SIEGE! - PSD available - [Quenched]

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:50 pm

Marvaddin wrote: - The castle is simple to take. The expansion is easier.

you better stop calling it a castle, or else people will mistake it for a hat.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:52 pm

mibi wrote: you better stop calling it a castle, or else people will mistake it for a hat.

OMG this is really funny (if you take it out of the context)

Gozar · Post by **Gozar** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:55 pm

Don't let stuff like comments about the hat get your back up, mibi.

The map is coming along quickly and looks good. You should try rearranging the continents more in line with Marvaddin's paint thing.

Keep the updates rolling!

Cheers,
Gozar

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:00 pm

Im not a fan of the catapult idea. If the xml could be worked like others have said in this thread, by attacking but not captuaring then it would be great. but it cant.

so a catapult would just be used to fling 30 armies onto the wall, which is silly, and makes the gate totally useles.

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:00 pm

marv's ideas are old school..lets do sumthing fresh...This is one of the best maps visually already (sorry qwert there is a new king in town)...

I strongly recommend you dont use marvadins ideas and keep fiddling with it yourself mibi... this is your map after all!!!

And its looking good but gameplay does need a little bit of tweaking

Samus · Post by **Samus** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:11 pm

Okay, this map is doing a lot better since I last looked at it.

I agree that it doesn't make any sense for catapults to conquer, but I would make the same argument for the walls. If the walls could attack but not conquer, that would be fine, but your men jumping down from the walls to take a section of swamp doesn't make sense to me.

I think you should reverse how the Outer Walls work. Meaning, they cannot attack outside the castle, all of those territories can attack them. So all the troops you put there are only for defense of the walls. To attack, you must climb down off the walls to the Gate, which is the only way out from the front. This both makes sense to me, and is a good balance between the great defensibility of the structure and difficulty attacking outward.

The Inner Walls are good as they are.

I like the idea of the Throne + walls giving you a bonus, but that's probably too high. You should merge the Throne into one territory again, give nothing on its own, and give +5 for Throne + Walls.

I still think the Gate alone should give nothing, although I really like the idea of the Camp + Gate. The invaders have broken into the Castle, now they can flood in. I'm not sure about the +5 bonus though. The Camp is already tucked away in the corner very easy to defend. Maybe +4.

I think the attack route from from the Great Hall to the Tunnel should be one way into the Tunnel. It's an escape route, but keep in mind this works for fortifications as well. Any armies sent into the tunnel cannot return. If your defenses are falling and another player is taking over, you can move all your armies to run into the tunnel. He will be hesitant to follow because he needs those armies to defend now.

You really do need to do something about adding some impassible borders outside the structure. The Plains, Midlands, and Swamp simply cannot be held as you currently have the map. Eliminating the attack routes from the Outer Walls will help bigtime, but still something else needs to be done for the Plains and Midland.

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:43 pm

hulmey wrote:marv's ideas are old school..lets do sumthing fresh...This is one of the best maps visually already (sorry qwert there is a new king in town)...

I strongly recommend you dont use marvadins ideas and keep fiddling with it yourself mibi... this is your map after all!!!

And its looking good but gameplay does need a little bit of tweaking

Old school? Whats wrong about a Siege theme being concetrated in the castle and the invaders camps? If you have good ideas about the theme, share with us, mate...

The catapults idea was about break the walls, but ok... Its a bit strange... this would make the king to have primary goals, but maybe Samus idea about limiting the walls to defense could make it already. Maybe the troops in the walls could be moved to another section of the wall, but not retreat from the wall, too.

But I still think the castle (ok, fortress, lol) should have less territories, to make it easier to take. And if its not a castle, no need to a throne, huh? We could have a garrison instead of a hall

And what about having 2 camps idea? And maybe a bonus for controling both camps?

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:58 pm

im taking about the continents outside of the castle.....You want to limit the amount of borders as usual!!!

However you did give me a great idea that would this map fun and entertaining.

How abouot having a bas camp outside of the castle???

Like you see in the movies with the tents...It would be the attackers base camp

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:10 pm

Samus wrote:Okay, this map is doing a lot better since I last looked at it.

I agree that it doesn't make any sense for catapults to conquer, but I would make the same argument for the walls. If the walls could attack but not conquer, that would be fine, but your men jumping down from the walls to take a section of swamp doesn't make sense to me.

