Peloponnesian War [Done]

[the.killing.44]

That symbol looks very good.

.44

[gimil]

Ok qwert all I need nows is a large and small version of the map. If resizing doesn't create any problems then I will stamp this.

[Qwert]

I will give you today.

[Qwert]

here large image
[bigimg]http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z188/Maqerdan/peloponnesianwar431bc-big11f.png[/bigimg]

[iancanton]

New update-i put inset symbol to be in gold colour,i hope that now its ok ian?

That symbol looks very good.

i agree.

Also i change Tittle,its no more in greek letters,its in english(its to complicted to searching for proper sentence)

it will also be logical to replace the greek letters in the english words MAP INSET to the roman letters that are normally used in english. the sea names look good in greek letters, since they really are greek names!

a minor quibble is that maybe the edge of each of the eight shields can have slightly more contrast against the land (to make their locations more visible), but i am otherwise happy with the map.

ian.

[sailorseal]

Could you add PELOPONNESIAN WAR 431 BC above the greek letters becuase I thought I was going crazy...

[Qwert]

by sailorseal » Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Could you add PELOPONNESIAN WAR 431 BC above the greek letters becuase I thought I was going crazy...

[gimil]

I have one concern with the large map qwert, the black grow around the sea routes are a little pixalted. Blurring these a little should do the trick. You still have a few concerns that you need to address since your last update but I am happy to stamp this.

[Qwert]

by gimil » Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:59 pm

I have one concern with the large map qwert, the black grow around the sea routes are a little pixalted. Blurring these a little should do the trick. You still have a few concerns that you need to address since your last update but I am happy to stamp this.

Im just do what all other work,increase small size to be big, if these not be problem in all mine last project,why is these now become problem?

[oaktown]

Im just do what all other work,increase small size to be big, if these not be problem in all mine last project,why is these now become problem?

actually, I prefer to go the other way - work large, size it down. In my experience scaling something down tends to look better than scaling something up.

I'll see about finding a jury of your peers to Forge this one.

Edit: I have asked edbeard, TacKtiX, and OliverFA to serve as the Forging Jury; they are to look over this map, make any final suggestions, and give it their approval when they feel that the map has met the Foundry standards.

[TaCktiX]

Alright, here doing the Jury thingy.

Graphics:
Overall, really good. The Aegean Sea isn't overwhelming like it used to be, and the use of symbols makes the map fairly easy to understand. So in sum, I think that that's fine.

Gameplay:
Bonuses are far too sparse. In play this map will be more about getting the lucky dice and beating your immediate neighbor to The Punch. There's near perfect symmetry in the first 4-5 territories any person can conquer, and only after that do things branch out option-wise. I know the original justifications were "balance" and the like, but symmetry is to be avoided when there are STILL threads about "zomg, the dice are rigged." I don't see any immediate way to fix this other than a complete redesign of the gameplay. I think it's possible with the same territories and connections, just changes to the bonus structure, but as it stands you're setting the map up for unpopularity. Until some effort is made to create asymmetry or otherwise make the beginning and middle of a game not dependent on how many 6's the defending dice don't roll, I'm not passing the map.

[Qwert]

Gameplay:
Bonuses are far too sparse. In play this map will be more about getting the lucky dice and beating your immediate neighbor to The Punch. There's near perfect symmetry in the first 4-5 territories any person can conquer, and only after that do things branch out option-wise. I know the original justifications were "balance" and the like, but symmetry is to be avoided when there are STILL threads about "zomg, the dice are rigged." I don't see any immediate way to fix this other than a complete redesign of the gameplay. I think it's possible with the same territories and connections, just changes to the bonus structure, but as it stands you're setting the map up for unpopularity. Until some effort is made to create asymmetry or otherwise make the beginning and middle of a game not dependent on how many 6's the defending dice don't roll, I'm not passing the map.

