Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:46 am

What's happening is we didn't quench you fast enough and now we are running around in circles. Which sucks frankly. I still recommend the map I saw back when I gave the xml stamp.

Lone.prophet · Post by **Lone.prophet** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:52 am

RjBeals wrote:How does that make Oklahoma easier to defend as no reinforcements necessary? You still have to defend / reinforce 3 borders in Oklahoma, you just only get a -1 in the 2 drought areas at the start of your turn.

Ok my opion sucks

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:56 am

Lone.prophet wrote:
RjBeals wrote:How does that make Oklahoma easier to defend as no reinforcements necessary? You still have to defend / reinforce 3 borders in Oklahoma, you just only get a -1 in the 2 drought areas at the start of your turn.
Okay my opinion sucks

Possibly not. I think oaktown needs to analyze this for us...

Lone.prophet · Post by **Lone.prophet** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:04 am

ok
nebraske 2 bonus 1 dry 1 left
colerado 4 bonus 2 dry 2 left
kansas 3 bonus 2 dry 1 left
new mexico 4.... 2 ....2
Oklahoma 5.....2 3
Texas 6...... 3 3

so overall you get the same bonus as texas
only you have 1 border country more

and it also gives an adventage to overtake texas since texas has to be defended against a normal teritory

RjBeals · Post by **RjBeals** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:14 am

Lone.prophet wrote:ok
nebraske 2 bonus 1 dry 1 left
colerado 4 bonus 2 dry 2 left
kansas 3 bonus 2 dry 1 left
new mexico 4.... 2 ....2
Oklahoma 5.....2 3
Texas 6...... 3 3

so overall you get the same bonus as texas
only you have 1 border country more

and it also gives an adventage to overtake texas since texas has to be defended against a normal teritory

You're opinion doesn't suck.
I'm not great when it comes to bonus structure, but you point above looks valid. I'm busy at work today so I really can't devote much more time to this right now. But I'm still up for changing bonus amounts if it will make the game more fair.

Lone.prophet · Post by **Lone.prophet** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:16 am

i dont know how to really fix it it just seems a bit broken now IMO

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:28 am

RjBeals wrote:
Lone.prophet wrote:^^ hehe thats what i said it gives oklahoma a big adventage i think in defending

Lone.prophet wrote:oklahoma is the only cont that does have a normal border country which makes it easier to defend (no reinforcement nececarry) so maybe that one should be looked at in a other way
I still must be missing something.

The legend & map are both correct. The Woodward / No Mans Land dotted border was intentional. During the initial game play development, we talked about making the drought regions the only means of moving through states, but went with the dotted lines instead (as a suggestion from a forum member). There's nothing that says you can only attack through drought regions.

How does that make Oklahoma easier to defend as no reinforcements necessary? You still have to defend / reinforce 3 borders in Oklahoma, you just only get a -1 in the 2 drought areas at the start of your turn.

Sorry - I missed that part of the development...

C.

PS - that means our earlier discussion about bonuses was wrong - as Oklahoma has 3 borders not 2...

RjBeals · Post by **RjBeals** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:39 am

A little refresher, starting back on Page-6

Aerial Attack wrote:I like the update. As far as state lines go, I think you should keep the same stroke weight (whatever that means) or thickness. Just add small breaks (effectively make them dashed lines) in the Dust Bowl affected areas. Then you could still tell they are states AND that you can only cross in the Dust Bowl.

RjBeals wrote:Also - looking at Oklahoma, It's too easy to hold for that bonus. I think I may take out the dark drought region of North Platte (Nebraska) and create a new one out of Woodward (Oklahoma). That way OK would have 3borders to defend, the same as Texas, but slightly less bonus.

