Salem's Switch V36 [Quenched]

[cairnswk]

In the top paragraph, "against" is spelled "agin". Is that intentional?

Yes

[cairnswk]

i don't think this is what gillipig suggested.

Dim, that was Gilligan that suggested that not Gillipig

Keep the +1 for accused/accuser, but need to have at least TWO pairs to avoid a 5-deploy first turn and blitzing on other people's starting positions.

as i understand the bonus should remain +1 per pair of accused/accuser but it only comes into place for a minimum of 2 pairs.

1 accused/accuser = 0
2 accused/accuser = +2
3 accused/accuser = +3
4 accused/accuser = +4
...

this is a good solution because it avoids the first turn problem but keeps the smooth increase of the bonus in increments of 1.

what you have on the new version is:
1 accused/accuser = 0
2 accused/accuser = +2
3 accused/accuser = +2
4 accused/accuser = +4
5 accused/accuser = +4

this is not so good because for an increase of the bonus you need to take 2 pairs which is kinda hard to do and it might not be feasible.

Mmmm OK. i hear this.

We could return to +1 per accused/accuser pair, but reduce the minimum troops from 3 to 1, so everyone starts with +3 instead of +5.

that seems a definite possibility, but does it overcome the serious flaws that start positions are too close?

We could return to +1 per accused/accuser pair, but reduce the minimum troops from 3 to 1, so everyone starts with +3 instead of +5.

not really helpful since it would still be possible to break one's bonus before he even starts.
with just a +3 to start you still make a 6 stack and have to attack a 1 and then a 3 to break an opponent's bonus.
the chances for that happening are 54.5%. so it's very likely it will happen plenty of time.

agreed about breaking the bonus

I thought you would need to go through two buggy stops to get one starting position to another, but I have not checked all the possibilities.

There are 6 places where you can assault an opponent across one buggy stop:
1. Sarah Osbourne to Johnathon Putnam
2. Alice Shflin to Jospeh Buxton
3. Martha Corey to Sarah Good
4. Tituba to Abigail williams
5. Ann Putnam to Macey Lewis
6. Thomas Preston to Rebecca Nurse
but i think these all depend on a board being full i.e. 8 players

It has been my experience (in my 13 games) that i have had starts around the board
Game 10891167 - Start Position 4
Game 10891429 - SP 2
Game 10891444 - SP 7
Game 10891460 - SP 5
Game 10891903 - SP 2
Game 10891946 - SP 8
Game 10892057 - SP 6
Game 10892954 - SP 6
Game 10893426 - SP 7
Game 10897313 - SP 1
Speed Game 10897362 - Sp 6
Game 10897376 - SP 8
Game 10899260 - SP 3
So the random aspect of start is working well per player, but that does not alleviate the possibility of your opponent getting a start on one of those territories opposite you and being one buggy stop away.

At present in the xml there are only 8 start positions.
There are 10 accuser positions (light purple)
There are 15 accused positions outside of town (Deep Violet) which is plenty enough to cover the accuser positions.

i have tried to be somewhat true to the historical aspect of this map, however, from these start positions i see that is not possible.

New Proposals

1. A new lot of start positions
Objective - will put some distance between start positions and provide an overall better redistribution across the map at the expense of the historical factors.

2. This also involves a shift in the border of Giles Corey so he does not border a buggy stop.

2. The buggy stops be lifted from 1 to 2 neutrals
Objective - will stop everyone jumping out of the starting blocks and think more about building some bonuses with landowner positions and not just the accuser/accused pairs

3. To facilitate targeting the landowner positions, i propose they be dropped from [7] for +3 to [4] for +2
Objective - players already start with 1 landowner; this will allow the landowners to be better targeted as a bonus rather than something that is not at present going to be used because it is probably too high.

4. I still feel the accused/accuser pairs should be 2 of each for + 2
Reason - at one pair for +2, it is too easy to gain bonuses, and then incrementally build on them for another +2.
If, as Dim, has shown above, the 2 pair for +2 configuration makes it harder to achieve these bonuses; they rise in pairs of 2, meaning that gaining another pair from 2->3, 4->5 etc, doesn't allow more troop at the next conquer of a pair, but means you have to gain 2 pair for the extra 2 bonus troops. This will also move the play from targeting the accused/accuser pairs to more other bonuses, and make it harder for 1v1 games to wipe each other out quickly.