Im lost 600 points,only because bad dices,and these is have nothing with gameplay. If you get bad dices,you can not say "these gameplay is guilty why im lost a game"
Its normal,that after several turns, you need to attack other players. Everybody have same distance, and i dont know why you think that gameplay give some people advantage?
You need to give more valid and logical reason why these gameplay is not good,and where is problem, because you dont give any valid explanation except that you dont like gameplay.
Who have advantage? Where is problem? i need answer on these things,otherwise these jury thing is pointles. I spend to many time in creating gameplay who will satisfy all necessary things, and im appology if im not polite,because when in your case,dont posting here, now you want to yours words have more value then all mine work with incandenza, who spend much more time with me in creating proper gameplay.
I see that these jury sistem will have big problem-people who dont follow and not posting any time in some map project,will give permision,or blocking next advance of map,only because like or not like some aspect of map.

[OliverFA]

In my humble opinion, that is the point about the jury system. To get someone fresh and new involved in the map. That way, the jury won't have a previous opinion about the map and will be able to evaluate it better.

I also think that at this point the jury should evaluate the map very carefully and express all doubts about it. Not because the jury wants to delay the map, but because jury members want to make it a better map with their comments and suggestions.

Threfore, jury members should make a reasoned and detailed exposition about how they evaluate the map and why, and then the author should defend his creation with strong and solid arguments.

I have taken very seriously teh duty to evaluate the map. And those are my conclusions. They intend to be a way to improve the map. Constructive criticism.

Graphics:
Graphics in general are beautiful and nice. And from the purely artistical point of view, there is nothing to complain about them. Right now I think that the map has a pass in this area.

However, I have a some of suggestions that I think would make the map even better if followed:
-Central Greece area: It's not difficult to understand that the two territories called "C" and "M" are in fact "Corinthians" and "Megarians" and that they are placed in the bottom left corner of the map. However, for gameplay purposes, I think it would be better to place them in the map together with all the others. Specially because Corinthians has an objective, and placing it in a corner makes more difficult to see it. I know that in order to place those territories in the normal map, some realism would have to be sacrified, and they would need to be drawn bigger than they actually are. But in my opinion this little license would improve gameplay.
- Objectives: This is not vital for the map, and just a suggestion. But I think it would be easier to locate them by adding a small mini-map in the corner. This mini map would show objectives locations. By seeing the approximate locations of the the objectives in the mini-map, players would locate those objectives in the real map more easily. Alternatively, objectives could be drawn in a different colour.
- Bonus description: Again, this is ok as it is now, but I think it would be better if the description was a bit more explicit. I would write "+2 armies each 2 (sword icon)", "+1 army per (silver helm)" and "+2 armies per each (gold helm) (autodeploy)".

In my opinion, the map passes in graphics even if my suggestions are not followed.

Gameplay:
About gameplay, I agree that some fixes should be done in order to make the map more interesting.

- Objectives: Objectives are too distributed among the map to have some sense. If a player can conquer all 8 objectives, then most probably he dominates the map with clear superiority over all the other players. So the objectives only serve as a way to speed up the end of the game. In my opinion this point is very important, because if objectives are not a viable alternative to traditional conquest victory, then they are pointless. In my opinion, this should be fixed in order for the map to be approved.
- Bonuses: I also agree that they are too few and too scarced. If I counted well, there are 6 swords (+6), 9 silver helms (+9) and 7 gold helms (+14) for a total of +29 armies for the full map. It means that in the middle game a player will be getting around +10 armies at most. But seeing at the map, I see that there are few choke points. So maybe it is intentional, and Qwert didn't want to place many bonuses because players will have also very few border territories. I need more information about this. I would like to know if so few and scarce bonuses are the way the map was designed and why.
- A minor suggestion: I would add a connection between Lacedamonians and Cretans to make that part of the map a bit more opened. Otherwise it's too easy to defend South Greece.

Those are my comments, which, as I said before, are intended to be constructive criticism.