Aerial Attack wrote:Bonus Structure:

Nebraska (4 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought - current +3 bonus, suggest +3)
Colorado (6 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought - current +4 bonus, suggest +4)
Kansas (5 terrs, 3 defense points, 2 drought - current +4 bonus, suggest +4)
New Mexico (6 terrs, 2 defense points, 1 drought - current +3 bonus, suggest +4)
Oklahoma (7 terrs, 3 defense points, 2 drought - current +6 bonus, suggest +5)
Texas (8 terrs, 3 defense points, 3 drought - current +7 bonus, suggest +6)

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:42 am

Aerial Attack wrote:Bonus Structure:

Nebraska (4 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought - current +3 bonus, suggest +3)
Colorado (6 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought - current +4 bonus, suggest +4)
Kansas (5 terrs, 3 defense points, 2 drought - current +4 bonus, suggest +4)
New Mexico (6 terrs, 2 defense points, 1 drought - current +3 bonus, suggest +4)
Oklahoma (7 terrs, 3 defense points, 2 drought - current +6 bonus, suggest +5)
Texas (8 terrs, 3 defense points, 3 drought - current +7 bonus, suggest +6)

I'd go for this then - except I'd drop Nebraska to 2.

C.

Lone.prophet · Post by **Lone.prophet** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:48 am

update it cause there were some errors

Aerial Attack wrote:Bonus Structure:

Nebraska (4 terrs, 1 defense points, 1 drought - current +2 bonus)
Colorado (6 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought - current +4 bonus)
Kansas (5 terrs, 3 defense points, 2 drought - current +3 bonus, suggest +4)
New Mexico (6 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought - current +4 bonus)
Oklahoma (7 terrs, 3 defense points, 2 drought - current +5 bonus)
Texas (8 terrs, 3 defense points, 3 drought - current +6 bonus

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:56 am

Lone.prophet wrote:update it cause there were some errors

Aerial Attack wrote:Bonus Structure:

Nebraska (4 terrs, 1 defense points, 1 drought - current +2 bonus)
Colorado (6 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought - current +4 bonus)
Kansas (5 terrs, 3 defense points, 2 drought - current +3 bonus, suggest +4)
New Mexico (6 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought - current +4 bonus)
Oklahoma (7 terrs, 3 defense points, 2 drought - current +5 bonus)
Texas (8 terrs, 3 defense points, 3 drought - current +6 bonus

We need to add in the "bordering territories" to this analysis though?

C.

Lone.prophet · Post by **Lone.prophet** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:46 pm

Code: Select all

Bonus Structure:

Nebraska (4 terrs, 1 defense points, 1 drought, 2 borders - current +2 bonus)
Colorado (6 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought, 5 borders - current +4 bonus)
Kansas (5 terrs, 3 defense points, 2 drought, 5 borders - current +3 bonus, suggest +4)
New Mexico (6 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought, 5 borders - current +4 bonus)
Oklahoma (7 terrs, 3 defense points, 2 drought, 4 borders - current +5 bonus)
Texas (8 terrs, 3 defense points, 3 drought, 5(1 not dry) borders - current +6 bonus

here you go

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:48 pm

Code: Select all

Bonus Structure:

Nebraska   
(4 terrs, 1 defense points, 1 drought, 2 borders            - current +2 bonus)
Colorado   
(6 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought, 5 borders            - current +4 bonus, suggest +3)
New Mexico 
(6 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought, 5 borders            - current +4 bonus, suggest +3)
Kansas     
(5 terrs, 3 defense points, 2 drought, 5 borders            - current +3 bonus, suggest +4)
Oklahoma   
(7 terrs, 3 defense points, 2 drought, 4 borders            - current +5 bonus, suggest +4)
Texas      
(8 terrs, 3 defense points, 3 drought, 5(1 not dry) borders - current +6 bonus)

Reformatted to make it easier...

Added my suggestions...

And reordered in "easiest" first.

C.

Lone.prophet · Post by **Lone.prophet** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:05 pm

yeah i think those numbers look better

RjBeals · Post by **RjBeals** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:44 pm

yeti_c wrote:

Code: Select all

Bonus Structure:

Nebraska   
(4 terrs, 1 defense points, 1 drought, 2 borders            - current +2 bonus)
Colorado   
(6 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought, 5 borders            - current +4 bonus, suggest +3)
New Mexico 
(6 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought, 5 borders            - current +4 bonus, suggest +3)
Kansas     
(5 terrs, 3 defense points, 2 drought, 5 borders            - current +3 bonus, suggest +4)
Oklahoma   
(7 terrs, 3 defense points, 2 drought, 4 borders            - current +5 bonus, suggest +4)
Texas      
(8 terrs, 3 defense points, 3 drought, 5(1 not dry) borders - current +6 bonus)

I don't get the borders you are speaking of. Like Colorado (6 terrs, 2 defense points, 2 drought, 5 borders). I only see 2 borders?

