Antarctica [Quenched]

[Victor Sullivan]

More like graphics nitpicks but I'll say them anyhow:

- I still think the sectors should be named W X Y and Z, to help them stick out a bit more from the land territories.
- HL's blue color is too intense, it sticks out from the other bonus areas.

[natty dread]

I disagree, sectors stick out plenty the way they are. I mean, how hard is it to spot a huge round grey slab in the middle of the continent? WXYZ seems counterintuitive and odd to use for a central feature of the map.

I'll fade HL a bit.

[natty dread]

[bigimg]http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/4743/antarctic4.png[/bigimg]

[natty dread]

Is everyone satisfied with the gameplay now?

[isaiah40]

I disagree, sectors stick out plenty the way they are. I mean, how hard is it to spot a huge round grey slab in the middle of the continent? WXYZ seems counterintuitive and odd to use for a central feature of the map.

I'll fade HL a bit.

I agree. I think that they are clear enough.

[carlpgoodrich]

I still think the bonuses are too small pretty much across the board considering the decay. For example, if you want to get the maximum benefit out of expanding in VL from base K, you will need to protect 4 territories, so you will lose 4 troops per tern to the decays, and you will only get +3 from the bonus. And that is one of the most favorable examples. Since the only other bonus for expanding doesn't kick in until you get 12 territories, I see little motivation to expand, unless I am missing something.

I understand why you might not want just +1 per 1. +2 per 3 would help a little, but I think +3 per 3 would work fairly nicely. +3 per 3 basically means that you can get a maximum bonus of 1 for every territory you only have 1 troop on (since those are the ones that the decay doesn't affect), but unlike +1 per 1 you can lose a larger bonus by being attacked only once.

Also, holding the SP and the sectors only nets you 3 troops, which hardly seems worth the huge risk of trying to hold. In the current state I can only imagine people plowing right threw it to get to the bases and not trying to get the bonus.

Edit: If both the mapmakers disagree with me I will be quite until beta, at which point I am 99% sure this will need to be addressed.

[isaiah40]

I still think the bonuses are too small pretty much across the board considering the decay. For example, if you want to get the maximum benefit out of expanding in VL from base K, you will need to protect 4 territories, so you will lose 4 troops per tern to the decays, and you will only get +3 from the bonus. And that is one of the most favorable examples. Since the only other bonus for expanding doesn't kick in until you get 12 territories, I see little motivation to expand, unless I am missing something.

I understand why you might not want just +1 per 1. +2 per 3 would help a little, but I think +3 per 3 would work fairly nicely. +3 per 3 basically means that you can get a maximum bonus of 1 for every territory you only have 1 troop on (since those are the ones that the decay doesn't affect), but unlike +1 per 1 you can lose a larger bonus by being attacked only once.

Also, holding the SP and the sectors only nets you 3 troops, which hardly seems worth the huge risk of trying to hold. In the current state I can only imagine people plowing right threw it to get to the bases and not trying to get the bonus.

Edit: If both the mapmakers disagree with me I will be quite until beta, at which point I am 99% sure this will need to be addressed.

Okay somehow I missed natty's point

feudal style collection bonus: +1 for each 2 territories in the same area, in addition to regular territory bonus.

So let's say You have Base K and you hold Victoria Land (VL). You would get +3 for holding all 6 territories PLUS since you hold 7 territories, you would get +2 for a total of +5 men to deploy. You lose 4 men while defending VL. So if increase to +2 for 3 then you would get a total of +7 to deploy. Okay now that I worked it out this would seem a little more fair. What says you natty?

[carlpgoodrich]

So let's say You have Base K and you hold Victoria Land (VL). You would get +3 for holding all 6 territories PLUS since you hold 7 territories, you would get +2 for a total of +5 men to deploy. You lose 4 men while defending VL. So if increase to +2 for 3 then you would get a total of +7 to deploy. Okay now that I worked it out this would seem a little more fair. What says you natty?

Now I'm confused. Where does the +2 for holding 7 territories come from? Is the regular territory bonus not +1 per 3 with a minimum of 3 (like normal)? That is what I assumed, so holding VL would give you 3+3-4=2 right now, but the point is that holding just base K would give you a straight 3 (I am completely ignoring the autodeploy on the base). Regardless of the regular territory bonus, I think my concern still holds.

[natty dread]

Ok here's what I think about the bonuses:

- south pole + sectors bonus can be bumped up to 30.
- regular territory bonus is regular territory bonus.
- as for the collection bonus, we could just as well boldly go where no penguin has gone and bump it up to +2 for 2.

