Famine V.19.3 pg1+35 [I] [Reworking]

[Kaplowitz]

That's a cool idea, i like it. I think you should get rid of the ice section now, and try to blend the map more.

[bryguy]

That's a cool idea, i like it. I think you should get rid of the ice section now, and try to blend the map more.

sure, i can get rid of the ice. Should i just replace it with the same colored ground as the rest of the map, or should i maybe change it to something else? and yea i can try to blend the map a little. Right now to me, it seems that the ground is sitting on top of the area where the river dried out


edit: also, thanks t-o-m for helping me figure out a good color

[Mr. Squirrel]

Yea, you should get rid of the ice. It doesn't make sense to have a land without water when there is a ton of it frozen in the south. Simply unrealistic.

I like the way you made the river dry up. It makes the map look more like a desperate drought, rather than the lush green landscape that you had before.

[bryguy]

Yea, you should get rid of the ice. It doesn't make sense to have a land without water when there is a ton of it frozen in the south. Simply unrealistic.

I like the way you made the river dry up. It makes the map look more like a desperate drought, rather than the lush green landscape that you had before.

Thanks


so yea, no more ice. bad ice. ice cold. ice only good on hot days.


SO yea ill take out the ice now. Toms been helping me a little for the revamp so that i can get it done faster

thanks tom!

[zimmah]

ok name change poll up! choose now!

edit: oops, its still broken... oh well, these are the choices basically, u can just post which u want, or if u can think of any more good ones, then tell me

Famine!
Eight Kings Crisis
Clash of Kings
Eight Kingdoms
Famine Crisis

or any of the above, just with Famine on the end, like my favorite,

Eight Kings Crisis: Famine!

cause then I could do more Eight Kings Crisis maps


edit 2: oh, and right now (im still working on it, its really pixely) but this is what its starting to turn to look like:

Click image to enlarge.

map really looks better now, just Fishing, Ice Fishing and the boats need to be reconsidered, there is hardly any water... though i like the idea of the boats (oh yes it was my own idea ) maybe we can think of something else, cuz putting the water back on is not really an option i guess, the map looks good like it is now. maybe camels? don't know how you cross a dryed out river actually...

anyways, boats, docks, fishing, all needs to be changed.

and make sure you fix the minimap before the final version

and maybe make the dryed out area's a little bit darker (more dark-brownish) because real desert area normally looks more yellowish then recently dryed-out land.

off course also the ground in the dryed out sea/river needs to be a little bit darker then the rest of the map, not much but still a little.

[Mr. Squirrel]

I just thought of a good Idea (or at least I think it is a good one). Now that you have these huge, dark brown banks and no rivers to cross, why don't you change the map around a little bit. My suggestions are these:

1) First, separate the muddy banks into territories on the map.
2) make small bridges that connect the muddy banks across the remainder of the river.
3) Make the muddy banks lose 1 to 2 armies per turn, irreversibly (meaning, a resource will not get rid of this). The logic behind this is that it would be extremely hard/dangerous to march an army through a muddy swamp. You would lose many men to disease and wildlife.
4) get rid of the boats and rename the fishing dock.

[MrBenn]

What will this look like when you do the small map? I'm not sure there'll be enough room for army numbers in all the territories?

[zimmah]

I just thought of a good Idea (or at least I think it is a good one). Now that you have these huge, dark brown banks and no rivers to cross, why don't you change the map around a little bit. My suggestions are these:

1) First, separate the muddy banks into territories on the map.
2) make small bridges that connect the muddy banks across the remainder of the river.
3) Make the muddy banks lose 1 to 2 armies per turn, irreversibly (meaning, a resource will not get rid of this). The logic behind this is that it would be extremely hard/dangerous to march an army through a muddy swamp. You would lose many men to disease and wildlife.
4) get rid of the boats and rename the fishing dock.

i would say -2 or -3 even. or killer neutrals the revert to 2 or 3 or maybe even 4 (not to 1, because they will be too easy to take back then) it must be a real pain to cross the mud banks, though not too much to be not be able to cross them at all.

