[Abandoned] Marooned

[DoomYoshi]

I voted exhibit A.

One of the more popular maps is the AoR series. That series proved that the different starting regions don't have to be equal to make a really enjoyable game. I like how in exhibit a, some shelters connect directly to each other for early war opportunities and some have up to 4 different resources they can get.

I have a few questions though: is exhibit a's map perfectly fixed? There are a few things that could be changed. Also, when you get 2 starting territories, are they independent of each other?

[ManBungalow]

I voted exhibit A.

One of the more popular maps is the AoR series. That series proved that the different starting regions don't have to be equal to make a really enjoyable game. I like how in exhibit a, some shelters connect directly to each other for early war opportunities and some have up to 4 different resources they can get.

I have a few questions though: is exhibit a's map perfectly fixed? There are a few things that could be changed. Also, when you get 2 starting territories, are they independent of each other?

No, none of the gameplay aspects on either map are fixed.
Yes, the starting territories are independent of each other. You can deploy on one/several shelters, and even try to connect them if that's your game.

On the shelters, how many men do you plan on starting them with?

That depends on the rest of the map and the functionality. In other words; I don't know, but that's what we'll have to work out when I've decided which exhibit will be the most fun.


Now, carthographers, I'd like to know which of the two exhibits (A or B) is most likely to get me a gameplay stamp. You can say "oh, any map can work if it's done right" or some other dismissive statement, but one of these two maps is better than the other. Evaluate the existing maps on this site and determine which better fits a gap in the market (as it were) if you must, it doesn't make much difference to me. Personally, I prefer exhibit A. The alternative gives me a St Patrick's Day crapshoot kinda feel, and probably would end up with some stale games. As has already been stated, maps such as Feudal and AoR are interesting because each start position has slightly different properties.

[DoomYoshi]

I voted exhibit A.

One of the more popular maps is the AoR series. That series proved that the different starting regions don't have to be equal to make a really enjoyable game. I like how in exhibit a, some shelters connect directly to each other for early war opportunities and some have up to 4 different resources they can get.

I have a few questions though: is exhibit a's map perfectly fixed? There are a few things that could be changed. Also, when you get 2 starting territories, are they independent of each other?

No, none of the gameplay aspects on either map are fixed.

Ok, it is good they are not fixed, so what we should do if A gets chosen is actually make sure that most of the starting positions are unique.
Yes, the starting territories are independent of each other. You can deploy on one/several shelters, and even try to connect them if that's your game.
What I meant by independent is if you start with A, do you also start with B? So, the 2 you start with will be randomly chosen (like AoR).

On the shelters, how many men do you plan on starting them with?

That depends on the rest of the map and the functionality. In other words; I don't know, but that's what we'll have to work out when I've decided which exhibit will be the most fun.


Now, carthographers, I'd like to know which of the two exhibits (A or B) is most likely to get me a gameplay stamp. You can say "oh, any map can work if it's done right" or some other dismissive statement, but one of these two maps is better than the other. Evaluate the existing maps on this site and determine which better fits a gap in the market (as it were) if you must, it doesn't make much difference to me. Personally, I prefer exhibit A. The alternative gives me a St Patrick's Day crapshoot kinda feel, and probably would end up with some stale games. As has already been stated, maps such as Feudal and AoR are interesting because each start position has slightly different properties.

Unfortunately, the split is right down the middle.

[isaiah40]

Sorry there manbungalow, I totally spaced this one out. As for your two versions, well they are both basically the same except for that 'A' has a few more territories like in bunny trails. I say pick one and go with that one.

[Gillipig]

I like that there are more ways to move around the map in Exhibit A. It's more open than Exhibit B.
But it has way too many shelters and bonuses. Take away some regions from Exhibit A and I think you've found your base !

[ManBungalow]

For those who are interested, here's a preview of where I'm going with this map (which is largely based on exhibit A);

Click image to enlarge.

[ManBungalow]

Bump with a decent update:

Click image to enlarge.

I think (hope) we're onto a winner with this gameplay schematic.
As before, the shelters are the start positions, and everything else is neutral.
When thinking about the gameplay, imagine that you're faced with a drop of 2+ regions (even in 8 player games, you have 2 shelters), and you have to decide which direction to move in. This is the main strategy element (particularly in foggy games, I'd think).
Perhaps those 'bridges' aren't so clear as they could be (the lines across the shallow points of the river) but we'll get to that aspect in due course.

As I've said before: what now do I have to do to get a gameplay stamp on this bad boy ?