I think you should reverse how the Outer Walls work. Meaning, they cannot attack outside the castle, all of those territories can attack them. So all the troops you put there are only for defense of the walls. To attack, you must climb down off the walls to the Gate, which is the only way out from the front. This both makes sense to me, and is a good balance between the great defensibility of the structure and difficulty attacking outward.

but this would allow the attackers to breach the walls from anywhere... maybe if the only place the walls could attack was from the two smaller bridges. I'm pretty ambivalent about this, so if people come to a consensus on how the outer wall will provide the best gameplay im for it.

Samus wrote:
I like the idea of the Throne + walls giving you a bonus, but that's probably too high. You should merge the Throne into one territory again, give nothing on its own, and give +5 for Throne + Walls.

yeah ill do that.

Samus wrote: I still think the Gate alone should give nothing, although I really like the idea of the Camp + Gate. The invaders have broken into the Castle, now they can flood in. I'm not sure about the +5 bonus though. The Camp is already tucked away in the corner very easy to defend. Maybe +4.

I think a gate bonus of 1 is good, the gate is the territory that is hardest to defend and will change hands the most so if an army can hold it for a round then more power to them. I think +4 is a good bonus.

Samus wrote: I think the attack route from from the Great Hall to the Tunnel should be one way into the Tunnel. It's an escape route, but keep in mind this works for fortifications as well. Any armies sent into the tunnel cannot return. If your defenses are falling and another player is taking over, you can move all your armies to run into the tunnel. He will be hesitant to follow because he needs those armies to defend now.

Some people want one way to the throne, some want one way to the swamp, some want both ways. i like the escape Idea, but its just that in the first deployment you will have 15 armies that are totally boxed in and must dump out onto the swamp. maybes thats a good thing, i dunno.

Samus wrote: You really do need to do something about adding some impassible borders outside the structure. The Plains, Midlands, and Swamp simply cannot be held as you currently have the map. Eliminating the attack routes from the Outer Walls will help bigtime, but still something else needs to be done for the Plains and Midland.

yeah i'll work on that.

Gozar · Post by **Gozar** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:12 pm

Maybe some trenches, or a log wall?

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:21 am

Lots of changes... i lit all the ward numbers on fire, so they are like torches, for a little atmosphere, the wards are a bit darker too... the throne is one territory and the bonus is reduced. i moved border in the swamp so it creates a 4 corner reducing its exposure by 1, so its easier to hold. i also added a second camp as per a suggestion. its a woods camp, they are having a camp fire or something. with some non passible log wall borders as per suggestion. also the gate has no bonus now, but a +4 bonus for either camp. slight hue adjustment.

still not sure how to balance/utilize the outer wall. oh and the swamp texture changed a bit.

sfhbballnut · Post by **sfhbballnut** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:27 am

this'll be great, especialy when we get situational play up and running. Keep going this is gonna be incredible

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:29 am

I would like to say 2 main things:

The graphics you have created mibi look very nice. You have talent in that department, and I'm sure they will continue to improve as the map is fine tuned.

My other point is that Marv is the king of playability, and the quick map he drew sparked my interest greatly. The balance of continents, borders, layout of areas etc. are all much nicer and more playable in his version. I would advise switching to something more similar to that but keeping your graphics of course. Most of the changes aren't a big deal- adding a river, and generally reducing the borders of each continent. But overall the changes would greatly enhance your map.

sfhbballnut · Post by **sfhbballnut** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:32 am

do you have a link to his sketch?, or did I miss it somewhere? I've seen what he can do and I'm apt to agree with you, but I'd still like to see it before passing judgement

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:35 am

Marvaddin wrote:

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:38 am

I don't know if this has been discussed in detail, but are the numbers just placeholders for names or do you really intend to keep it this way?

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:41 am

Coleman wrote:I don't know if this has been discussed in detail, but are the numbers just placeholders for names or do you really intend to keep it this way?

The numbers are for the image, the XML will read "Player attacks the West Ward 1 from the Gate" "Player attacks the River Camp 2 from the Swamp 5"

sfhbballnut · Post by **sfhbballnut** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:44 am

look at Chinese checkers, there was no other way to do that. Makeing up a bunch of names for all the same stuff would just clutter the map. When you do detailed stuff like this that's not a geographical or political map I think numbers are ok

sportdaqking · Post by **sportdaqking** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:19 am

this looks a good map wish i could draw as good as some of these

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:08 am

changed the woods camp wall to match, I also removed the outward only attacks from the outer wall. some playability thoughts on the outer wall are appreciated. looks like people want the tunnel flexible according to the poll. also someone said skeletons, so there they are.

bedplay · Post by **bedplay** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:48 pm

Graphics are absolutely top notch, you couldn't get much better.