[Qwert]

These is not real,maybe im dream or what
I dont belive that these map who have similar concept like Imperium romanum,have more so call "problems".
First of all you need to read a little some pages to understand how these map work.
Oliver these map have only 8 starting possition,and if im connect crete with lacademonian,do you know what will hepend? These is question for you,please go to page 1 and look some previous update and introduce with map description.
Objectives-Like you very good know(or you dont) i create historical maps,and before start i do some historical research. Now when im decide where to put shields,i must decide what city will be importan to put,so from mine perspective i belive that Corinthians,Athenians,Boeothians,Lacademonians is very powerful side in these war, and its quite normal that become objectives.

Bonuses-Every player have hese sphere of influence and i give hem 1 bonuse.Also they get extra auto deploy every turn in hes starting positions,but if you only look page 1 or follow a map project,you not ask these question. And for your informacion Imperium romanum have +16 army for all map,and work very nice. Also you need to look map much better you miss some helmets in your account.

These is what i say,if you dont follow proces,you will ask all kind of things,and now i need to arguing again,only because people dont want to go back for 10-15 pages and introduce better with these case. I never heard for jury who dont even want to introduce with case.

I repeat milion times, that people dont have any complication with Inset in Imperium romanum,and these is same thing. Mine map is all ready full,and new small mini map is not possible to add.

I realy need to take some very long vacation from making maps,these become to much pointles.

[Teflon Kris]

I agree with Quert regarding the bonuses - it works well on Imperium Romanium and this looks like it will have equally interesting gameplay.

And the inset is no big deal, although worth mentionning.

Another detailed and interesting map.

[spoiler=Waffle about Jury System]Perhaps the whole jury system may benefit from a bit of formalisation - good point about who the jury members should be. Also, members should perhaps follow some of the above guidelines?

For clarity,it would be handy if points raised each have a requested action, maybe labelled as either essential, desirable or just a question.

Otherwise, the process can be a bit random and end-up with a lot of tinkering over minor issues.

Therefore, I agree with the content of Quert's responses and Oliver's suggestions about 'jury' membership and comments being a bit more organised (and maybe it would be good if 'jury' members dont include their signatures?).[/spoiler]

Great map that I can find no fault with and good points that need to go to the forum moderator / jury for consideration.

[oaktown]

It has been suggested that there is a problem with the jury system in this instance. The evidence to support this is that the jury has made suggestions that the mapmakers doesn't like.

Let's take a look back at this thread and see if there is any evidence to suggest that the problem lies elsewhere. Evidence within.

show

As the "judge" presiding over this jury, I find that the jury has been performing their role in the manner prescribed. They are free to voice their concerns. The mapmaker also has the right to try to convince the jury to see his side.

Likewise, I find that the previous two instances in which we've used the Jury it has indeed resulted in additional work for the mapmaker, but in both cases this work made the map better. More work on the part of the mapmaker is not grounds for dismissing the jury.

When the jury approves this map it will be stamped by me and moved to the Forge.

As I don't want to hijack this thread any further, additional concerns regarding the future use of the jury system can be discussed here...
viewtopic.php?f=127&t=76117&start=45

[edbeard]

[bigimg]http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z188/Maqerdan/peloponnesianwar431bc10feb.png[/bigimg]

[bigimg]http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z188/Maqerdan/peloponnesianwar431bc-big11f.png[/bigimg]



these are the latest small and large images. I'm assuming they're the same. I don't notice any obvious differences. Let me/us know if we should be commenting on different images.


Euboeans only connects to Peparethose right?

On graphics, I don't see anything that will lead to confusion. Everything else is personal preference. I wouldn't have all these labels in the water being so prominent but that's just an opinion.

Graphics Bottom line: there's nothing that seems confusing/misleading about the graphics.


My gameplay concerns are about the way the map will play which aren't really important/what we're doing here as the jury in my opinion (maybe someone can/will correct me on this?)

