[Abandoned] - Pachisi!

[barterer2002]

I'm actually finding the different colors in the nests to be confusing. I gather not each of the diamonds is a square at this point but I'm kind of thinking that each of the big white circles that the nests are in should have the same color pieces (like they would have on a parcheasi board. So I would make the 4 spots in Nest A and Nest B all be the same color.

I don't think you need to include the phrase "all players start with at least 1 nest" on your legend, that will be fairly obvious.

Thinking through how this will work.

Turn 1, you get 5 autodeployed on the nest. I'm assuming that you have everything other than the nests as neutral to start off. So from the nest you attack one of the blue squares and end your turn, now as I read the legend I'm uncertain if you get a deployment next turn. Do you automatically get your 3 to start each turn or just after you hold a white square. Because you could be screwed.

[Victor Sullivan]

I'm actually finding the different colors in the nests to be confusing. I gather not each of the diamonds is a square at this point but I'm kind of thinking that each of the big white circles that the nests are in should have the same color pieces (like they would have on a parcheasi board. So I would make the 4 spots in Nest A and Nest B all be the same color.

Actually, each nest is colored like I have mine. It's not like Sorry! where blue's start is blue and green's start is green. Each nest is multi-colored in parcheesi.

I don't think you need to include the phrase "all players start with at least 1 nest" on your legend, that will be fairly obvious.

Okay. Honestly I was just trying to fill space but thanks.

Turn 1, you get 5 autodeployed on the nest. I'm assuming that you have everything other than the nests as neutral to start off. So from the nest you attack one of the blue squares and end your turn, now as I read the legend I'm uncertain if you get a deployment next turn. Do you automatically get your 3 to start each turn or just after you hold a white square. Because you could be screwed.

You only get your three once you hold a white square.

Thanks for your comments,
Sully

[natty dread]

For now, you can pretty much ignore the graphics, until your gameplay is fixed in place. There will be plenty of time to polish the graphics in the graphics workshop.

Just make sure the map is legible and all connections are clear.

As for gameplay:

- Home could use more neutrals on it.
- The red squares between the Z territories & home seem a bit redundant; why have 10 killer neutrals with 1 neutral on them, when 1 killer neutral with 10 neutrals on it would pretty much offer the same functionality? I'd keep it at max. 3. First one with 10, next ones 5 each.
- I think you could have the home territory bombard the nests. This would give the players a chance of elimination, to prevent deadlocks.

[Victor Sullivan]

First off, thank you.

- Home could use more neutrals on it.

Okay, like 8?

- The red squares between the Z territories & home seem a bit redundant; why have 10 killer neutrals with 1 neutral on them, when 1 killer neutral with 10 neutrals on it would pretty much offer the same functionality? I'd keep it at max.

I'm afraid I don't fully understand

3. First one with 10, next ones 5 each.

So the red 1's have 10 and 2-7 have 5?

- I think you could have the home territory bombard the nests. This would give the players a chance of elimination, to prevent deadlocks.

Good idea!

-Sully

[natty dread]

Here's what you do: remove red territories 4-10.

Then make red 3 connect directly to home.

Then make the red territories have 5 neutrals each. So that there's only 3 red territories to go through, not a line of 10.

[Victor Sullivan]

Here's what you do: remove red territories 4-10. (Actually they're only 7 red territories but no big deal -Sully)

Then make red 3 connect directly to home.

Then make the red territories have 5 neutrals each. So that there's only 3 red territories to go through, not a line of 10.

My concern is we'd being moving away from the Parcheesi gameplay. Could we make the 7 red territories equivalent of the 3? Like 5 neutrals on R1 and 1 neutral on 2-7? Or like 2 neutrals on each red?

-Sully

[natty dread]

The gameplay would be the same, except there wouldn't be a pointless string of territories to cross.

What you have now is 10 killer neutrals in a line, you have to go through them all in order. It just seems unnecessary to me, 1 territory with the corresponding amount of neutrals would do the same, but just to keep the gameplay feel you could do 3.

[Victor Sullivan]

Okay, well I'll figure something out. I'll hopefully get another draft up in a couple/few days. I figure I'll wait to move to gimp until Gameplay or Graphics Workshop. Thanks for your and everyone else's support!

-Sully

[barterer2002]

I disagree entirely with Natty on this. Your effort here is to make a risk map that can play like Parchesi. Natty has already said that he's never heard of Parchesi yet thinks that changing the board is the way to go? I don't see how taking away spaces of the board does anything. You wouldn't cut a chess board down to 48 squares simply because it would work better for risk why would you even suggest doing it to a Parchesi board simply because you've never played.

I understand the fear of stalemating. So lets look at how to solve that within the board itself.

The trick is to make the run to home involved enough to make it so that you're not jumping in the first chance you get and yet so much involved that it will prevent anyone from moving forward and interacting with each other.

I think the auto deploy is going to be part of the problem here. With an auto deploy all you do is build up on the blue section right in front of the nest. taking one or two white squares a turn (to increase the bonus). Build up that blue as it keeps auto deploying and then move it all to the next blue when you reach that for a run down the red.

