[Abandoned] Research & Conquer

[Qwert]

Hmm,i belive that gameplay need to be balanced,and from your sheme, you have some capitals who can bring advantage to some players.
A-have three defending territory
B-have 4 defending territory
C-4 defending territory
D- these area is best for defend and if you hold capital you only need to defend 1 territory
E-these area is most open,and very hard to defend
F-3 defending territory.
-----------------------------------------
Lets see Capitals
A-need to defend 3 territory when you take capital
B-in a middle hard to hold
C-in a middle hard to hold
D-These capital is best to hold,because its provide great defence for behind conquer area.
E-in a middle hard to hold
F-need to defend 3 territory when you take capital
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will give more oppinion,but i dont know what territory is starting territory.
From mine view,best option is to create all similar to D,because you will fulfill what is require to map become balanced and to not give any advantage to one player,or disatvantage to another player.

[Joodoo]

omg, a map with tons of territories
I like it...

[Emperor_Metalman]

Hmm,i belive that gameplay need to be balanced,and from your sheme, you have some capitals who can bring advantage to some players.

From mine view,best option is to create all similar to D,because you will fulfill what is require to map become balanced and to not give any advantage to one player,or disatvantage to another player.

IMO, I think making the map symmetrical would make it boring because of the current layout



The center area of the map should be enlarged so that conquering territory in the center is viable compared with research and attacking an opponent's homeland.

[OliverFA]

BTW - I've worked out how to ensure that you only get 1 set of research bonuses regardless of whether or not you are attacking down more than 1 tech tree...

[...]

C.

Sorry for the long delay in the reply. But even if it's a bit late, I want to thank you for helping with that very useful piece of code. Thanks Yeti!

[OliverFA]

Love the idea.I would add some sort of fortifications for the capitals or some sort of defense mechanism.

Hello Sailorseal. Thanks for your comment

However, I don't fully understand what you mean with "fortifications for the capitals". Would you be so kind to elaborate it a bit more? Thanks!

[OliverFA]

I think the new layout gives everyone a fair shake at each others base right from the start, while also giving each player a way to defend. Well done.

Thanks SuicidalSnowman. As you see I incorporated many of your suggestions.

[OliverFA]

Hmm,i belive that gameplay need to be balanced,and from your sheme, you have some capitals who can bring advantage to some players.
A-have three defending territory
B-have 4 defending territory
C-4 defending territory
D- these area is best for defend and if you hold capital you only need to defend 1 territory
E-these area is most open,and very hard to defend
F-3 defending territory.
-----------------------------------------
Lets see Capitals
A-need to defend 3 territory when you take capital
B-in a middle hard to hold
C-in a middle hard to hold
D-These capital is best to hold,because its provide great defence for behind conquer area.
E-in a middle hard to hold
F-need to defend 3 territory when you take capital
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will give more oppinion,but i dont know what territory is starting territory.
From mine view,best option is to create all similar to D,because you will fulfill what is require to map become balanced and to not give any advantage to one player,or disatvantage to another player.

Thanks for your comments qwert. The first layout was a completely simetric one with all the capitals the same. But it was changed to a non simetric one due to feedback. Personally I believe it is more interesting as it is right now.

[OliverFA]

Hmm,i belive that gameplay need to be balanced,and from your sheme, you have some capitals who can bring advantage to some players.

From mine view,best option is to create all similar to D,because you will fulfill what is require to map become balanced and to not give any advantage to one player,or disatvantage to another player.

IMO, I think making the map symmetrical would make it boring because of the current layout



The center area of the map should be enlarged so that conquering territory in the center is viable compared with research and attacking an opponent's homeland.

I tend to agree with you. If it had a few more territories it would be better. However, I was afraid that critics would say that those are too many territories, and tried to keep the number low. But now I think that I will add the 9 more neutral territories I mentioned. Working on a new version right now...

[sailorseal]

Love the idea.I would add some sort of fortifications for the capitals or some sort of defense mechanism.

Hello Sailorseal. Thanks for your comment

However, I don't fully understand what you mean with "fortifications for the capitals". Would you be so kind to elaborate it a bit more? Thanks!

Allow me to elaborate. I intended this to mean that some sort of auto deploy or 1 way assaults or some sort of mechanism to make it even harder to take a capital. Not just armies vs. armies but a home field advantage.

[OliverFA]

Love the idea.I would add some sort of fortifications for the capitals or some sort of defense mechanism.

Hello Sailorseal. Thanks for your comment

However, I don't fully understand what you mean with "fortifications for the capitals". Would you be so kind to elaborate it a bit more? Thanks!

Allow me to elaborate. I intended this to mean that some sort of auto deploy or 1 way assaults or some sort of mechanism to make it even harder to take a capital. Not just armies vs. armies but a home field advantage.

¡Oh! I see now.