[isaiah40]

Ok here's what I think about the bonuses:

- south pole + sectors bonus can be bumped up to 30.
- regular territory bonus is regular territory bonus.
- as for the collection bonus, we could just as well boldly go where no penguin has gone before and bump it up to +2 for 2.

Fixed and +1 for every 3?

[natty dread]

Yeah, 3 minimum and +1 for 3... the regular thing. It saves us the legend space of writing down anything about the regular territory bonus being not regular territory bonus.

Anyway Isaiah what do you think about +2 for 2 for the land bonus?

[isaiah40]

Well, I've been looking at it and running the #'s and I think this will work out for the better.

[Victor Sullivan]

Territory bonus sounds good. I would up the South Pole and sectors bonus to 40, though, as it's extremely hard to defend and you lose a max 22 troops a turn.

-Sully

P.S. Congrats on 1000 posts isaiah

[isaiah40]

Territory bonus sounds good. I would up the South Pole and sectors bonus to 40, though, as it's extremely hard to defend and you lose a max 22 troops a turn.

-Sully

P.S. Congrats on 1000 posts isaiah

Thanks! Only a 1000!? Well shoot it seems like more to me.

On topic now. I'm thinking we can leave it as is and wait for beta to find out.

[natty dread]

Territory bonus sounds good. I would up the South Pole and sectors bonus to 40, though, as it's extremely hard to defend and you lose a max 22 troops a turn.

Technically, you only lose 12 since you can't assault SP without going through the sectors so you only need to fortify the sectors to defend it.

Ok, I'll make all the changes discussed in here and pm:s and post an update shortly.

[carlpgoodrich]

I really like the +2 per 2. Its cool because it kinda lets you redistribute the troops you lose due to the decay. The whole sector/SP thing is rather complicated and I am very interested to see exactly how it plays. Although I do think it will have to be raised once in beta, I think 30 is playable.

[natty dread]

If a raise is demanded, a raise shall be granted. We are not stingy bosses with our maps.

Here's a quick update.

[bigimg]http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1894/antarctic5.png[/bigimg]

Now on the subject of starting troops and neutrals...

If I remember correctly (and I usually do), the values currently agreed upon are:

- 5 starting troops for bases
- 2 neutrals for islands and all land areas
- 3 for sectors
- 30 for south pole

[isaiah40]

If a raise is demanded, a raise shall be granted. We are not stingy bosses with our maps. Speak for yourself natty! Just joking!

If I remember correctly (and I usually do), the values currently agreed upon are:

- 5 starting troops for bases
- 2 neutrals for islands and all land areas
- 3 for sectors
- 30 for south pole

Everything looks right and good!!

[Victor Sullivan]

Jesus... 30 neutrals on the South Pole? That's absurd, considering the gameplay structure! I'd go way down to 20, 15, even. Also, the minimap still has HL's old color.

[natty dread]

It's not absurd at all, considering that it's not a killer neutral anymore and you only need to kill those 30 troops once. 30 neutrals get killed fast.

Considering also that if you lose all bases, you're out of the game, no questions asked, I think it's only proper that there be a suitable amount of protection on SP to keep elimination from being too easy.

[isaiah40]

Jesus... 30 neutrals on the South Pole? That's absurd, considering the gameplay structure! I'd go way down to 20, 15, even. Also, the minimap still has HL's old color.

Not really considering the troops you will be getting by the time you get there. For know the SP will stay at 30 until we know in beta how it works out. And as I was fast posted by natty, yea what he said too!

[Victor Sullivan]

Jesus... 30 neutrals on the South Pole? That's absurd, considering the gameplay structure! I'd go way down to 20, 15, even. Also, the minimap still has HL's old color.

Not really considering the troops you will be getting by the time you get there. For know the SP will stay at 30 until we know in beta how it works out. And as I was fast posted by natty, yea what he said too!

Fair enough, but I assure you, no one is going to want to take out that stack first.

[natty dread]

No one may want to, but somebody will have to. And the one who does it at the right moment will gain huge benefits, perhaps even win the game.

So, can we get a gameplay mod to pitch in here? I think the gameplay is pretty much ok right now, I don't think there's anything more we can do here until we get to beta test this. Can we get a sticky any time soon?

[natty dread]

neutrals

[bigimg]http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/5787/antarctic5trv.png[/bigimg]

[natty dread]

One more thing to decide... neutral values on undistributed bases in 3,5,6,7 player games.

I think 5 would be good?