as for a replacement of the 'fishing boats' that gave a bonus, maybe make something like 'sunken ships' with some stored food in it (often they store food in ships that won't 'decay' or 'rot' fast if you know what i mean, because ships (especially sailing ships) can be at sea for a long time, and you'll need food that can be stored for a pretty long time. so 'sunken' or 'destroyed' ships, or 'shipwrecks' or whatever you want to call them, might give a slight bonus for holding them because they might have some food in it, and off course they provide a bit of cover to the enemy so the negative bonus of being 'out in the open' doesn't apply hire, since if you're under attack by the enemy while being in the mud, normally you're at huge disadvantage (that's why it should have a negative bonus or killer neutrals) but if you can hide inside a ship, they won't attack you, or you can even ambush them if they come too close.

[bryguy]

What will this look like when you do the small map? I'm not sure there'll be enough room for army numbers in all the territories?

hmm.... i know that the numbers will fit on the large, but i forgot all about the small... ill probably have to take out a couple of the smaller territs to give room to others, or cut into the larger territs to give more room for the smaller. Ill have to get to work on the small soon at least to make sure that the numbers will fit

I just thought of a good Idea (or at least I think it is a good one). Now that you have these huge, dark brown banks and no rivers to cross, why don't you change the map around a little bit. My suggestions are these:

1) First, separate the muddy banks into territories on the map.
2) make small bridges that connect the muddy banks across the remainder of the river.
3) Make the muddy banks lose 1 to 2 armies per turn, irreversibly (meaning, a resource will not get rid of this). The logic behind this is that it would be extremely hard/dangerous to march an army through a muddy swamp. You would lose many men to disease and wildlife.
4) get rid of the boats and rename the fishing dock.

1) Sure, that would add more territs for any smaller ones that I have to remove
2) Sure, or how about some bridges that go above the mud, just it could be as a territory with a killer neutral?
3) That would be good to have.
4) LOL yea and the ice fishing. I noticed those 2 days ago when I was working on the map, but I've been working on the mud so that it blends into the other ground better.

i would say -2 or -3 even. or killer neutrals the revert to 2 or 3 or maybe even 4 (not to 1, because they will be too easy to take back then) it must be a real pain to cross the mud banks, though not too much to be not be able to cross them at all.

as for a replacement of the 'fishing boats' that gave a bonus, maybe make something like 'sunken ships' with some stored food in it (often they store food in ships that won't 'decay' or 'rot' fast if you know what i mean, because ships (especially sailing ships) can be at sea for a long time, and you'll need food that can be stored for a pretty long time. so 'sunken' or 'destroyed' ships, or 'shipwrecks' or whatever you want to call them, might give a slight bonus for holding them because they might have some food in it, and off course they provide a bit of cover to the enemy so the negative bonus of being 'out in the open' doesn't apply hire, since if you're under attack by the enemy while being in the mud, normally you're at huge disadvantage (that's why it should have a negative bonus or killer neutrals) but if you can hide inside a ship, they won't attack you, or you can even ambush them if they come too close.

prolly -3, with a couple of killer neutrals in there also.

Yea sunken ships would be good. But how about in stead of 'sunken' it could be 'stranded'. So that gives us sunken, stranded, destroyed, and shipwrecks as options, cool

[bryguy]

oh yea, and i need you guys to go through these:


http://www.dafont.com/


and tell me which font looks best for Famine!

[zimmah]

i think you'll have to look in the 'eroded' theme.

maybe this one? http://www.dafont.com/all-used-up.font

[bryguy]

Click image to enlarge.

Changes:


New colors
Dried up water
Mud
Every castle has its resource 2 spaces away
Altered borders so that each castle has a village 3 spaces away, sometimes tho it is shared
Added mud territories
Changed the legend
Changed Ice Fishing and Fishing Dock to Potatoes and Flax
Got rid of the ice
Tried to make the mountain better
Switched the oasis with Uis
Changed the legend look
Changed the wording on the legend
Reduced the bonus for castles by 1 or 2
Replaced the boats bonus with a mud bonus
Added in a temporary title
Fixed the mini-map
Probably more to, but hey, Im forgetful

[zimmah]

Click image to enlarge.

changes later

nice

but maybe lakri and tayers or something are too easy to attack each other now. they might even kill each other in the first turn. ie someone starts on lakri, takes his 1st turn, kills the tayers one even before he was able to take his turn. that's not good i guess.