Well, each capital will have a region bonus. A small number of army/armies deployed directly on the capital each turn. At that moment I am not sure how many armies it will be.

[Dublanous1]

Nice So far, definately needs a background, I can't stand maps that are just white.

[TaCktiX]

That isn't the map. The structure of the map is currently sitting on my hard drive where it needs to be finished up and posted. Seeing as I recently regained my Foundry motivation (don't know why it disappeared), I'll likely hit it up today and tomorrow, finishing off a good first draft.

[sailorseal]

Guys the lay out looks good but this is going to end up in the bin if a real draft is not made

[TaCktiX]

Guess what I'm doing this afternoon.

[OliverFA]

Guess what I'm doing this afternoon.

Going to feed the animals at the Zoo?

[Emperor_Metalman]

Hmm,i belive that gameplay need to be balanced,and from your sheme, you have some capitals who can bring advantage to some players.
A-have three defending territory
B-have 4 defending territory
C-4 defending territory
D- these area is best for defend and if you hold capital you only need to defend 1 territory
E-these area is most open,and very hard to defend
F-3 defending territory.
-----------------------------------------
Lets see Capitals
A-need to defend 3 territory when you take capital
B-in a middle hard to hold
C-in a middle hard to hold
D-These capital is best to hold,because its provide great defence for behind conquer area.
E-in a middle hard to hold
F-need to defend 3 territory when you take capital
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will give more oppinion,but i dont know what territory is starting territory.
From mine view,best option is to create all similar to D,because you will fulfill what is require to map become balanced and to not give any advantage to one player,or disatvantage to another player.

Thanks for your comments qwert. The first layout was a completely simetric one with all the capitals the same. But it was changed to a non simetric one due to feedback. Personally I believe it is more interesting as it is right now.

Now that I think about it, the map is still too symmetrical. I think you should add some connections between non-adjacent homelands such as connecting D and C and putting a large number of neutrals in between.

[OliverFA]

Ok, that's a new attempt of a layout:



Comments: I came back to equal homelands, and tried to randomize the territory in between of them. Also, I raised the number of territories a little bit.

I am not sure if havin all the homelands completely equal is good, but most comments I had suggested exactly that. Equal homelands and irregular territory in between. So I have made an attempt at it.

Remember, blue territories are killer neutrals, and pink territories are mines.

If this layout is not successful then I will come back to V2 and try to randomize the territories in between.

[OliverFA]

That's version 2 so you can compare

[OliverFA]

One more thing: This is an Excel file that calculates the reinforcements for different values for the tech benefits.

It uses 3 techs: Conscription (formerly called "territories"), National Pride (increases bonus for the homeland) and Standing Army (increases minimum reinforcements).

In the first sheet you can see how many armies a player would get each turn depending on how many territories he has and which techs he has (for Conscription and Standing Army)

In the second sheet you can see how many armies a player would get for his full homeland (8 territories) depending on which territories he has (the two previous plus National Pride). Here you can see that with the proper research a player can get 28 armies per only 8 territories!

The sheet has also cells for placing the numbers for tech effects, so you can play with different numbers and see how it would affect the reinforcement.

http://www.arrakis.es/~oliverfa/TechEffects.xls

[Emperor_Metalman]

Version 2 looks better.

Still too symetrical for my taste though. I think the assymetrical homeland layouts from version 1 should be used to replace the ones from version 1

[rjz115dude]

i dont really get this map, its boring, plain, graphics are borinng as well...add a bacgrund, do something

[rjz115dude]

ah, i see

[MrBenn]

Come on TaCktiX.... let's see these pretty graphics you keep promising us!

[TaCktiX]

I'm putting the finishing touches on a draft of the map. Since A: I've never done a true "territory border" map, and B: the layout needs some solidifying after putting it on my framing, it won't look fantabulous when I post it in 15-20 minutes. No worries though, I'll certainly be adding lots of glitz in time, I'd just like some more finality in gameplay layout after we've gotten it off of rods and circles.

[TaCktiX]

Version 0.8

Click image to enlarge.

There it is. There's a lot of work to do, hence the Version 0.8. I posted it mainly to get the ball rolling on balancing things out, as we have the tripartite problem of balancing the research, balancing the claim to the rich center of the map, and balancing the ability to get to other players (though we're not aiming for equal access, that's ridiculous). For reference, everything is neutral (save the capital), M is Mine (and also neutral), C is Capital (starting position for each player).

To Do
- Add the legend in the bottom right
- Redraft numerous borders so they can fit names (albeit simple) and army circles
- Begin crafting the symbols for the map
- Add color to the map proper
- Finish the nonplayable "side countries" so the entire map's space is used

List o' Questions
Graphics/Understanding
Is the graphical style shown on the research good?
Are the researches easy to understand?

Gameplay
Should impassables be added and the overall setup of the map changed around?
Are the starts reasonably balanced whilst being asymmetric?
Any suggestions for balancing neutral counts?