Control Centre Assault

[Teflon Kris]

An objective-based map - Invade the Control Centre through the air vents (not as unlikely as a hole in a death star):

Yes, the graphics are messy - very early stage at the minute - I've no idea how to get the background and the inside of the command centre to work together visually?

Anyway:

The gameplay is a mix of the Space Escape map that stalled (itself similar to St Pat's) and Battle for Iraq.

In a nutshell:

Players start on a landing craft (LC) and head for the Control Rooms via the vents (VE then VS). They can then take resources (Iraq-style) and meet opponents on the lift system.

The lifts have decay, so not a place to hang around.

From the lifts, players can take the security tower and bombard landing craft (just to make sure they can kill one another as the vents are one-way).

Players can also progress to the reactor, perhaps stopping off at the observation decks to bombard opponents on the ground floor next to the reactor.

Overall, its a bit like St Patrick's with extra options.



Atomic Diagram of Attack Routes:

Spoiler

[Evil DIMwit]

I'm not quite sure what goes where on this map. Could you diagram all the territories out with circles and lines for the slower of us?

[Teflon Kris]

Made the diagram a bit easier to understand (I hope).

[Evil DIMwit]

Innnnnnteresting.

St. Patrick with extra options sounds about right, though those options don't count for much. I doubt the lower levels' bombardment would be used much if at all. The security tower's major effect, I suspect, would be somewhat paradoxical: In Adjacent reinforcement (and possibly Chained) the auto-deploy from the landing craft is much more likely to stay in the landing craft, creating stacks that are unattractive to bombard; in an Unlimited (and possibly Chained) game, players value their landing crafts more and would thus be induced to leave defensive stacks on them to make them unattractive to bombard.

Moreover, the control room structure -- the way they're put in pairs -- has a potential to really unbalance a game. Suppose in a 1v1v1 game, Red drops LC1 and LC2, green LC5 and LC7, blue LC6 and LC8. Once the players inevitably get to the lifts, Red has his own lift and a nice simple defense perimeter, while Blue and Yellow have to either stay at each other's throats, which burdens them, or trust each other, which is even more difficult. One player gets a straight, level fairway and the other two get into a boxing match. I think you'll agree there's a fundamental difference between this scenario and plain getting screwed by the dice.

I wish I could say this map has a sound concept at its core but I've never been one for pure gambling, especially gambling that takes so long. I suppose if there are enough people into this sort of thing then you're onto a fine rough concept.

[Teflon Kris]

Can you justify that the gameplay wouldn't work as well as St Pat's? St Pat's demonstrated a gap in the market, in a big way. You're right in that these kind of map structures are a bit of a shoot-em-up / race to the finish. You seem to be writing the game-play off at conception - there are plenty of changes that could be made yet.

Here are some ways in which the gameplay would be an improvement on St Pat's- I cant see how these features would make it less attractive:

Features Waffle

• The security tower enables players to kill each other in mind-knumbing build-up games. Perhaps a lower value would make it more useful.
  
  No horrible n4s and n5s at the beginning which make bad starts an extra nightmare on St Pats.
  
  The observation deck bombard option would be an additional option to reduce build-up where players hang around the ground floor, waiting for each other to waste men on the reactor neutral (probably less-used than straight attacks on the ground floor but another option none-the-less).
  
  How quickly players go for the resources creates a choice - take them quickly and be depleted or stay strong in case of attack through the lifts.

The Significant Problem Outlined by Evil
In 1 v 1 v 1 it is always the case that someone gets an advantage - chances of one player having a clear run whilst the others meet on the lifts - I can work that out - but very similar the same as St Pat's I suspect.

However, I see the point that the resources give the clear run dood / doodette more advantage as they can go and pillage resources in next-door control rooms while the other doods hold each other up - potentially a +8 advantage for one dood.

Minimising The 'Clear Run' Advantage
If lifts connected to all adjacent lifts (+ had low starting neutrals) then that may help a bit? Then, in a 3-dood / doodette scenario, the difference between how soon they meet is an n1 - creating a number of choices - they can all attack each other easily - and access all the extra resources that are pillageable. Stock-piling would most likely take place on control rooms (with the lifts having decay) - meaning that players would need to defend landing craft and control rooms - not easy to hold lots of each.

Increasing the neutral value of one of the resources may also increase the strategic choices for players (maybe one of them an n1, the other an n5) & maybe adusting bonuses (1 for the easy resource, 2 for the hard one)?

Also, could the starts not be coded as 4 start positions (one ship on each side) to ensure that the a mega clear run advantage doesn't happen. It would mean that in 1 v 1 v 1, the maximum advantage would be that one player meets both opponents and the other two have one clear run each - not ideal but better than the potential double-clear-run for one player.