[Mr. Squirrel]

nice

but maybe lakri and tayers or something are too easy to attack each other now. they might even kill each other in the first turn. ie someone starts on lakri, takes his 1st turn, kills the tayers one even before he was able to take his turn. that's not good i guess.

I think that all of the objects on this map need to be moved around. There is too much inconsistency. Every castle should have its resource the same distance away than the other castles. This goes for villages too.

[zimmah]

nice

but maybe lakri and tayers or something are too easy to attack each other now. they might even kill each other in the first turn. ie someone starts on lakri, takes his 1st turn, kills the tayers one even before he was able to take his turn. that's not good i guess.

I think that all of the objects on this map need to be moved around. There is too much inconsistency. Every castle should have its resource the same distance away than the other castles. This goes for villages too.

not really neccesarry, as long as it's pretty much balanced out. btw i don't even think every castle has it's own village. but as long as you can balance it out with neutrals it's fine. however i think 2 spaces between 2 castles, most likely having 4 neutrals on the ones with 4 killers on them and like 4 or 5 on the other, it might not be enough to stop someone with at least 10 armies on his castle on his first turn to have a walk-over at their first turn (you'll probably start with 3 armies on your castle (i think you can change this number but it wouldn't really matter for this issue) and you'll have 4 armies you can deploy for holding the castle and you can deploy 3 armies just because you can, so that makes up for 10 armies, and you'll only have to kill like 11 armies (4 on each mud territory and 3 on the opponents castle) it's not like it's impossible you know, and i wouldn't like to see things like this happening. basicly ruins the gameplay.

[bryguy]

nice

but maybe lakri and tayers or something are too easy to attack each other now. they might even kill each other in the first turn. ie someone starts on lakri, takes his 1st turn, kills the tayers one even before he was able to take his turn. that's not good i guess.

Yea I realized that. To stop that, the odd numbered mud territories are gonna have 4 neutral and be killer neutral, and the even numbered mud territories are gonna be 5 or 6 neutral and lose 3 armies on them each turn

I think that all of the objects on this map need to be moved around. There is too much inconsistency. Every castle should have its resource the same distance away than the other castles. This goes for villages too.

Actually I fixed that. Each castle has one territory between it and its resource, and a village at least 3 territs away

not really neccesarry, as long as it's pretty much balanced out. btw i don't even think every castle has it's own village. but as long as you can balance it out with neutrals it's fine. however i think 2 spaces between 2 castles, most likely having 4 neutrals on the ones with 4 killers on them and like 4 or 5 on the other, it might not be enough to stop someone with at least 10 armies on his castle on his first turn to have a walk-over at their first turn (you'll probably start with 3 armies on your castle (i think you can change this number but it wouldn't really matter for this issue) and you'll have 4 armies you can deploy for holding the castle and you can deploy 3 armies just because you can, so that makes up for 10 armies, and you'll only have to kill like 11 armies (4 on each mud territory and 3 on the opponents castle) it's not like it's impossible you know, and i wouldn't like to see things like this happening. basicly ruins the gameplay.

Not every castle has its own village. And could u explain a little more??

[zimmah]

let's say we have like a 6 player game or so.

player 1 takes his turn, and let's suppose everyone stars with 3 armies on his/her castle. (unless you change this)
since you can deploy 4 armies for holding a castle, +3 armies for 'standard' deployment (unless you change either of this) someone would have now 10 armies on his/her castle. so you'll have 9 armies available for attack.

now suppose he'll deside to attacks the even numbered mud territory (M12) and (M20) and then attacks Tayers Castle, he'd have to attack 13/15 armies(depends on whether you decide to place 5 or 6 armies on each evenly numbered mud territory). he'll still need a little luck but he might just whipe out player 2 in his first turn.

i suggest placing at least 3 mud territories between the two castles and that might do the trick, since it will be highly unlikely someone could do it in 1 turn, and because of the killer nuetrals/-3 army bonus it won't be a really good option to stay their on your first turn. however if there are only 2 territories between them, it might be too easy to 'go for it' and then it doens't really matter if they got reset to neutral, because by that time you might eventually have two castles, and eliminated 1 player already in your first turn.

