you think an auto-deploy would be good on the islands? Might make them worth a bit more than they are. Even just an auto-deploy of 1 would be good.
I am still concerned about the way the sectors can attack. Sectors A, D, and H can get to a safe zone in two attacks, while the others need 3. Due to the auto deploy and decay, early round strategy will be to get to a safe zone asap, and players who start in A, D, and H will have a significant advantage.
SUGGESTION: Have sectors be able to attack up to two territs away, but NOT onto safe zones.
At some point, it would be nice to organize the numbering of the bases in a rational fashion. I thought you had missed B2 until I scanned all over for it. Perhaps they could be numbered in clockwise order starting from the top of the map. (I almost said from the north edge of the map, but that doesn't really work here, does it?) The starting point could also instead be the top left, that is, the extension of Sector A.
I am still concerned about the way the sectors can attack. Sectors A, D, and H can get to a safe zone in two attacks, while the others need 3. Due to the auto deploy and decay, early round strategy will be to get to a safe zone asap, and players who start in A, D, and H will have a significant advantage.
this can be dealt with neutrals
ender516 wrote:At some point, it would be nice to organize the numbering of the bases in a rational fashion. I thought you had missed B2 until I scanned all over for it. Perhaps they could be numbered in clockwise order starting from the top of the map. (I almost said from the north edge of the map, but that doesn't really work here, does it?) The starting point could also instead be the top left, that is, the extension of Sector A.
I am still concerned about the way the sectors can attack. Sectors A, D, and H can get to a safe zone in two attacks, while the others need 3. Due to the auto deploy and decay, early round strategy will be to get to a safe zone asap, and players who start in A, D, and H will have a significant advantage.
SUGGESTION: Have sectors be able to attack up to two territs away, but NOT onto safe zones.
this can be dealt with neutrals
I don't think this is a very good solution. For one, it would create imbalances in terms of getting cards on first turns. It also seems like an attempt to cover up a problem rather than fix it. Is there a reason you don't like my suggestion? I think aside form removing imbalances, it would open up the gameplay in the the first couple turns and make for more interesting games.
I am still concerned about the way the sectors can attack. Sectors A, D, and H can get to a safe zone in two attacks, while the others need 3. Due to the auto deploy and decay, early round strategy will be to get to a safe zone asap, and players who start in A, D, and H will have a significant advantage.
SUGGESTION: Have sectors be able to attack up to two territs away, but NOT onto safe zones.
this can be dealt with neutrals
I don't think this is a very good solution. For one, it would create imbalances in terms of getting cards on first turns. It also seems like an attempt to cover up a problem rather than fix it. Is there a reason you don't like my suggestion? I think aside form removing imbalances, it would open up the gameplay in the the first couple turns and make for more interesting games.
Yes, I don't like your suggestion because it seems like an attempt to cover up a problem rather than fix it.
When I take the time to really think about your map and write a constructive suggestion, I would appreciate it if you don't just brush it off. I think it would enhance the opening gameplay in a number of ways (as I have said above), do other people agree/disagree? At least give an actual reason why it should not be implemented. And please don't just say it's too complicated, other parts of this map are much more complicated than that.
There's enough complex rules in the map already. If we were to add something like "you can assault two spaces away except to safe zones or during new moon" it would push the map over from complex to needlessly complicated, IMO. Besides, legend space.
Sorry I missed this one 
. So would you be willing to go after a base with 2 less men (or more depending on how long you wait), or have those 2 men to use? I think everyone reading this would agree that having those 2 extra men would be well worth having those safe zones.