[isaiah40]

Can you post a version with starting values on it please so we can have a better idea of how it will work? This includes starting neutrals on the jungle territories. You don't have to do the whole map, just one section would be fine. Thank you.

isaiah40

[ManBungalow]

Can you post a version with starting values on it please so we can have a better idea of how it will work? This includes starting neutrals on the jungle territories. You don't have to do the whole map, just one section would be fine. Thank you.

isaiah40

Click image to enlarge.

I'm thinking of increasing the bonuses slightly to make the 2s in the jungle easier to traverse.
For example; 7 vs 2,2 can be extremely irritating, as you could forfeit the entire attack just by losing two consecutive rolls. I intend to keep the jungle regions at 2 neutrals apiece.

Somewhere on my agenda is to try and create a better image for the shelter/food regions, making it easier to read the map at a glance.
Also, I forgot to draw the bridge between 016 an 086, though I suspect the 'bridges' will need some work regardless.

That is all.

[DoomYoshi]

Hmm... a pretty open map this is.

Starting spots 124, 093 are almost identical.

Starting spots 116 and 110 are also identical. They are both strictly worse than 143 and 133.

Territories 080 and 135 is my personal favourite. Interesting formation down around 049-056.

037 is the worst possible starting location; should probably be beefed up a bit.

[nolefan5311]

I'm glad you choose this version. I have a couple questions as far as gameplay is concerned.

I'm struggling to find why certain regions exist...020, 045, 008, 135...those regions bypass the food/shelter, but what's the point of having them there? If taking the food/shelter leads to the exact same attack path, will anyone take them if the choice is taking another autodecay, or taking a region that yields a +3? I think 9 times out of 10, the person will take the +3, with that 1 other time being only if someone already has the game locked up and is just choosing the quickest path for elimination.

Do you intend each player to drop 3 per turn regardless of how many total regions they hold or is there an increase in troops based on the amount of regions held? Or are troops only awarded from autodeploys and food regions? With so many regions, drops could be huge relatively early and with a +3 for each food and an autodeploy for each shelter, perhaps you need to increase the amount of neutrals on the jungle regions.

How many starting regions do you want to have per player in each game type? Does a player start with 4 shelters in 1v1? Two a piece in an 8 player game? You need to clarify that in the OP.

Maybe you can make the mountains bombard points or something to break up the chain of regions players are bound to have? That would add a unique element to the gameplay. Just an idea, you'd need to figure out how to access them.

I like the idea though and hope you develop it all the way...could be a real fun map.

[AndyDufresne]

I think nolefan raises some good points... Hm.


--Andy

[ManBungalow]

This feedback looks very constructive, I'll address it when I get in later.

[ManBungalow]

Hmm... a pretty open map this is.

Starting spots 124, 093 are almost identical.
Starting spots 116 and 110 are also identical. They are both strictly worse than 143 and 133.
Territories 080 and 135 is my personal favourite. Interesting formation down around 049-056.
037 is the worst possible starting location; should probably be beefed up a bit.

037 I feel has the advantage of being close to the 129/140 bonus pair, but still looks a little feeble, I'll grant.
I could remove region 044 if you feel that would make things better, or did you have something else in mind ?

I'm glad you choose this version. I have a couple questions as far as gameplay is concerned.

I'm struggling to find why certain regions exist...020, 045, 008, 135...those regions bypass the food/shelter, but what's the point of having them there? If taking the food/shelter leads to the exact same attack path, will anyone take them if the choice is taking another autodecay, or taking a region that yields a +3? I think 9 times out of 10, the person will take the +3, with that 1 other time being only if someone already has the game locked up and is just choosing the quickest path for elimination.

There are several things you could do with one of those regions. Without those regions, the map would be closer to the overly-linear exhibit B, with practically no differences between any of the start positions.
As you say, one option is to bypass a region when one the path to elimination. If a player from shelter 69 left a stack on food region 61, you may attempt to go from 61 -> 70 -> 69 without taking out the food region. Or something of that nature...
You may also use the 'surplus' region by your shelter as an extra card spot.
But mainly, I feel that it forces players to choose where to position their troops.

Do you intend each player to drop 3 per turn regardless of how many total regions they hold or is there an increase in troops based on the amount of regions held? Or are troops only awarded from autodeploys and food regions? With so many regions, drops could be huge relatively early and with a +3 for each food and an autodeploy for each shelter, perhaps you need to increase the amount of neutrals on the jungle regions.

Good question, this will have to be decided once your next question has been answered.
Actually, some of the previous drafts had a "1 troop for every 1 region" structure, and I'm not 100% sure how that would fit with the gameplay I have in mind.
I'm also contemplating multiplying all of the troop counts by a scale factor. Kind of how City Mogul auto-deploys 20 instead of 2 to overcome dice issues, see ?