Gameplay Bottom line: I don't think the gameplay is unbalanced



since the other guys are voicing their gameplay thoughts here I guess I will as well. I don't think the map is unbalanced which, in my opinion, is all we should be doing.

I do, however, think the gameplay is done in a way I wouldn't do it for this map.

1. objective is basically useless (unless you only want it to be a game shortener). it will only be used late in the game when the game is already decided. I would personally have only 3 or 4 out of 8 needed for the objective. It'd actually have a chance at being used in the middle of a game. It's like the objective in cairnswk's WWII Gazala map.

Is the objective there to end the game earlier or to be an objective aka a route to victory.


2. bonuses are few and far between. This makes the gameplay a bit boring. Players don't have enough choices. Getting a second sword is almost impossible in a 5,6,7,8 player game. I think that's a very bad idea but it's your map. I'd fill in these blank territories with swords and helmets but that's me.

[TaCktiX]

I agree with Quert regarding the bonuses - it works well on Imperium Romanium and this looks like it will have equally interesting gameplay.

Here I disagree. Imperium Romanum was NOT conquest. It had a slew of neutrals, but everyone started with as many territories as could be spread around. Thus, the symmetry problem I referenced numerous times was not an issue. But in this map, it IS conquest, people DO start with only one territory, and perfect symmetry will ALWAYS boil down to who has the best dice. How popular is Chinese Checkers, a famously symmetrical map? And it's not even conquest! That thoroughly disliked map has more options for "where to go", but this map leaves virtually none. You go for your freebie bonus 2 territories up, fight over a battleground with someone else 2 territories beyond that, and if you string together enough territories you'll start fighting someone else over the same icon territories, just somewhere else. AND THIS DOES NOT CHANGE REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU START. Asymmetry is the only way to avoid this problem. So my argument stands.

These is not real,maybe im dream or what
I dont belive that these map who have similar concept like Imperium romanum,have more so call "problems".
First of all you need to read a little some pages to understand how these map work.

I have read several pages of the discussion. Calling me utterly ignorant is a really GREAT way to change my mind. I've looked at your map numerous times and due to the responses you're giving to the complaints I've held unsaid for months, decided not to reply. But now that I'm obligated to, I'm voicing the complaints I've always had. Now if you want to whine and complain about legitimate concerns that will spell the difference between your map being a visual feast of crap gameplay and it being of the same quality the Foundry demands, then so be it. But I'm not passing the map until it's in the latter category.

[Qwert]

But in this map, it IS conquest, people DO start with only one territory, and perfect symmetry will ALWAYS boil down to who has the best dice.

Do you only now recognise that dices dictate all games in all maps. gameplay can be 100% perfect,but nobody can have influence on dices,if you get bad dices you will lost every game,and these is facts. Map is good balanced and i dont have any power to change dices. So your teory is wrong,and you can not blame gameplay if you lose because bad dices.
If you think that gameplay is wrong,we can check like Cairswk test hes map Dass Schloss in beta stage-open for 20-30 games and then we can see how these work, and these game will finish very fast because you dont have protected starting possitions.
I dont understand what you mean with Assymetry? Its these mean that someon have more terriotry to conquer easy,and that other dont? Can someon explane me these. I think that Assymetry is not good-expecialy in conquest maps,and then map is not balanced.

[Qwert]

Oaktown,you are very smart,you put mine answers but you dont put who cause these answers. Also you put some part of answer,to create something what look that im against all people,and these is again not real true. But you doing good job, maybe you can work in newspaper and create stories who only give black picture of one side and glorify second side.

[TaCktiX]

By asymmetry I mean there are options for where to go for bonuses or territories. Right now everyone has the same options in the early and mid game when it comes to overall bonus structure. They might be closer to one area or another, but only the far-flung objective is not symmetric around the starting positions. Oliver's already stated his disinterest in the objective, so I'm not going to retread.