The only thing that needs improvement is the legend, (text needs to be consistent)

Also continents took me about 3 mins to work out, they need sorting out (you can't just have them like you described them only putting all the names in xml.) you will have to fins a more simple way of doing that, you could nuber every single country a different number, then put what each cont is in the legend
1. throne = bonus 1
2-6. Great hall = bonus 3

.etc.

Edit: so I'm saying numbers are fine if they are all different, (on chinese checkers map as mentioned earlier it was A1 B1 .etc.) you could use
t1 (throne 1)
ww1 (west ward 1)
.etc.

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:42 pm

bedplay wrote:
Also continents took me about 3 mins to work out, they need sorting out (you can't just have them like you described them only putting all the names in xml.) you will have to fins a more simple way of doing that, you could nuber every single country a different number, then put what each cont is in the legend
1. throne = bonus 1
2-6. Great hall = bonus 3

.etc.

Edit: so I'm saying numbers are fine if they are all different, (on chinese checkers map as mentioned earlier it was A1 B1 .etc.) you could use
t1 (throne 1)
ww1 (west ward 1)
.etc.

Im not so sure that that would be easier. If it said "Player attacks 34 from 51" I would then have to look up 51 in the legend and then find it on the map." I think that after the 3 minutes of gameplay it will be quite obvious that which territories are which. The names themselves are scriptive, unlike say "Player attacks Paui from Madera" (Brazil map) well great... wtf are Paui and Madera? At least with Player attacks Outer Wall 1 from Gate" you know exactly where it is. Also the territories are randomly color coded like geography maps. Plains is yellow, midlands is grass green, tunnel is dark brown, etc so that aids the player who sees they got attacked from Plains 3 its easier to find rather say attacked from "27"

Im not so sure people will have the difficulty you describe, but other opinions on the matter are welcome.

Pro_Snowboarder · Post by **Pro_Snowboarder** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:40 pm

Im lovin this map. the only thing I have a problem with is the key. its a bit confusing. with the throne+ and the any camp+. can you clean it up a bit please.

Samus · Post by **Samus** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:42 pm

Okay, let me give you an example of why I think the walls shouldn't be able to attack.

Let's say taking a normal region with 3 borders, you have 12 "free" armies to move around as you see fit. Naturally, you stick 4 on each border, plus the 1s that are already there makes 5s all around. With the single wall section, you lump them all on the wall, for 13 armies there. The same number of armies committed to defense, but obviously with the single wall section it's way better. It doesn't matter where they attack from, they must still go through that 13 rather than being able to pick one of the 5s with a normal region. The defense with the same number of troops is way higher.

Now let's say it's your turn again and you've (predictably) held your bonus. You can now deploy all of your troops with bonus on top of that 13, making for 18+ you can now go out and attack with? And afterwards you can still fortify back to the wall again ensuring that you will again not be broken? That doesn't seem fair to me.

If the walls cannot attack, you will still lump your 13 there so that attackers will not break you, but you will only have what you deploy with plus bonus to go out and attack with. Just like with a fortress, you hid behind your walls, which worked well defensively, but those troops are not ready for an attack.

That's just what makes sense to me from both theme and gameplay aspects.

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:53 pm

Samus wrote:Okay, let me give you an example of why I think the walls shouldn't be able to attack.

Let's say taking a normal region with 3 borders, you have 12 "free" armies to move around as you see fit. Naturally, you stick 4 on each border, plus the 1s that are already there makes 5s all around. With the single wall section, you lump them all on the wall, for 13 armies there. The same number of armies committed to defense, but obviously with the single wall section it's way better. It doesn't matter where they attack from, they must still go through that 13 rather than being able to pick one of the 5s with a normal region. The defense with the same number of troops is way higher.

Now let's say it's your turn again and you've (predictably) held your bonus. You can now deploy all of your troops with bonus on top of that 13, making for 18+ you can now go out and attack with? And afterwards you can still fortify back to the wall again ensuring that you will again not be broken? That doesn't seem fair to me.

If the walls cannot attack, you will still lump your 13 there so that attackers will not break you, but you will only have what you deploy with plus bonus to go out and attack with. Just like with a fortress, you hid behind your walls, which worked well defensively, but those troops are not ready for an attack.

That's just what makes sense to me from both theme and gameplay aspects.

yeah that makes total sense. I could easily see the 50 or so armies on the wall just over running the surrounding area...

so ill set it up so the walls can only attack from the stairs. What about the gate, should the walls be able to attack the gate or should they have to go through the wards first?

this is shaping up to be some serious action on the gate.