Current Start Positions

New Propsed Start Positions


New Proposed Start Positions * indicate accused/accuser pairs
1.

• * Sarah Cloyce
  * Elizabeth Hubbard
  Joseph Buxton

2.

• * Sarah Bishop
  * Thomas preston
  Lot Connant

3.

• * Dorcas Hoare
  * Abigail Williams
  James Putnam

4.

• * Ann Putnam Jnr
  * George Jacobs Snr
  C. Blake

5.

• * William Good
  * William Hobbs
  George Corwin

6.

• * Giles Corey
  * Elizabeth Parris
  Natty Dread

7.

• * Samuel Brabrook
  * Sarah Good
  Creasey

8.

• * Jonathon Putnam
  * Elizabeth Proctor
  Buffington Family

For Gilligan, if this is accepted:

Code: Select all

<position>
<territory>Sarah Cloyce</territory>
<territory>Elizabeth Hubbard</territory>
<territory>Joseph Buxton</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Sarah Bishop</territory>
<territory>Lot Conant</territory>
<territory>Thomas Preston</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Dorcas Hoar</territory>
<territory>James Putnam</territory>
<territory>Abigail Williams</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Ann Putnam Jr.</territory>
<territory>George Jacobs Sr.</territory>
<territory>C. Blake</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>George Corwin</territory>
<territory>William Good</territory>
<territory>William Hobbs</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Elizabeth Parris</territory>
<territory>Natty Dread</territory>
<territory>Giles Corey</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Creasey</territory>
<territory>Sarah Good</territory>
<territory>Samuel Brabrook</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Buffington Family</territory>
<territory>Johnathan Putnam</territory>
<territory>Elizabeth Proctor</territory>
</position>

[grifftron]

I personally do not like the idea of raising the buggies to 2 neutrals, BECAUSE

1) I like the simpleness of moving around the board, it gives players better chances to come back when down terts.

2) If you move them up to 2 neutral, its going to be more luck based as you will be rolling 3 on 2, more chances not to get thru those buggies then if it were 3 on 1 dices.


I do like the idea of starting with +3 instead of +5 tho like posted above, might make people wait a round or 2 before even thinking of busting thru

I also like the idea of starting with more starting points like posted above.

I also suggest thinking of bringing down neutrals across the entire board, instead of 2 neutrals everywhere, possibly 1, making it easier to get bonuses, i have already played 7+ games on the map, never even cared about getting a bonus yet as its not needed... bottom right corner of the map has been useless all 7 games, won all 7.

-griff

[Gillipig]

I don't like the idea of increasing the buggy stop neutrals! Better to change the number of starting territ so you can't snap a bonus in the first turn. I don't think you'll get players to attack landowners in 1 vs 1 anyway. This map will run best in larger games. I think we should try to of course make it fair in 1 vs 1 but not overly complicated.

[ender516]

I suppose we could set the starting positions to start with just two troops instead of the usual three.

[cairnswk]

I suppose we could set the starting positions to start with just two troops instead of the usual three.

That's another possibility. What about the new starting positions as per the bottom map?

[ender516]

Well the new starting positions may help, but allow me to think aloud here, so to speak.

To keep things fair, in every starting position, at least one of the accused/accuser pair must be vulnerable to the same extent. That is, each player must be equally vulnerable to losing that starting bonus. This is complicated by the variation in starting positions depending on the number of players. It would not be practical to arrange this so that every starting position can assault every other starting position in a balanced fashion. I think if we can arrange that every starting position is vulnerable to one other starting position, then we will have done as much as we can reasonably do. That may mean that in a 1 v 1 game, the first player has an advantage. However, if we set the troop numbers low enough, say, with drops of 2 and initial deployment of 1 (for three territories) + 2 (for the acc/acc pair) for a total stack of 5, the chance of breaking the second player's bonus is low (5 v 1,1,2 [buggy stop, buggy stop, opponent's starting territory] is 0.1854 and the chance of leaving yourself open to destruction via counter attack makes the blitz risky. In a 3-player game, one player may be relatively safe while the others battle it out, but I don't see a way around that. In a four-handed game, there may be one or two that are relatively safe. (Just one safe player could occur if some starting positions are vlulnerable to more than one other. If all positions are set up in balanced pairs, then in a 4-player game, you get either zero, two or four relatively safe players.)

