Rorke's Drift. [QUENCHED]

[thenobodies80]

Updated!

[koontz1973]

Thanks for that.

[pmchugh]

The 4 terrs for 1 troop is messing with my head, this map is as alien to risk as city mogul.

[ender516]

The 4 terrs for 1 troop is messing with my head, this map is as alien to risk as city mogul.

Beware of First Nations of the Americas, then, it uses the same scheme.

[pmchugh]

The 4 terrs for 1 troop is messing with my head, this map is as alien to risk as city mogul.

Beware of First Nations of the Americas, then, it uses the same scheme.

ORLY? I don't mind it for a change, being mostly a team player it makes the map interesting for dubs I think.

[koontz1973]

The one for 4 might change to 1 for 3. This was a light bonus map and after the changes, it is even lighter. This might bring some much needed killing to the map.

[koontz1973]

Any complaints on suggestions for this one now that the new map has been live for a couple of week?

[Dukasaur]

Any complaints on suggestions for this one now that the new map has been live for a couple of week?

I've only had time for one game so far, and it's still in the early stages. I'll tell you more in a few weeks.

[koontz1973]

Any complaints on suggestions for this one now that the new map has been live for a couple of week?

I've only had time for one game so far, and it's still in the early stages. I'll tell you more in a few weeks.

Thanks, the large games (4+ players) are playing as it is supposed to with the added level from the front line bombardments. This seem to neutralise the chieftain auto deploys though in flat games. As for 1v1, played a couple and won both. Both times went first though so still unbalanced for this. Asked HA to think about it and come up with suggestions. Not really sure though the 1v1 game can ever be balanced though with this many territs in play.

[DiM]

going first does not give you a big advantage if your dice suck
i just started first deployed 6 and attacked 9v5. it ended 3v5
in another game my opponent started first and deployed 2 troops on 3 terits adjacent to chiefs. so he made 3 attacks 5v5 and won 2 of those attacks!!! so before i even started my game, my opponent already had 2 chiefs

anyway, my point is that whoever manages to get the first chieftain is most likely a winner. given decent dice this actually means the starting player is the one that has a huge advantage.

tweaking the neutrals in the chiefs will not solve the problem. so i think this needs a new approach.
something to prevent getting a bonus so quick.
what if you change the map to something like patch wars? make each chief start neutral and give a bonus of +1 and then give a bonus for the whole continent of that bonus.

[koontz1973]

Thanks DiM, been thinking along those very same lines but looking at the layout is giving me problems. The bonus areas are very large compared to most maps so 3 of the bonuses would not be taken till very late in the game. This causes dead space. So lets split the 2 very large ones into 2 and introduce 2 new chieftains.

What I propose is to have...

Cheshwayo split. Mandla becomes a new chieftain with sibongiseni, sanile and sakhile.
Dabulmanzi split 3 ways. Nhlakaniph becomes new chieftain with themba, hlanlo, wandile, xolo.
Enlarge Jadzia to include all 150 yard line territs within the Dabulmanzi bonus zone. This gives it 3 new territs.

Let me do a mock up so you can see what I am thinking. Post it tomorrow but it should make a good map great. I will not remove any territs.

[DiM]

that sounds good to me.

[koontz1973]

[bigimg]http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5677/rorkesdriftmockup.jpg[/bigimg]
Here is the mock up of what I was thinking but now that I see it, I hate it. The only good thing about this is Shaka getting 3 extra territs which are all in the kill zone. So that is bad as well.
Sorry to say it, but I think it is going to stay as is.

[greenoaks]

switch Cetshwayo with Manelesi then Mandla can become a chiefton and pick up Nathi, S'bonelo and Sibusiso

[koontz1973]

switch Cetshwayo with Manelesi then Mandla can become a chiefton and pick up Nathi, S'bonelo and Sibusiso

Sounds like that might work.