Other Gameplay Ideas
I'm wondering if there is room, or need for, or an advantage from, some kind of Mothership - attack-able from the landing craft - and able to either attack or bombard all landing craft - prob another relatively large neutral? Possibly a small bonus for holding? Hmm

And maybe the observation decks on a higher (rather than lower) level - able to bombard control rooms as well? Hmm

Possibly the Best Gameplay Idea
Six landing craft starts (in a 7/8-player game the vent entrances become starts instead). Each player gets 1 landing craft each (not sure whether 1 or 2 starts would be best in 2/3 player games?). Each landing craft would have 4 vent entrances they can assault. That would change things big style. Maybe decay on the vent entrances would work on this too (decay due to surface security patrols)

[Evil DIMwit]

You seem to be writing the game-play off at conception - there are plenty of changes that could be made yet.

To clarify: I'm writing this gameplay off for myself. Patrick's did demonstrate that pure-luck games would be played (though how much of those games were played for novelty's sake is to be guessed) so if there's community support then a map like this certainly has a place on the list. I guess I'm trying to help you make it the most fun almost-entirely-up-to-luck map it can be, whatever that means.

Again, I haven't played St. Patrick's Day myself so I haven't experienced the problems you're trying to solve. Perhaps the observation deck bombardments would spice the gameplay up significantly (they'd certainly make a difference in foggy games). I don't know how much they'd do to reduce build up, though. The security tower might do it, but I'm having a hard time imagining what a player would make of it.

Maybe instead of bombarding the ground floor, the observation decks should assault any ground floor region. That way in an 8-player match the trailing player isn't bound to be stuck behind whoever they happen to share a lift shaft with, but instead can try to break through anywhere on the ground floor.

The mothership would be an interesting element if it can assault the landing craft because there's now a way for players to try to take each others' landing crafts. That way I can see a lot of games devolving into a grabass match at the top levels but at least it's not four people building up in the reactor room. If all the mothership does is bombard, though, then you might as well just put another security tower in.

As for your Best Gameplay Idea: Why only six landing craft? Can't the 4-entrance arrangement work for eight landing craft as well?

[Teflon Kris]

Observation Decks
The observation decks can bombard any ground floor terit as it is. I obviously need to make this clear above.

Mothership Idea
The mothership wouldn't be just another security tower if it could bombard as it is a place to attack from the landing craft (where auto-deploy means building can take place) - rather than from the lifts which is more difficult. Plus, it may not be a killer neutral. I agree it should have attack-ability if it ever comes into existence. I'm not sold on it much.

Security Tower
The purpose of the security tower is to enable players to kill each other (they wouldn't be able to otherwise due to the one-way attack at the start) if need be (e.g. build-up games where one player is nearly dead - the security tower option means they can be finished). You'll now ask why have one-way attacks through the vents - so that the first player can't use his natural advantage to go and kill someone else within a few rounds).

It probably would only be used occassionally - it would mainly provide a solution to being able to kill players off (they would otherwise keep coming back (eventually) from the landing craft after being defeated inside the control centre).

Why 6 landing craft?

Instead of each landing craft attacking through one vent to grab a control room & resources, there is an initial battle. Player 1 can be followed-up by Player 2 etc.etc. It means there is a battle for the control centres etc.- something different at the beginning - creating the choice of taking one's own control room, hitting someone else's or building slowly on the landing craft for a big hit later. It might even reduce player 1s advantage of going first (which is why I'm thinking of a killer neutral - otherwise player 1 may just take an entrance and leave troops there to safeguard 'his' entrance and control room for later). Another thought along these lines would be to have the start value of the landing craft at just 1 - but this would only delay player 1 from using his advantage (advance second round instead of first).

This, I guess, only explains why it would be worthwhile for landing craft to be able to attack any of 4 entrances.

Reducing to 6 would mean it simply doesn't become a case of 1 each. Players may typically start with 1 each, and hit each other perhaps, but after the intial few rounds, someone may go for one of the 'spare' entrances. It would open the options up more during the mid-game phase.

[Evil DIMwit]

Observation Decks
The observation decks can bombard any ground floor terit as it is. I obviously need to make this clear above.

I meant assault as opposed to bombard; conquer as opposed to reduce to neutral. So that if I'm in O1 and there's a huge stack in GF1 but not in GF3, I can skip to GF3 and get a shot at the reactor.

Reducing to 6 would mean it simply doesn't become a case of 1 each. Players may typically start with 1 each, and hit each other perhaps, but after the intial few rounds, someone may go for one of the 'spare' entrances. It would open the options up more during the mid-game phase.

You could also expand to 10 vent entrances if you don't think it'll make the map too big.

[Teflon Kris]

Observation Decks
The observation decks can bombard any ground floor terit as it is. I obviously need to make this clear above.

I meant assault as opposed to bombard; conquer as opposed to reduce to neutral. So that if I'm in O1 and there's a huge stack in GF1 but not in GF3, I can skip to GF3 and get a shot at the reactor.