Let's look at the new proposed positions and the shortest assault routes exist between them:

New Proposed Start Positions * indicate accused/accuser pairs

1. • * Sarah Cloyce
     • -> Bridgette Bishop -> *Sarah Bishop[SP2] -- too easy - UNFAIR
     • -> Danielle Rae-> *Johnathon Putnam[SP8]
     * Elizabeth Hubbard
     • -> B7 -> B8 -> *Sarah Bishop[SP2]
     • -> B7 -> B6 -> James Putnam[SP3]
     • -> Jacob Barney -> Creasey[SP7] -- too easy - UNFAIR
     • -> B7 -> B10 -> Creasey[SP7]
     Joseph Buxton
     • -> B13 -> B9 -> *Thomas Preston[SP2]
     • -> B13 -> B17 -> George Jacobs Sr.[SP4]
2. • * Sarah Bishop
     • -> Bridgette Bishop -> *Sarah Cloyce[SP1] -- too easy - UNFAIR
     • -> B8 -> B7-> *Elizabeth Hubbard[SP1]
     • -> B8 -> B11 -> Natty Dread[SP6]
     • -> B8 -> Old Planter Farms ->Lot Conant[SP2] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
     • -> B8 -> J. Raymont -> C. Blake[SP4] -- too far to be a risk[/i] UNFAIR
     * Thomas Preston
     • -> B9 -> B13 -> Joseph Buxton[SP1]
     • -> B5 -> B4 -> *Abigail Williams[SP3]
     • -> B9 -> B6 -> James Putnam[SP3]
     Lot Conant
     • -> Old Planter Farms -> B8 -> *Sarah Bishop[SP2] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
3. • * Dorcas Hoare
     • -> Rev. Hale -> B14 -> Natty Dread[SP6] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
     * Abigail Williams
     • -> Mary Walcott-> *William Good[SP5] -- too easy - UNFAIR
     • -> B4 -> B12 -> *William Good[SP5]
     • -> B4 -> B5-> *Thomas Preston[SP2]
     • -> B4 -> B1 -> *Ann Putnam Jr.[SP4]
     • ->B4 -> Rev. Parris -> *Elizabeth Parris[SP6] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
     James Putnam
     • -> B6 -> B7 -> *Elizabeth Hubbard[SP1]
     • -> B6 -> B9 -> *Thomas Preston[SP2]
     • -> B6 -> B3 -> *Johnathon Putnam[SP8]
4. • * Ann Putnam Jnr
     • -> Exekial Cheever ->*William Hobbs[SP5] -- too easy - UNFAIR
     • -> B1 -> B2 ->*William Hobbs[SP5]
     • ->B1 -> B4 -> *Abigail Williams[SP3]
     • -> B1 -> Edward Putnam -> *Samuel Brabrook[SP7] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
     * George Jacobs Snr
     • -> B17 -> B13 -> Joseph Buxton
     • -> B15 -> B14 -> Natty Dread
     C. Blake
     • -> J. Raymont -> B8 -> *Sarah Bishop[SP2] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
5. • * William Good
     • -> Mary Walcott-> *Abigail Williams[SP3] -- too easy - UNFAIR
     • -> B12 -> B4 -> *Abigail Williams[SP3]
     • -> B12 -> Dorcas Good -> *Sarah Good[SP7] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
     • -> B12 -> Martha Corey-> *Giles Corey[SP6] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
     • -> B12 -> B16 -> John Proctor -> *Elizabeth Proctor[SP8] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR perhaps instead *John Proctor[SP8]
     * William Hobbs
     • -> B2 -> B1 -> *Ann Putnam Jr.[SP4]
     • -> B2 -> B3 -> *Johnathon Putnam[SP8]
     George Corwin
     • -> Trasks Mills -> B17 -> *George Jacobs Sr.[SP4] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
     • -> Trasks Mills -> B19 -> B18 -> Buffington Family[SP8] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
6. • * Giles Corey
     • -> Martha Corey -> B12 -> *William Good[SP5] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
     • -> Martha Corey -> Dorcas Good -> *Sarah Good[SP7] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
     * Elizabeth Parris
     • -> Rev. Parris ->B4 -> *Abigail Williams[SP3] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
     Natty Dread
     • -> B14 -> B15 -> *George Jacobs Sr.[SP4]
     • -> B11 -> B10 -> Creasey[SP7]
     • -> B11 -> B8 -> *Sarah Bishop[SP2]
     • -> B14 -> Rev. Hale -> *Dorcas Hoar[SP3] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
7. • * Samuel Brabrook
     • -> Edward Putnam -> B1 -> *Ann Putnam Jr.[SP4] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
     * Sarah Good
     • -> Dorcas Good -> B12 -> *William Good[SP5] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
     • -> Dorcas Good -> Martha Corey-> *Giles Corey[SP6] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
     Creasey
     • -> B10 -> B11 -> Natty Dread[SP6]
     • -> Jacob Barney -> *Elizabeth Hubbard[SP1] -- too easy - UNFAIR
     • -> B10 -> B7 -> *Elizabeth Hubbard[SP1]
8. • * Jonathon Putnam
     • -> Daniel Rae -> *Sarah Cloyce[SP1] -- too easy - UNFAIR
     • -> B3 -> B6 -> James Putnam
     • -> B3 -> B2 -> William Hobbs[SP5]
     * Elizabeth Proctor
     • -> John Proctor -> B16 -> B12 -> *William Good[SP5] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR perhaps instead *John Proctor[SP8]
     Buffington Family
     • -> B18 -> B16 -> John Proctor -> *Elizabeth Proctor[SP8] -- too far to be a risk UNFAIR
       better if instead *John Proctor[SP8], but this is in same starting position [SP8], so maybe swap Buffington Family with other landowner in another SP