So if you're getting an auto deploy of 5, Turn 1 gets 5 and uses 1 to break out of the next. 4 on blue, 1 on nest.

Turn 2 auto deploys 5 on nest, use the 4 on blue to take a white hopefully. Regardless move the 5 to the blue (advanced all when taking white) so either 1 on nest, and 5 on blue and 2-3 on white or 7 on blue. Turn 3 autodeploys 5 more, 3 to distribute (for holding a white) play the 3 on white and take the next 1, move the 5 to blue. Continue in this manner for 4-5 more turns you'll have 30-35 armies on that blue and another 12-15 on the white sitting ready to attack red. Advance the armies from the blue up to red and you'll have 40+ armies sitting there. Thus with the autodeploy you've got plenty of armies to run to home and it becomes a map more like St. Patricks Day which is a lot more luck based than skill based. If you take away the auto deploy you're going to need to move around the board some more building up how many you can gain a turn. You can also run into blocking areas (like 2 across in Parcheesi) that you may not be able to get past for a few turns.

[natty dread]

I disagree entirely with Natty on this. Your effort here is to make a risk map that can play like Parchesi. Natty has already said that he's never heard of Parchesi yet thinks that changing the board is the way to go?

Ok, so you're saying that only people who have played Pachisi can offer feedback on this map? I'm sorry but that's just not how the Foundry system works. Everyone is free to speak here.

We make maps for CC gameplay here. You can't simply port a game with different rules into CC and expect not to have to make any changes to it. Whether I know Pachisi is irrelevant, I know maybe some things about gameplay design so if I see a potential gameplay flaw I post about it.

I don't see how taking away spaces of the board does anything. You wouldn't cut a chess board down to 48 squares simply because it would work better for risk why would you even suggest doing it to a Parchesi board simply because you've never played.

You, as well as the mapmaker, should know that mapmaking requires compromises. Heck, we have had historical geographical maps where the mapmaker has been forced to make compromises on historical and geographical accuracy in order to improve the map playability. And you're saying we can't touch a board game's squares?

Using your chess example, look at the various chess maps that have been attempted. The one that made it the furthest, was also one that was willing to bend the gameplay of chess and mold it into a gameplay suitable for a CC map.

I understand the fear of stalemating. So lets look at how to solve that within the board itself.

A map where eliminations are impossible (objective-only map) has been attempted several times before. Generally, players don't seem to want to play those kinds of maps. They are problematic, not only for deadlocks, but for assassin & terminator games - the whole assassin & terminator dynamics are rendered irrelevant on a map that offers no chance of elimination.

[maasman]

I'd say leave the number of reds there but move the 10 neutrals to number 7 and leave them killer. Then, make the rest of them a negative bonus, say for every 2 held you get -1 armies per turn. This way you don't necessarily have to plow through them in one turn, but you will still lose armies by going through them. Just a thought. Though now that I look at it, who the hell would want to sit with -3 armies per turn waiting to take home. Probably not a great idea I guess

[natty dread]

Honestly, why does it need to be 10 territories just to stay true to a boardgame which you know you can't perfectly copy in CC terms anyway?

The appearance would be the same, there's a big red strip leading to the home territory, no matter if there's 10 army numbers or 3 army numbers on the red strip.

But maasman makes a good point. Putting one territory in the middle that is not killer neutral would make sense. How about this:

1. Killer neutral 5
2. Decay -1 (or maybe -2)
3. Killer neutral 10

This way, you could stay in the middle square in case you fail to kill all the troops on the second larger killer neutral. But since it has a small decay no one will want to stack their troops there.

[wisemanpsemc]

So if you're getting an auto deploy of 5, Turn 1 gets 5 and uses 1 to break out of the next. 4 on blue, 1 on nest.

Turn 2 auto deploys 5 on nest, use the 4 on blue to take a white hopefully. Regardless move the 5 to the blue (advanced all when taking white) so either 1 on nest, and 5 on blue and 2-3 on white or 7 on blue. Turn 3 autodeploys 5 more, 3 to distribute (for holding a white) play the 3 on white and take the next 1, move the 5 to blue. Continue in this manner for 4-5 more turns you'll have 30-35 armies on that blue and another 12-15 on the white sitting ready to attack red. Advance the armies from the blue up to red and you'll have 40+ armies sitting there. Thus with the autodeploy you've got plenty of armies to run to home and it becomes a map more like St. Patricks Day which is a lot more luck based than skill based. If you take away the auto deploy you're going to need to move around the board some more building up how many you can gain a turn. You can also run into blocking areas (like 2 across in Parcheesi) that you may not be able to get past for a few turns.

By doing this you are making the map near impossible to play use adjacent reinforcement. There are a lot of players who like this style and this map would not be conducive to it because you will have to constantly drag your large auto deploy stack around the board with you. In this style you would leave the auto deploys alone until you have a decent sized stack. Mean while you are using your 3 deployment to charge forward and collect spoils. So by the time your auto deploys have gotten to a decent size you now have to drag them all the way to your "fighting" stack 1 square at a time. I know this is always a concern in maps with autodeploy, but 5 is a sizable amount and will be wanted at some point in the game.