How many starting regions do you want to have per player in each game type? Does a player start with 4 shelters in 1v1? Two a piece in an 8 player game? You need to clarify that in the OP.

I'd always assumed that I'd let the game engine distribute the shelters as it would in a standard map.
That is to say that - in the Classic map - there are 42 regions. In a 1 vs 1 game, each player has 14, and neutral has 14. This way, one could never be sure that a hidden (foggy) shelter being attacked is that of an enemy, while still giving multiple options for the strategy of each player.
What's your opinion ?

Maybe you can make the mountains bombard points or something to break up the chain of regions players are bound to have? That would add a unique element to the gameplay. Just an idea, you'd need to figure out how to access them.

I like the idea though and hope you develop it all the way...could be a real fun map.

An interesting idea, but not one which I'd like to include, I'm afraid. In previous drafts, I've had different gameplay features (winning conditions, and all sorts of different bonuses), which make the game more complicated than I'd like. This now has a lot of regions, and non-standard gameplay, but is simple.


Thanks for the great feedback, guys. This sub-forum doesn't seem to get as much attention as some of the other areas, so I really appreciate every comment I can get.

PS. I think I'll include a simplified naming system in the next update. I was thinking of giving each of the three islands a name - let's say A, B and C. Then I could use double-digit numbers (00) as opposed to the three-digits we have now, and the log could show the regions as A01, A02....
What are your thoughts on this ?

[nolefan5311]

I'm glad you choose this version. I have a couple questions as far as gameplay is concerned.

I'm struggling to find why certain regions exist...020, 045, 008, 135...those regions bypass the food/shelter, but what's the point of having them there? If taking the food/shelter leads to the exact same attack path, will anyone take them if the choice is taking another autodecay, or taking a region that yields a +3? I think 9 times out of 10, the person will take the +3, with that 1 other time being only if someone already has the game locked up and is just choosing the quickest path for elimination.

There are several things you could do with one of those regions. Without those regions, the map would be closer to the overly-linear exhibit B, with practically no differences between any of the start positions.
As you say, one option is to bypass a region when one the path to elimination. If a player from shelter 69 left a stack on food region 61, you may attempt to go from 61 -> 70 -> 69 without taking out the food region. Or something of that nature...
You may also use the 'surplus' region by your shelter as an extra card spot.
But mainly, I feel that it forces players to choose where to position their troops.

You make some good points, but a couple of issues arise as well. First, the "overly linear" concept isn't going to be something you'll be able to avoid with this map. I don't think adding a couple bypass regions solves that. And if I bypass the food region to head towards the other shelter, that just leaves the (assumed) available to attack either direction. Now, perhaps that's what you want, and I do agree it adds an interesting dynamic...much more of a back and forth then a battle of stacks. I just don't know how often that will happen during actual gameplay.

Do you intend each player to drop 3 per turn regardless of how many total regions they hold or is there an increase in troops based on the amount of regions held? Or are troops only awarded from autodeploys and food regions? With so many regions, drops could be huge relatively early and with a +3 for each food and an autodeploy for each shelter, perhaps you need to increase the amount of neutrals on the jungle regions.

Good question, this will have to be decided once your next question has been answered.
Actually, some of the previous drafts had a "1 troop for every 1 region" structure, and I'm not 100% sure how that would fit with the gameplay I have in mind.
I'm also contemplating multiplying all of the troop counts by a scale factor. Kind of how City Mogul auto-deploys 20 instead of 2 to overcome dice issues, see ?

I like the City Mogul idea. I don't know what the starting neutrals would have to be to accommodate autodeploys of 20+ but it would add an interesting concept. If you don't do that though, you'd probably have to stick with the standard +1/3 regions, or maybe increase it to +1/4 regions.

How many starting regions do you want to have per player in each game type? Does a player start with 4 shelters in 1v1? Two a piece in an 8 player game? You need to clarify that in the OP.

I'd always assumed that I'd let the game engine distribute the shelters as it would in a standard map.
That is to say that - in the Classic map - there are 42 regions. In a 1 vs 1 game, each player has 14, and neutral has 14. This way, one could never be sure that a hidden (foggy) shelter being attacked is that of an enemy, while still giving multiple options for the strategy of each player.
What's your opinion ?

It's a conquest map, and from what I see on the map, there will be 17 positions coded as start positions (17 shelters). You don't have enough starting positions for it to be anything other than a conquest map. If you want it to be different, you'll need to add more starting regions. If you code 4 starting regions per player in 1v1, that leaves 9 neutral which solves the hidden shelter problem. You'd need to decide how many you want in games of 4 or more players to keep that dynamic though.