Heck, here's a simple way to add asymmetry into the bonus structure, and by extension, the map: change the objective into a sweet capitals-based bonus. Then increase the number of shields to 12 or 16. Spread them around, making them not perfectly spaced from starting positions. Then change around the battleground and legion bonuses so that some people will get an easy +1 early on, but another person will get an easy +2 after a couple more (weaker) neutrals.

And if you don't get asymmetry still, look at Age of Realms. THAT is an asymmetrical set of maps, and they're very well done for conquest maps. No conquest map has the exact same start, and I hope no map ever gets quenched where every player stands equal homogeneous CHANCE at victory. I want strategy in my CC maps.

[oaktown]

Oaktown,you are very smart,you put mine answers but you dont put who cause these answers. Also you put some part of answer,to create something what look that im against all people,and these is again not real true. But you doing good job, maybe you can work in newspaper and create stories who only give black picture of one side and glorify second side.

Good idea! When the government runs out of money and stops paying us teachers I'll look into it!

Anyway, I will be keeping my eye on this thread, qwert. If the jury starts making unreasonable requests I will intervene. But for now I think that they have given honest feedback and have legitimate questions. Perhaps you will end up making some changes to improve the map, or perhaps you can convince the community that this map will work as is... you have some decisions to make.

[Qwert]

I newer hear something to strange-first Tacktic want to map be assymetric and that some player have advantage over other players,these is ridiculos,and its totaly against Balanced Gameplay. First People insist that Gameplay must be balanced and that Everybody need to be equal, now sudenly people dont need to be equal in begining and that need to gameplay be unbalanced- and i dont have valid reason,but people who sugested unbalanced gameplay is right- maybe in realy crazy.
Tacktix i had unbalanced gameplay before that,but after work with incandenza i create balanced gameplay who get stamp from incandenza.

Again i repeat i dont create some apstract,unbalanced maps like AOR who dont have any connection with history and who give big advantage to people who play first,that why i dont play maps who is not balanced and who give such advantage. I dont like assymetric maps,and these is first time that someon go against rules who say that every map must be balanced.

Oaktown i belive that im all ready convince community(i hope that you alone not represent community). If i dont have good and logical explanation that balanced gameplay is ok, and that unbalanced and assymetric gameplay is wrong,then i dont know what i need to write to convince you two.
edit-
Now i find rule what you write(or some other in rules)
Can you explane me why now these need to be change in mine map?

Balanced play. It should be unlikely that one or more players can start the game with a major advantage as a result of the initial drop or getting the first turn.

[Teflon Kris]

Looks like you have good feedback from the jury about the graphics. Oliver mentionned his point about the inset and objectives map but said it they weren't essential and the jury seem happy with the shields making the objective clear (if I've read correctly).

It just looks like you have questions about the gameplay (at least that isn't going to involve loads of work and re-drafts).

If I have understood, the jury have raised 3 questions about the gameplay:

1. Bonuses

2. Objective

3. Starting positions and symmetry.

I backed your reply about the similarities with Imperium Romanium. However, I must apologise to you and the jury as I was a bit hasty.

You can probably deal with 1. and 2. easily but 3. is a bit more tricky:

[spoiler= Dealing with the Bonuses and Objective Questions]1. Maybe, and I wont be offended if I've got this wrong, I think you might be able to use Imperium Romanium to back up the point about bonuses. As you said that map works with few bonuses and has its own style which a lot of people enjoy, like me.