[Victor Sullivan]

First off, wow! Thanks for the comments! Second off, since so many people have said so much I won't go to the trouble of quoting, I'll just address the issues:

Issue 1 - The Red Spaces - My plan for these goes along the lines of natty's thinking:
-R1: Killer neutral 5.
-R2: 1 neutral troop, does not reset, auto-decay 2
-R3: neutral 10, does not reset, auto-decay 9999 (in other words, brings your troop total on R3 down to 1)
As for barterer, I will make the graphics of the map simulate the 7 red spaces, despite there being only 3 red territories. You will see this on my next draft.

Issue 2 - Blockade - Barterer briefly mentioned this. In Parcheesi, you can make a blockade using 2 of your pawns on the same space. This makes it so that no other pawns can get past them. I've thought about this aspect of the game but have found no way to be able to include it. I'm open to suggestions, but at this point it will not be included.

As a side note, I'm thinking of bringing down the nest auto-deploy to 4. Still hefty enough to help you out, but not excessive to the point that Terminator and Assassin games won't end.

Obviously, the matters are still up for discussion, but this is my plan for now.

-Sully

[barterer2002]

I disagree entirely with Natty on this. Your effort here is to make a risk map that can play like Parchesi. Natty has already said that he's never heard of Parchesi yet thinks that changing the board is the way to go?

Ok, so you're saying that only people who have played Pachisi can offer feedback on this map? I'm sorry but that's just not how the Foundry system works. Everyone is free to speak here.

We make maps for CC gameplay here. You can't simply port a game with different rules into CC and expect not to have to make any changes to it. Whether I know Pachisi is irrelevant, I know maybe some things about gameplay design so if I see a potential gameplay flaw I post about it.

That's not what I said Natty so stop with the BS. I said you're totally wrong to say the only solution here is to change the board. Try being creative and work within the confines of what a Parcheesi board actually looks like rather than trying to take the easy way out and change the board to be what you wish it would be.

[ender516]

Victor, you seem a little confused as to the term "killer neutral" If it is a "killer", it will reset to its initial value when held. So, going by your comment, you want R3 to be a neutral with a huge decay, but not a killer.

I tend to agree with barterer2002 and maasman. It is possible to stay close to Pachisi gameplay. We can reverse natty's question and ask why have one killer neutral at 10 when 10 killer neutrals at 1 would offer pretty much the same functionality? I think, either way, the answer is: multiple territories is what Pachisi is like. With more territories, you can mix safe points into the string along with the decaying territories and killers.

[natty dread]

why have one killer neutral at 10 when 10 killer neutrals at 1 would offer pretty much the same functionality?

Because having one territory is much less complicated? Requiring less legend space to explain, simplifying the gameplay?

[ender516]

I don't think a straight line of territories is terribly complicated, and a legend would use much the same space to explain 7 red squares as 1 red square.

[Victor Sullivan]

Victor, you seem a little confused as to the term "killer neutral" If it is a "killer", it will reset to its initial value when held. So, going by your comment, you want R3 to be a neutral with a huge decay, but not a killer.

Yeah I know, it was a "copy and paste" error. I'll edit it for you

[Victor Sullivan]

Here it is! Pachisi Version 1.3!

Click image to enlarge.

I included both the 3 and 7 red territory options, each with roughly equal troop loss. V and Y are the 7 space sections, and W and X are the 3 space sections. Personally, I think WX will work better for a CC map, but VY stay truer to the Parcheesi gameplay. I'll be putting this on my first post, as well as add a poll to see whether people like VY or WX better.

Some other edits include minor color change, 8 neutral troops on HOME, nest auto-deploy 4, and HOME can now assault any nest.

Thanks for all your support,
Sully

[Victor Sullivan]

You get into a big argument about this and you don't even vote??? How am I s'posed to improve my map and move on to Gameplay???

[natty dread]

Generally, polls should be used sparingly in the foundry. I've found poll results worthless for anything but the simplest/most general questions ("should this map be made", "should the gameplay be x or y type") ...

[Victor Sullivan]

Idk. Just trying to think of effective ways to get people to post their comments/opinions. Lately there hasn't been much discussion besides the brawl between you and barterer. Unless there's an obvious winner, I'll be ending the poll/debate about the red spaces on Friday (9/3/10). I'll try to post a draft that day with the winner's layout. Besides that, anybody have any comments on the other aspects of the map? Natty? Bueller?

-Sully

[natty dread]

Heh, take it easy Sully.

The Foundry moves at it's own pace and mapmaking requires enormous amounts of patience. I know, I'm not really good at it myself... and I know how exciting it is to be making your first map, you'd want to be working on it every single day. You'll just have to bear it though, the people here are all people who come in out of interest in new maps and they do it on their own free time, so you can't really rush people, no matter how much you want feedback...

There will, for every map, be times when the flow of comments slows down, and for those times my advice is: if you don't get suggestions on what to do with the map, just think of something to change and post an update... people will either like it or hate it, but either way it gives them good reason to give more feedback.

[Victor Sullivan]

Okay, thanks.