Maybe you can make the mountains bombard points or something to break up the chain of regions players are bound to have? That would add a unique element to the gameplay. Just an idea, you'd need to figure out how to access them.

I like the idea though and hope you develop it all the way...could be a real fun map.

An interesting idea, but not one which I'd like to include, I'm afraid. In previous drafts, I've had different gameplay features (winning conditions, and all sorts of different bonuses), which make the game more complicated than I'd like. This now has a lot of regions, and non-standard gameplay, but is simple.

It was just a suggestion to break the linear-ness of the map. I do think you might need to add a unique attack option or two because as it stands there are a few too many chokepoints. Maybe add a couple of long range attack spots or make the mountain peaks border each other or something so it's easier to hop between islands.

PS. I think I'll include a simplified naming system in the next update. I was thinking of giving each of the three islands a name - let's say A, B and C. Then I could use double-digit numbers (00) as opposed to the three-digits we have now, and the log could show the regions as A01, A02....
What are your thoughts on this ?

This is a good idea.

[AndyDufresne]

[

PS. I think I'll include a simplified naming system in the next update. I was thinking of giving each of the three islands a name - let's say A, B and C. Then I could use double-digit numbers (00) as opposed to the three-digits we have now, and the log could show the regions as A01, A02....
What are your thoughts on this ?

This is a good idea.

I echo this, since...I suggested it I think!

Subject: Marooned [6th/April]

You have 3 islands, have you considered breaking it down that way, or adding a moniker in the naming convention to allow for easy name navigation that way?

--Andy

[iancanton]

I do think you might need to add a unique attack option or two because as it stands there are a few too many chokepoints. Maybe add a couple of long range attack spots or make the mountain peaks border each other or something so it's easier to hop between islands.

at the very least, let 091 connect to the food at 073 to make part of the northern island less easy to cut off and defend. with this extra connection, things are a bit more fluid.

long-range attacks need to have some rationale behind them if they're added. the back-story is a bit lacking at the moment.

ian.

[army of nobunaga]

This is a big map of bullshit... sorry if you are offended.


but 200 more maps like this and you will help kill cc

[ManBungalow]

This is a big map of bullshit... sorry if you are offended.


but 200 more maps like this and you will help kill cc

I suppose the typical response is to explain how people have different opinions, but it's not really worth it in this case; go post in some other thread where people might give a damn (or two if you're lucky). Or at least elaborate.

- You don't have to play this map (that's even if I ever finish it)
- We already have 100+ standard gameplay maps which are practically identical, but portray different geographical regions
etc

[army of nobunaga]

This is a big map of bullshit... sorry if you are offended.


but 200 more maps like this and you will help kill cc

I suppose the typical response is to explain how people have different opinions, but it's not really worth it in this case; go post in some other thread where people might give a damn (or two if you're lucky). Or at least elaborate.

- You don't have to play this map (that's even if I ever finish it)
- We already have 100+ standard gameplay maps which are practically identical, but portray different geographical regions
etc

Get mad if you want.

This will rival clandemonium. Well at least in that giant PoS there is some sort of difference in game play.

You guys ever stop to think that just because "I can make this Idea!" that it really may not be that good?


By all means make it. The Cow map looks better to me though, and I think you lose all friggin right to criticize ANY map if you are this blind on your own.

[AndyDufresne]

I think there is more than enough room for a map like this on CC. There aren't many maps that are dealing with an island theme like this, and the concept of being marooned and fighting for resources and shelter I think is interesting enough. Some actual story, as suggested by Ian may go a long way towards solidifying everything as well.

Best of luck,


--Andy

[thenobodies80]

I discussed this with nolefan some days ago. I think that more than a story, this map needs a gameplay that reflects the map idea. I mean if I was on a desert island I would try to find a way to go away from that island, so maybe collect some objects to build a ship or a raft. Collect some objects to allow resecuers to locate you and take you away from the island. Food can stay, you need it to survive, but I think that the "main" point of this map should be to escape from the island, not live on it!

I don't remember all the details I discussed with nolefan, maybe he can give you more inputs about this possible direction to follow/investigate fi you're interested.

[AndyDufresne]

I don't think you have to change the gameplay to be somthing like "Getting off the island" at least, ostensibly from the get go.

Think of this map as cover the first 100 days, and you are battling with the elements and others to survive and thrive. Then, you can decide about how to build your raft to get off the island once you are the king of it.


--Andy

[thenobodies80]

oh, in that case the background story is the way to go.

[AndyDufresne]

oh, in that case the background story is the way to go.

Haha, I don't know what is in ManB's mind, but maybe he can get some direction...and take the map a little somewhere!

Best of luck ManB,


--Andy