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:52 pm

Colorado has 2 border territories - but 5 territories that can attack them...

Imperial, Colby, Liberal, Boise City, Clayton

C.

RjBeals · Post by **RjBeals** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:21 pm

yeti_c wrote:Colorado has 2 border territories - but 5 territories that can attack them...

Imperial, Colby, Liberal, Boise City, Clayton

C.

Ahh... I never even thought to bring that into the calculation.

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:41 pm

RjBeals wrote:
yeti_c wrote:Colorado has 2 border territories - but 5 territories that can attack them...

Imperial, Colby, Liberal, Boise City, Clayton

C.
Ahh... I never even thought to bring that into the calculation.

The above was the very point I raised when I first brought up this bonus issue 3 pages ago. I believe Yeti's roposal above seems eqitable and I would support a change along those lines. I believe it would have a significant positive impact on gameplay

Coleman wrote:What's happening is we didn't quench you fast enough and now we are running around in circles. Which sucks frankly. I still recommend the map I saw back when I gave the xml stamp.

The above comment by Coleman has really thrown me. Everyone posting here loves this map me included. However I raised some gamplay concerns which we all have been examining to see are they valid and assuming they are we are looking at solutions, for one of the cartos to describe this as "running around in circles" is an insult not just to those of us that have posted on this over the last few pages but an insult to the foundry process itself. I really am stunned by this.

As for your comment "we didn't quench you fast enough" again this flys in the face of hoe this process works. I could quote the instructions but I'm sure ther is no need but of the top of my head it gos something like "a map should not be quenched until all valid concerns are addressed or if they are not a reasonable explanation is given by the map maker as to why not".

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:03 pm

hi all, sorry I've not been able to check in earlier. Sounds like there are two separate concerns that have been raised in the past 24 hours:

Concern #1. bonuses may be out of whack. The usual bonus calculators don't exactly apply to this map because we have the added issue of territories that sap your armies, but please keep in mind that they do so at the beginning of a player's turn - it really screws attacks more than defense. If somebody wants to hold Nebraska they can put a stack of armies on Imperial and know that armies won't be automatically bled from that stack as the opponents take their turns.

Using one of the tried and true bonus calculators that takes into account defending territories, attacking terits, and border continents, I come up with the numbers that RJ has now:
Colorado: +4 (4.0)
New Mexico: +4 (3.9)
Texas: +6 (5.75)
Oaklahoma: +5 (4.75)
Kansas: +4 (3.7)
Nebraska: +2 (2.2)

Now, whether or not those numbers are adjusted to account for the territories that 'bleed' armies depends on the intent of the mapmaker. My undertanding is that the desire is to make this a map that relies less on bonuses, and seriously requires a player to weigh the value of nabbing a continent. We also need to think about whether we want a typical game on this map to be fast or slow - further increasing the bonuses of each region means that a player who holds a bonus region pays a relatively smaller price for holding a dustbowl terit than the player who has no bonuses but still takes the hit.

Keep in mind also that the 'bleeding' of armies also effects the player who is trying to attack a region. If it were up to me, I'd go with the numbers that are on the map now.

Concern #2: is it clear what makes a region? I raised this concern on Page 21, and while it is clear from the legend what makes a state I remain confident that some casual players will screw this up... I screw this kind of thing up all the time when I play! If you're not paying attention it would be very easy to overlook Guyman and Boise City when trying to capture Oklahoma, for instance.

There is certainly enough information on the map to avoid confusion, but if this were my map I'd want to make it as user friendly as possible. I had suggested showing at least a couple of the state titles overlapping a border into a dust territory to further point out that, while different colors, they are part of the same state. Alternatively the dustbowl could be lightened up slightly so the distinction is less severe.