now let's say player 1 got lucky and took Tayers, he now has 2 castles and it's player 3's turn. player 2 never played and got whiped out. now every player takes his/her turn, not much happens. it's player 1's turn again (round 2) M12 and M20 have 1 army on them and therefore can't lose any more armies (player 1 is smart and placed all armies he had left on Tayers Castle) he has now 2 castles and ZERO PENALTY! he can deploy 4+4+3 armies now (=11) and can go for, let's say Pumpkins and Cors Village, to increase his already overpowered status even more. let's say player 3 started on Tyry, he can never win the fight for Cors village as player 1 gets nearly twice as much armies. now PLayer one gets 13 armies each turn while the rest still gets 7 (in the 3rd turn of the game)

i think such a huge bonus is worth taking the risk attacking 13/15 armies with your initial 10. because you have attacker dice, say you attack M12 with 10 armies (let's say we have 6 armies on it, just for the heck of it)

(goes to random.org and simulates some dice rolls)

6:1:6 vs 2:3. won 2, 9 vs 4 now:
2:5:4 vs 4:1 won 1, lost 1. 8 vs 3.
5:2:1 vs 6:5 lost 2. 6 vs 3
6:6:1 vs 4:4 won 2 6 vs 1
5:4:1 vs 4 won, 7 armies left. 7 advance (remember i didn't calculate the 10th armie, so that one stays)

i can still attack with 6 armies vs the next 6. let's pray for lucky dice:

6:3:2 vs 4:2 yeah, i won 2. 6 vs 4
6:4:1 vs 4:1 6 vs 2 now
6:5:4 vs 6:3 lost 1. won 1. 5 vs 1 now (hmm lucky dices, i throw a lot of 6's, but i'm really using random.org)
5:1:2 vs 4. won. 5 armies advance.

5 vs 3 (i'm already attacking Tayers castle by now!!)
6:4:2 vs 5:5 1 lost, 1 won. 4 vs 2
6:4:3 vs 5:4 again, 1 lost, 1 won. 3 vs 1
6:3 vs 2 won! player 2 eliminated! 2 armies advance.

see what i mean? it's way too easy to get some lucky dice rolls and win the game in 1 turn basicly.

[bryguy]

let's say we have like a 6 player game or so.

player 1 takes his turn, and let's suppose everyone stars with 3 armies on his/her castle. (unless you change this)
since you can deploy 4 armies for holding a castle, +3 armies for 'standard' deployment (unless you change either of this) someone would have now 10 armies on his/her castle. so you'll have 9 armies available for attack.

now suppose he'll deside to attacks the even numbered mud territory (M12) and (M20) and then attacks Tayers Castle, he'd have to attack 13/15 armies(depends on whether you decide to place 5 or 6 armies on each evenly numbered mud territory). he'll still need a little luck but he might just whipe out player 2 in his first turn.

i suggest placing at least 3 mud territories between the two castles and that might do the trick, since it will be highly unlikely someone could do it in 1 turn, and because of the killer nuetrals/-3 army bonus it won't be a really good option to stay their on your first turn. however if there are only 2 territories between them, it might be too easy to 'go for it' and then it doens't really matter if they got reset to neutral, because by that time you might eventually have two castles, and eliminated 1 player already in your first turn.

now let's say player 1 got lucky and took Tayers, he now has 2 castles and it's player 3's turn. player 2 never played and got whiped out. now every player takes his/her turn, not much happens. it's player 1's turn again (round 2) M12 and M20 have 1 army on them and therefore can't lose any more armies (player 1 is smart and placed all armies he had left on Tayers Castle) he has now 2 castles and ZERO PENALTY! he can deploy 4+4+3 armies now (=11) and can go for, let's say Pumpkins and Cors Village, to increase his already overpowered status even more. let's say player 3 started on Tyry, he can never win the fight for Cors village as player 1 gets nearly twice as much armies. now PLayer one gets 13 armies each turn while the rest still gets 7 (in the 3rd turn of the game)

i think such a huge bonus is worth taking the risk attacking 13/15 armies with your initial 10. because you have attacker dice, say you attack M12 with 10 armies (let's say we have 6 armies on it, just for the heck of it)