The assault routes that are too easy may be reparable with some fences, but the ones that are too far will need something else. As I noted, I think using John Proctor instead of Elizabeth Proctor could be a good idea.

What we may need to do is to list all short assault routes among all the accused and accusers, and see if we can select a set that defines a workable collection of starting positions.

Or maybe a different tack: set up starting positions which contain acc/acc pairs which are adjacent to each other, or nearly so (one buggy stop), and then make sure those pairs are well separated. This would likely require a few border changes to draw together the pairs. Off the top of my head, I imagine the following pairings:

1. Ann Putnam Jr., William Hobbs
2. Marcy Lewis, Susannah Martin
3. Elizabeth Parris, Sarah Osbourne
4. Johnathon Putnam, Sarah Cloyce
5. Elizabeth Harris, Sarah Bishop
6. Thomas Preston, Rebecca Nurse
7. Abigail Williams, Sarah Good
8. William Good, Martha Corey

I won't elaborate now on the details of how the borders would have to change, as I have been writing this post for close to three hours, and I will admit that I am not certain that it can all be worked out, including the separation I mentioned, but it's a jumping off point.

[army of nobunaga]

JUst played my first turn... I think we all need 30 turns before we comment...;

That is like my personal rule of thumb.

When he released cricket I played 5 turns, got eliminated.... and cursed him and his linear choke-point maps... I was wrong and admitted it in the thread.

This may need a lot of revision, but I am searching the games from some of you... some of you had not even played a turn.