Also - it looks as if the glow around, say, the Logan-Springer border is different than the glow around the Springer-Albuquerque border, suggesting that they are different types of borders. Is it my eyes?

RjBeals · Post by **RjBeals** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:58 pm

Thanks for the detailed post oaktown. First, the outter glow on the drought regions is definately different than the normal borders. That was intentional. It wasn't meant to suggest they are are not part of the state, but only as a visual effect of the dusty drought area. Since you seem to think that someone will surely screw up the bonus regions (states), I will try and lighten the dust bowl region slightly, so it's not as dark. I do not want to lighten the bolded state names on the map, then move them to overlap the drought regions. It took some work on the placement where they are now, and I really don't think it's necessary to move them. I think 99% of the players of this map will figure it out.

Second - I don't necessarily want this map to produce long games or quick games, but rather fair games. The bonus regions that I have on the map now did not come from a formula, but rather studying the map and using my own gut feelings as what the bonuses should be. As of right now, I would prefer the current bonus structure, just because I feel its fair. I just don't think rebel / yeti's posts have persuaded me otherwise.

rebelman wrote:The above comment by Coleman has really thrown me... for one of the cartos to describe this as "running around in circles" is an insult not just to those of us that have posted on this over the last few pages but an insult to the foundry process itself. I really am stunned by this....

Rebel - I see your point. But I also see Colemans point. This map has sat here for a while with no real complaints. Once these current issues are resolved, I'm sure if the map sat here another month or two, more issues would arise. The bonus structure is a valid concern, but over the last few months, it hasn't been brought up by anyone else. Hope you understand.

- I'll post the update tomorrow.

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:45 am

never underestimate the stupidity of players - that may sound harsh, but its from that perspective i raised the issue about what makes up a "continent" I am certain post quench this will cause a lot of confusion and as I said before a small legend change would help a lot.

I believe adding the following line to the legend would help a lot.

To attain a state bonus you need to hold both its standard regions and its central drought regions as indicated on the minimap above/below

================================================

i am still concerned that the bonus structure as its currently laid out makes this map slightly unfair / unbalanced - you yourself admitted you had not included the number of countries that can attack the state variable - when this is factored in as well it does seem skewed. This is such a beautiful map it would be a shame for it not to be a success in live play because of its unbalanced bonus structure. I would ask you to think long and hard before shooting a change to this down.

==============================================

the reason i posted these suggestions now is as i always do on every map nearing quench since the d day numbers and canada colours issue - i looked at this map and imagined it actually in live play and asked myself is this map fair, clear and unconfusing to me and is this map, fair, clear and unconfusing to the average cc player if i believed the answer to be yes i too would be calling for a quench but if the answer is no i do what i did here - raise the issue(s) with the map maker prior to quench to see if he/she can resolve them.

===============================================

Lone.prophet · Post by **Lone.prophet** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:10 am

^^ i dont think that people will be confused about the legend it is clear you need all territory inside the red lines

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:31 am

rebelman wrote: i am still concerned that the bonus structure as its currently laid out makes this map slightly unfair / unbalanced - you yourself admitted you had not included the number of countries that can attack the state variable - when this is factored in as well it does seem skewed. This is such a beautiful map it would be a shame for it not to be a success in live play because of its unbalanced bonus structure. I would ask you to think long and hard before shooting a change to this down.

What about the suggestions I gave?

C.

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:22 am

yeti_c wrote: What about the suggestions I gave?

C.

i already said i support that suggestion yeti but the map maker indicated above he was inclined to not change it.

RjBeals wrote:
Second - I don't necessarily want this map to produce long games or quick games, but rather fair games. The bonus regions that I have on the map now did not come from a formula, but rather studying the map and using my own gut feelings as what the bonuses should be. As of right now, I would prefer the current bonus structure, just because I feel its fair. I just don't think rebel / yeti's posts have persuaded me otherwise.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:36 am

OK - I'd missed a few posts - I've just read Oaktowns... and agree with him really...

So I can understand either argument - RJ has chosen one - lets stay with that.

C.

Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Do you want to have the map changed so Dust territories are given out evenly?