[koontz1973]

Here is the mock up. To be honest, I am not liking it for a few reasons. But my main problems are the patchwork effect on the land. This area of Africa is not like this, it is large open plains with the same type of ground for miles and miles. Secondly, do we really need every map to be the same? Once the bonus values have been worked out, it becomes a bog standard map that the foundry can produce with it's eyes shut. A few gimmicks like the 150 yard line, the neutral centre and the winning condition that now holds no meaning.
[bigimg]http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/3419/rorkesdriftlargecopy.jpg[/bigimg]

The chieftains have been taken care of, with the 5 neutrals and the 6 drop for 1v1, you have the 9 to 5 rolls. Seems bad but with good dice, they can be taken. With the front line at 3 neutrals, the player going second can and should be able to knock out that chieftain. I see no reason to change the map again just because in a minority of games, players either cannot get a chieftain, knock the other player out of the captured chieftain or do not read the legend and work out a strategy.

As for the WC though, the centre has 44 neutrals on it. As the battle is played out by the Zulus, it would make far more sense to have the whole of the outpost as the WC. This is a 6 border with 9 attacking territs. No one will take it in round 1. Any objections to that?

[greenoaks]

i am not familiar with the formula for determining starting terits so i'm just going to throw my question out there - will adding these additional neutral chieftains alter the starting terits?

i'd also like to mention:-
1. your mockup doesn't have a chieftain on Nhlakaniph
2. i look at the colours on this map as being the areas troops supporting different chieftains are camped, for me it is nothing to do with terrain

that being said Siyanda looks like a real stretch from its current chieftain

[koontz1973]

Yep, the extra neutrals will effect the starting positions.
I know about the missing chieftain, just to damn lazy to put him in after I came out of gimp.
The colours may represent the areas to which each chieftain has, but it still makes a map that looked good into a map that looks like a piece of crap.

Going to change the winning condition and leave it at that for now.

[koontz1973]

Can I get some feedback on this before going forward with the small and xml changes.

Changes.
Winning condition is now the whole of the outpost. That is 42 neutrals with 6 openings. No one is going to take that first round (even with great dice). It brings the winning condition back to the maps original objective - beat the British.
British front line. Now get a +1 auto deploy. The same as the chieftains but without the bonuses.
New bonus. Hold both British commanders for a +3 bonus. That is 24 neutrals to kill for +3 so it is a late bonus. Should it go higher?

[bigimg]http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/7966/rdnewlegend.png[/bigimg]

[koontz1973]

New map and xml files. Changes detailed previous post.
[bigimg]http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/7966/rdnewlegend.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/6356/rdnewleggendsmall.png[/bigimg]
http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/1/27/3255536/drifting.xml

[thenobodies80]

Sent to lackattack and players informed about the changes.

[skids32]

My first time commenting -

1. Excellent work - enjoyable to look at and play (helps that I love the Zulu movies)

2. You asked for feedback -

Winning condition is now the whole of the outpost. That is 42 neutrals with 6 openings. No one is going to take that first round (even with great dice). It brings the winning condition back to the maps original objective - beat the British.
Like it - back to beating British

British front line. Now get a +1 auto deploy. The same as the chieftains but without the bonuses.
Great idea

New bonus. Hold both British commanders for a +3 bonus. That is 24 neutrals to kill for +3 so it is a late bonus. Should it go higher?
Suggest at least +5 - are you trying to go for a "hold the line, build strength, and then go for the win" kind of thing or a balance between holding the line or going for a bigger bonus with the inner two officers?

[Avi8or]

Great map! I concur with the proposed changes.

[koontz1973]

Thanks nobodies for that.

Thanks for the comments guys. The +3 may be about right as it is a late bonus. Do not want to give the outpost away too easily. But lets get a few games played to see what this is like and then I can increase it to the +5 if needed. But right now, I think I am over the moon about this map now.

[Dukasaur]

I'm not thrilled about the bombardments.

It's bad from both a historical accuracy perspective and from a right-now gameplay perspective.

From a historical accuracy point of view, those rifles simply weren't that accurate at long range. Sure, they could occassionally peg off an enemy half a mile away, but not with enough frequency to seriously damage an enemy formation.

From the right-now point of view, it basically means that once someone gets a hold of a British position, anyone who doesn't have one is doomed unless they can take it from him in one turn. There isn't any safe area where you can hang back, lick your wounds for a while, and launch a fresh offensive.

That was one of the things I liked about this map, and now it's gone.