MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

[MrBenn]

Here's the adjusted XML... http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/9/2 ... exico3.xml

[Bruceswar]

I received this via PM:

putting a tiny country's name out where the ports are is BOGUS.

Any idea what it's referring to?

Def referring to Colima

[MrBenn]

I received this via PM:

putting a tiny country's name out where the ports are is BOGUS.

Any idea what it's referring to?

Def referring to Colima

Is it something that needs fixing (and if so, how?)?
Or is it fine?

[ender516]

It looks fine to me. Colima does not have a port symbol, it has a line. I doubt very many people will be confused. The fact that this one person used the word "bogus" in block caps doesn't mean it is a serious flaw in the map (or even a flaw at all). The only "solution" I can see, if one were needed, would involve serious distortion of the borders so that the Colima label could fit in the region.

[fumandomuerte]

Sorry for the late nitpicks but can you change "Valle del Anahuac" to "Valle de Anahuac" MrBenn?
Other thing that changed from version 5 to beta is the junction indicated by the blue arrow:

For geographic acurracy it should change from:

To:


fm

[natty dread]

4-way borders are a no-no in map design, Fumando. Geographic accuracy must be fudged at times to improve gameplay clarity.

[fumandomuerte]

Indeed, I 101% agree.

[MrBenn]

Although I could drop a mountain in there if necessary?

[fumandomuerte]

Could work. Topography there shows 3000 m above sea level:

Click image to enlarge.

[equalpants]

Quintana Roo is currently misspelled as "Quintina" in both the graphics and XML.

[Commander62890]

Have the ports all been changed to neutrals?



That's bad for team play isn't it? The ports made things interesting - now, no one's going to take them.

[ender516]

The ports give a bonus and quick access up and down the coasts. I think people will still take them.

[Bruceswar]

The ports give a bonus and quick access up and down the coasts. I think people will still take them.

Not gonna happen in most games if you ask me.

[fumandomuerte]

Giving +3 for 5 ports instead of coding neutrals could help to avoid drop bonuses and keep the appeal of the ports imo.

[army of nobunaga]

love the map, just wish monterrey could have been included somehow.. its one of the laRgest cities in north america.

but other than that top notch and great work

[Commander62890]

The ports give a bonus and quick access up and down the coasts. I think people will still take them.

Not in team games, my friend.


This completely ruined the map for team games. Really, no one agrees with me? The Sur bonus is way too good without some more small bonuses in play.

[fumandomuerte]

The ports give a bonus and quick access up and down the coasts. I think people will still take them.

Not in team games, my friend.


This completely ruined the map for team games. Really, no one agrees with me? The Sur bonus is way too good without some more small bonuses in play.

Agree. Already suggested to change the bonus requirement for the ports from 3 for +2 to 5 for +3 (or a +4).

[Commander62890]

Agree. Already suggested to change the bonus requirement for the ports from 3 for +2 to 5 for +3 (or a +4).

I'm sorry, but no one's going to be taking out 10 neutrals for a +4 bonus on a medium-sized map.


If you don't scrap the neutral ports, ports will only be used in desperation by a losing team trying to break a bonus on the other side of the map. And, since the losing team will have to go through 4 neutrals to break the bonus, it will probably only hasten their defeat.


If you're fixed on neutral ports, changing the ports to 1 neutral each, and have 2 ports be worth 2 or more armies might be okay.


Though I think that just having them as regular territories would be best.


Sorry about all this criticism, but I'm not wrong in that having neutral ports will make them a total non-factor in team games and 1v1. If this is what you're going for, fine. I just think it would be a more complex and layered map if you made the ports important.

[fumandomuerte]

Don't get me wrong. What I'm saying is that Ports should not be coded as neutrals and the bonus they give right now (+2 for any 3) must be adjusted to avoid drop advantages with a requirement of holding 5 to claim more troops, not 3.

[Commander62890]

Sure, that would be fine.



Ports were overpowered with the previous coding, but now they're just plain useless.


I'm just saying we need to find something in between; useful but not overpowered.


Maybe hold 4 ports for +2 or +3? 5 seems like too many.


What was the thought process for changing the ports to neutral?

[MrBenn]

I'm not sure if there was any serious thoughts into making the ports start neutral - I;d sort of assumed it would be a sensible thing to do... Having said that, I would definitely prefer keeping them in normal play

The options I see are:

a) Leave it as it was before (with no designated neutrals). The downside of this, is that it leaves 37 starting terrs, meaning 2/3p games start with 12 terrs and an extra advantage to whoever starts

b) Make one port on each ocean start neutral (2 neutral armies), and leave the bonus as it is. (although this still means there's a 33% chance of dropping one of the bonuses.

c) Make one port on each ocean start neutral, but change the bonus to +2 for holding all the ports on the same sea

My favourite is probably option C, with the two central ports starting neutral.

[Victor Sullivan]

Definitely C, MrBenn

[fumandomuerte]

I like option C too.

[Commander62890]

Hmmm not bad, but I don't like C.


It still forces you to hit a neutral, which make the bonus unusable for 1v1 and Team.


It seems like it will be hard to find the mid-way point between not being too drop-dependent on 1v1 and not being to boring on Team.


This is a tough decision, but I really think that C will result in players not going for the bonus, for the most part.

[MrBenn]

We'd still need to put neutrals on the map to eliminate the 12-terr advantage to player 1 on 1v1s and 3p games...