(goes to random.org and simulates some dice rolls)

6:1:6 vs 2:3. won 2, 9 vs 4 now:
2:5:4 vs 4:1 won 1, lost 1. 8 vs 3.
5:2:1 vs 6:5 lost 2. 6 vs 3
6:6:1 vs 4:4 won 2 6 vs 1
5:4:1 vs 4 won, 7 armies left. 7 advance (remember i didn't calculate the 10th armie, so that one stays)

i can still attack with 6 armies vs the next 6. let's pray for lucky dice:

6:3:2 vs 4:2 yeah, i won 2. 6 vs 4
6:4:1 vs 4:1 6 vs 2 now
6:5:4 vs 6:3 lost 1. won 1. 5 vs 1 now (hmm lucky dices, i throw a lot of 6's, but i'm really using random.org)
5:1:2 vs 4. won. 5 armies advance.

5 vs 3 (i'm already attacking Tayers castle by now!!)
6:4:2 vs 5:5 1 lost, 1 won. 4 vs 2
6:4:3 vs 5:4 again, 1 lost, 1 won. 3 vs 1
6:3 vs 2 won! player 2 eliminated! 2 armies advance.

see what i mean? it's way too easy to get some lucky dice rolls and win the game in 1 turn basicly.

hmm... very true. What if i made it a little harder by having all mud territories have 6 armies to start with (killers reverting to that obviously) and you can only get into the mud by attacking even numbered muds, and you can only get out from odd numbered muds?

[zimmah]

yes, that might work. as long as you at least have to get past 3 mud territories (with 5 or 6 neutrals on them) it will be fine.

[bryguy]

yes, that might work. as long as you at least have to get past 3 mud territories (with 5 or 6 neutrals on them) it will be fine.

yea with my said idea you would have to go through 4 mud territories (i think) and then a land territory before you reach the castle

[Fluffums]

Without reading through the entire thread (I'm sorry), does the famine affect the castles and villages? I'm not sure if those are included in the "normal" territory.

My opinion: they should be affected. This would actually allow for a siege of sorts where the castle or village is being starved out as long as somebody else can hold the resource. Obviously the castle or village bonus would outweigh the famine, but it would be a nice little effect. It would also differentiate your famine from the frostbite in Age of Magic.

Also, why would anyone ever attack M14 or M15? They don't get you anywhere or anything, from what I can tell.

[bryguy]

Without reading through the entire thread (I'm sorry), does the famine affect the castles and villages? I'm not sure if those are included in the "normal" territory.

My opinion: they should be affected. This would actually allow for a siege of sorts where the castle or village is being starved out as long as somebody else can hold the resource. Obviously the castle or village bonus would outweigh the famine, but it would be a nice little effect. It would also differentiate your famine from the frostbite in Age of Magic.

hmm... that would add a cool twist to it

Also, why would anyone ever attack M14 or M15? They don't get you anywhere or anything, from what I can tell.

well M14 would help you, since you get +1 bonus that you can place anywhere for holding 3 even numbered mud territories, but I agree about M15, it doesnt really do anything. Ill have to see about removing it

[bryguy]

Anybody have anything to say about the graphix now? if not we might as well stamp this and send it over to FF

[AndyDufresne]

Yeah, when are you going to start working on the graphics? You're on the right track, but the higher elevation areas oddly don't look like they are higher.

The general "smoothness" of the map is also rather unrealistic looking...or whatever style you are going for the map.

The castles look more like you were using a magnetic tool in some imaging programs...and they are also too flat feeling.

Good luck.


--Andy

[bryguy]

Yeah, when are you going to start working on the graphics? You're on the right track, but the higher elevation areas oddly don't look like they are higher.

The general "smoothness" of the map is also rather unrealistic looking...or whatever style you are going for the map.

The castles look more like you were using a magnetic tool in some imaging programs...and they are also too flat feeling.

Good luck.


--Andy

ok thanks Id get mad, but im in a good mood, and i cant get mad at you, eh maybe ill get mad at tom

yea after i made the update i realized i forgot to add a texture, ill look into adding one

castles: need work, gotcha

and could you explain more for the elevation?