I see - Its an idea - although if there's 4 stacks it would be wise to reduce them all before going for the reactor - in fact, reactor tactics can be pretty varied (thinking back to St Pat's tactics in the centre). A player faced with not being on a GF terit would presumably look at other options - it is unlikely that 1 of the 4 players on the GF would be able to out-muscle the other 3 and win quickly - this leaves the 'left out' player with the option of attacking the others elsewhere etc (e.g. Security Tower, control rooms etc.)

Worth thinking about but I reckon any player capable of taking (and holding - stupid xml rule) the reactor would have to be able to deal with the stacks anyway (all of them would be attacking/depleting presumably). Plus, with 4 GF terits it would infliuence mid-game tactics - players would be conscious of getting a foothold down there.

You could also expand to 10 vent entrances if you don't think it'll make the map too big.

It would be getting a bit big then I think - fitting more control rooms and another lift shaft would be needed for equilibrium.

Although reducing the entrances to 6 and keeping 8 craft might be interesting too?

Or, did you mean, more entrances feeding the same number of control rooms?

A lot of brain-twisting to consider all the options - I might just have to see what's in the fridge!

[Evil DIMwit]

Let me ask you this: How are you going to arrange the XML so that the vent entrances are neutral in 6 player games but player starts in 8 player games?

[Teflon Kris]

The contents of my fridge are telling me magic might work.

You're right, wouldn't work - so, 8 landing craft.

Maybe the craft can assault any entrance, or any entrance can lead to any vent. And maybe the entrances or the vents could be killers or decay.

Another idea I'm might consider is 8 craft, 6 control rooms - players start with one of each. Hmm

I'm gonna have to re-read the above first though.

Thanks for your input - this ideas forum is normally pretty useless.

[Teflon Kris]

Maybe instead of bombarding the ground floor, the observation decks should assault any ground floor region. That way in an 8-player match the trailing player isn't bound to be stuck behind whoever they happen to share a lift shaft with, but instead can try to break through anywhere on the ground floor.

If lifts can attack any connecting lift, this potential problem should also be reduced too - as a player not on the ground floor that desperately wants to be there can get there more easily through the more connected lift system (e.g. by going from L1 to L4).

This is the most important change needed as it also cuts down on the 'clear run' issue.

[Evil DIMwit]

If lifts can attack any connecting lift, this potential problem should also be reduced too - as a player not on the ground floor that desperately wants to be there can get there more easily through the more connected lift system (e.g. by going from L1 to L4).

I suppose as it is now they could go through the security tower so other shafts are accessible whether or not this connection gets put in -- just to different degrees.

Another idea I'm might consider is 8 craft, 6 control rooms - players start with one of each. Hmm

You'd want to make the neutrals in the control rooms high enough that the last two players to move out would have a shot at taking a room from one of the first six players.

Thanks for your input - this ideas forum is normally pretty useless.

Oh, is that what it's for? My mistake.

[Teflon Kris]

It's often a place where ideas get posted, and instead of being discussed they are written off, or people post very different ideas.

Rarely discussion of the quality you have provided.

Thanks

[captainwalrus]

The vents 2 way attack the vent shafts, right, or else they could cause player to not be able to be eliminated.
Could you perhaps make the diagram a little bigger? I really can't tell what attacks and one way attacks and whatever.

[Teflon Kris]

Yes the vent entrances 2-way attack vent shafts.

I'll have a look at the diagram next time I work on this - might be easier if I just enlarge the text in the top picture.

[Teflon Kris]

Hopefully the updated version in the first post makes things clearer?

Summarising the above discussion - lots of interesting ideas - ability for lifts to attack other lifts amended so players can meet each other earlier (to reduce the advantage of 'clear runs' in 3-player) - whether landing craft can assault and vent entrance and whether any vent entrance can assault any vent shaft to be considered (along with decay / killer neutrals on one of these sets of terits).

[isaiah40]

Question. Maybe I'm blind or I just don't see it, but where are the resource location that we are to hold to gain more men? Also you have 2 CR7's.

[Teflon Kris]

Question. Maybe I'm blind or I just don't see it, but where are the resource location that we are to hold to gain more men? Also you have 2 CR7's.

At the bottom of the map it has icons to show that Control Rooms can one-way attack resources.

The visual location of the resources are on each side of the map (under the 'Resource Control' heading) - e.g. Communications n4. This would be more obvious with army circles.

Apologies re. 2 CR7s- one of them should be CR8.

[isaiah40]

The visual location of the resources are on each side of the map (under the 'Resource Control' heading) - e.g. Communications n4. This would be more obvious with army circles.

Ok I see now. Anyway you can make those circles, um, like a baby blue or something so they stand out?

[Teflon Kris]

I'll make that my next step - when the weekend comes around -

[isaiah40]

I'll make that my next step - when the weekend comes around -

Looking forward to it