2. I'm not sure if you've responded to Oliver's point about the objective. His point is that to achieve the objective a player has to be more-or-less dominant of most of the map, with the shields being spread out. You're Europe 1914 map has objectives too. I've not played it a huge amount but to win on that requires being quite dominant, having control of many of the empires (although certainly not all of them). Most players tactics seem to be a slight variation on how you would play a 'standard' map. I guess the question is, how important this is (it isn't to me)? If you want the objective to be a lot easier than eliminating all opponents then you need to think about it. But if, as Oliver said, the objective is to make the end-game a little quicker, then it's up to the jury if that matters? It would be up to players to work out the tactics required, as with Europe 1914. Oliver said that the objective could be pointless but you could argue that that is the point which players have to work-out? Or, you could go with edbeard's idea (4 or 5 of the 8 shields to win) or add an auto-deploy to the shields (this would mean players could keep them easier and would affect their tactics regarding some of their other terrories, therefore potentially meaning it is more possible to win without having massive control of the board)?[/spoiler]

[spoiler=The Starting Positions Problem]Now that I think more about TaCtiX's point again, gameplay is in some ways similar to Imperium Romanium and also, in some ways different.

3. TaCtiX's point about starting positions and symmetry is about the difference between this map and Imperium Romanium.

When a player starts on Imperium Romanium he has several options - which territory to attack from/strengthen, whether to take the opponent next door, whether to take a neutral territory (e.g. a city for +1), whether to try and make a cluster of territories etc and whether to try and stop what his opponent(s) may be planning.

On this map, the options when you start are more limited because of the fixed starting positions. TaCtiX's point is that all players will just take a neutral country. The start of the game would be a bit of a race to get a few territories and have men left to then take an opponent when you meet one. This 'race' situation would be less about tactics and options (like Imperium Romanium) and more about who goes first and having good dice at the start of the game. TaCtiX's point about symmetry is also about players having options. He isn't saying starting positions should be arranged so that one is easier than another. He is saying that they should be different in having different options for players. Something different so that players have different options/tactics from different starting positions.

If you've played New World this is hopefully what he means. On New World there are two types of starting positions. If you are in Europe you can take a landing point - you get a nice bonus on the european country and the landing point - but then the next territories have bigger neutral armies which could deplete your troops if you try to take some too quickly (that's the risk). But if you are in an indigenous homeland then you can take a few territories in the area quickly for the territory bonus - how many you take is the risk. So, in that game, players could start in two types of position (and if there are 4 or less players then you might have both types of starting point). Because of these two types of starting point then player options and tactics come into play and it is a challenge to learn how to play the map. I think this is the point. And I hope I have explained it. I've just used New World as an example to explain about the symmetry point. To deal with the point you wouldn't have to make massive changes and make it like New World.

Hopefully there might be some easy solutions to this one? This is where you might need some ideas.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=A quick idea to deal with the Starting Positions Problem]You might just adjust the size of neutral armies in some of the territories - making it more difficult for players to get to each other early on - if they do they may have few troops and be taking a big risk and whether to take this risk is where tactics and learning the map comes in. They would have the alternative tactic of building-up 'behind' the larger neutral territories and waiting for the right time to take one and attack beyond. That's just a very quick idea though - I'm happy to study your map more for other other.[/spoiler].

[Qwert]

Lets try to reply you DJ Teflon.
Europe 1914 have 2 side in war(historicaly) and these two side have MAjor powers,and these is easy to create 2 Objectives(4 town each)
Here you have Historicaly 2 sides(delia league-pelloponesian league), now here you have Powers who is very close to each others(Lacademmonians,Corinthians,Boeotians,Athenians) these 4 can not be some other part of map,because logicaly its not possible.
If you think that is best and easy solution will be to in all territory who is border bettwen Opponents(like in Feudal war)and to be 10 neutral,then consider problem solve.
It will be great that gameplay can be tested in beta stage, and not gues in theory.What is purpose of Beta stage then. Cairnswk get chance to test hes dass schloss to see how Starting possition works,so why i can test these in same time, if game play not good,then its easy to lock map and fix problems, and these map not have protected starting possitions and will be finish much faster then Dass Schloss. Now we are in situation where Tacktix say "im 100% right" and im are wrong because he is jury.