[DiM]

i may be wrong but i think the term "killer neutrals" is not something clear for everybody.
i see people taking buggy stops and advancing everything there not knowing they're gonna lose those troops.
maybe replace "buggy stops are killer neutrals" with "buggy stops revert to 1 neutral each turn"

[cairnswk]

i may be wrong but i think the term "killer neutrals" is not something clear for everybody.
i see people taking buggy stops and advancing everything there not knowing they're gonna lose those troops.
maybe replace "buggy stops are killer neutrals" with "buggy stops revert to 1 neutral each turn"

I agree Dim from my experience. Changes to the map are as below for this; at least we can get that off to lackattack quickly while deciding what others to make.

Click image to enlarge.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... V34Scd.png
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... V34Lcd.png

[DiM]

you say you agree but on the map it's still "killer neutrals"

[cairnswk]

you say you agree but on the map it's still "killer neutrals"

in the game play map it probably does because the above maps have not been uploaed yet. If you still seeing the old version Ctrl + F5

[natty dread]

Actually, "the end of each turn" is wrong... killer neutrals reset at the beginning of the turn of the player that holds them.

I think it'd be best to just write "reset to 1 neutral" and nothing else.

[cairnswk]

Actually, "the end of each turn" is wrong... killer neutrals reset at the beginning of the turn of the player that holds them.

I think it'd be best to just write "reset to 1 neutral" and nothing else.

natty, refresh your image...i've changed that in the above but have left the start of each turn there so that there is no confusion as to when it happens

[koontz1973]

Killer neutrals do not reset to 1 neutral at the start of each turn though. They reset if held.

Buggy stop junctions revert to 1 neutral if held {at the start or your turn}- would be a better way without any confusion.

[cairnswk]

Killer neutrals do not reset to 1 neutral at the start of each turn though. They reset if held.

Buggy stop junctions revert to 1 neutral if held {at the start or your turn}- would be a better way without any confusion.

koontz1973...pls refresh thanks

[danfrank]

Just reading the little bit you have going on about starting positions . ( i had no idea the map is historically correct , nice work C , thats pretty cool ) I agree that the game revolves around the accuser and accused pairs , i also feel that the map is not balanced , theres no reason to head into the township in a singles game . Gaining the witch and prison bonus would never happen in the current set up. I like the historical aspect and appreciate the research done to make this possible but...

[cairnswk]

Just reading the little bit you have going on about starting positions . ( i had no idea the map is historically correct , nice work C , thats pretty cool ) I agree that the game revolves around the accuser and accused pairs , i also feel that the map is not balanced , theres no reason to head into the township in a singles game . Gaining the witch and prison bonus would never happen in the current set up. I like the historical aspect and appreciate the research done to make this possible but...

Thanks danfrank...although do realise this actually is a large area and there are many land tennants/owners that are not on this map for sheer space reasons and layout. Tituba for exmaple, was a slave belonging to Samual Parris, but because she is so instrumental to the story i.e. first person accussed and first person top confess to "witchcraft", she became a "territory" on the map. So really, while there a research behind the map, as always with my maps, in order to "create" something suitable for CC's purposes, one has to use creative license loosely based around that research.
Yes, the map is not balanced at present, and that is why i suggested a new set of starts to balance it better. Unfortunately these things are not always evident until BETA arrives. I appreciate your comments though.

[thenobodies80]

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... V34Scd.png
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... V34Lcd.png

Sent to lackattack!

[cairnswk]

^^^ thanks tnb80.

[thenobodies80]

Images updated.

[ghirrindin]

Mobility seems dependent on roads that are also killer neutrals. Is it possible to play this map on the trench setting?

In other words, if I were to attack a road, I would not be able to advance any farther, and the same would go for my opponents. Any armies left on the road would revert to neutral 1.

Seems relevant to random map settings. I don't want to find myself in a game that is impossible to win.

Apologies if you have already addressed this problem.

[cairnswk]

yes it is possible to play this trench setting
the road is limiting, yes, but then so is trench.
i actually won my match on trench which was a first for me

[ghirrindin]

Yes, yes! I hadn't read the trench rules close enough. I now see in the headline post that it does not apply to killer neutral territories. Sorry for my incomplete understanding of the setting.

I do love the map, by the way. =)

[blackjoke]

Just a thought for future maps. The death on road configuration would be great fo a Berlin, Stalingrad or Monte Cassino street fight map.