Das Schloß [QUENCHED #2]

bryguy · Post by **bryguy** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:16 am

cairnswk wrote:
bryguy wrote:wonder what this map would be like if all the wording was in german

Goodness, Minard would have a dreadful time,
I think if people really want to know what the german is they'll google or similar; and the foregin language i think adds to the war reality of the map.

yea ive been using google all day, here is this page in german

http://translate.google.com/translate?u ... en&ie=UTF8

note: if u want to read what it says in english, then hover your mouse over the word that u want to know

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:39 pm

Mmmm...i'll do something on this one later today.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:16 pm

Version 8 Update:

Changes:

1. movement in the legend
2. background story attached in the legend
3. new cablecar attack route possibility for discussion
4. Capture objective changed from Bahnhof to Commader Willy

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:04 pm

Coleman... i cannot see the poll from 1st post on page 1 so i am unable to determine if this has finished.
Could you check please, and if finished, please pull down.
Thanks

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:50 pm

why am I not going to go the same route up the cable cars that the person did before me? It seems like theres a bunch of cars just because you can fit a bunch of cars there. I'm not sure there is any way to make it so that the alternate route won't be used by the second person. Unless I leave more armies on the cars than the neutrals on the other routes. Maybe this is enough reason to put that extra route. But, they could always put armies on the Kontrol areas to block you anyway.

In terms of strategy, I'm going to do my best to control the whole airport and lower area, then hold off my opponents saving the castle for the very end. I don't think you've addressed the 'problem' of the castle being the last area players will go. Maybe this is what you want, but it just seems silly to me.

The only other time people are going for the castle are if they are cut out of the east side of the lower german area (and/or the airport). Now, you have to go through all of that mess just to get back around the bend. There's no bonuses for you at the castle. You've all but lost already.

tim02 · Post by **tim02** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:57 pm

I think the starting positions should definetly be to the SW and it's more of a race then then letting people start in the airport or town

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:24 pm

tim02 wrote:I think the starting positions should definetly be to the SW and it's more of a race then then letting people start in the airport or town

tim02...there will be started in the SW, but there were also germans in the town and at the airport. the germans have been removed from the castle in this instance to allow for more conquering to take place there.
Appreciate your input.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:21 am

cairnswk wrote:Coleman... i cannot see the poll from 1st post on page 1 so i am unable to determine if this has finished.
Could you check please, and if finished, please pull down.
Thanks

Still has 4 days, and if you fit all my requirements you have to move to Main Foundry, so checking that now.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:34 am

Thanks, Coleman

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:27 pm

Cable car access discussion....

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:30 pm

not sure if you just skipped over my post since it was the last on the previous page cairnswk?

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:15 pm

Yes edbeard, i had skipped over it deliberately as I was wanting to give it more thought....

edbeard wrote:why am I not going to go the same route up the cable cars that the person did before me? It seems like theres a bunch of cars just because you can fit a bunch of cars there.

the idea of making two ways up the cable (or even more as has been discussed previously) was so that everyone didn't have to take the same route.

There is always every opportunity just to have one car there (as this was in the original storyline), but everyone is telling me different things at present so i'm just trying to ascertain what people are going to be happy with.

I'm not sure there is any way to make it so that the alternate route won't be used by the second person. Unless I leave more armies on the cars than the neutrals on the other routes. Maybe this is enough reason to put that extra route. But, they could always put armies on the Kontrol areas to block you anyway.

Yes they could do that, but they'd also do that in every other scanario that could be used in respect of a cable car asacent configuration.

I would have thought though that someone wouldn't want to block the Kontrols, as they'd need every available army to get up the cablecar and secure something in the castle to give them the opportunity of holding the required tert there. Maybe at a later stage then they'd want to block it.

In terms of strategy, I'm going to do my best to control the whole airport and lower area, then hold off my opponents saving the castle for the very end. I don't think you've addressed the 'problem' of the castle being the last area players will go. Maybe this is what you want, but it just seems silly to me.

OK....i can change the bonuses here.
Would +2 for every 3 terts in each area be more appropriate for a bonus? or something along those lines, rather than +2 for every tert held.

The only other time people are going for the castle are if they are cut out of the east side of the lower german area (and/or the airport). Now, you have to go through all of that mess just to get back around the bend. There's no bonuses for you at the castle. You've all but lost already.

no but don't forget because of the start positions you constantly accumulating 4 bonus points every turn anyway, so that still gives you some firepower to get somewhere, doesn't it?

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:25 pm

problem with the bonuses and the setup as it is now, is that there's a big incentive to knock someone out of either the airport or the lower area. Since I start out with 7 armies to deploy, whoever goes first has a huge advantage. They could knock someone out right away and that person is already at a big disadvantage without even getting to play a turn.

I just think the gameplay as it is now isn't very good. Going first gives you a big advantage. I think possibly making the castle area have better bonuses than the airport or lower area is a smart idea. This gives an incentive for going after the castle, and gives you a chance if you're forced to go that way. It would probably be smart to make the bonuses for the german/airport areas require multiple territories or something so that going first isn't such a huge advantage (though this may be tough considering everyone only starts with so few territories).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this map needs an XML update if you want it to go live correct? Since you want each person to hold one army in each of the three starting areas? (I think I asked this before, but I don't think you said you definitely want it to be this way)

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:51 pm

edbeard wrote:problem with the bonuses and the setup as it is now, is that there's a big incentive to knock someone out of either the airport or the lower area. Since I start out with 7 armies to deploy, whoever goes first has a huge advantage. They could knock someone out right away and that person is already at a big disadvantage without even getting to play a turn.

I just think the gameplay as it is now isn't very good. Going first gives you a big advantage. I think possibly making the castle area have better bonuses than the airport or lower area is a smart idea. This gives an incentive for going after the castle, and gives you a chance if you're forced to go that way. It would probably be smart to make the bonuses for the german/airport areas require multiple territories or something so that going first isn't such a huge advantage (though this may be tough considering everyone only starts with so few territories).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this map needs an XML update if you want it to go live correct? Since you want each person to hold one army in each of the three starting areas? (I think I asked this before, but I don't think you said you definitely want it to be this way)

I agree with all that you've said.
Yes it does require an xml update if "starting positions" on the SW are going to be one per player, although the town and airport area don't really matter in who starts where. That could still be open for interpration/discussion.

So regards the bonuses....would you be happy with (using the formula below):
for every x terts in the airport and town, + y
a. 2, 1
b, 2, 2
c. 2, 3
d. 3, 2
e, 3, 1

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:04 pm

well I think an important question is if you want the territories to be used in multiple bonus areas?

Because, unless you designated +2 for 2, +4 for 4, by saying +2 for 2 territories, you're also implying +6 for 3 territories. I don't think that's a good idea.

So, maybe give the castle a +2 per territory so there's an incentive to get there. And, maybe +2 for every two (+4 for 4, +6 for 6....) in the other areas. It makes them good to get, but not overly powerful. I'd like to see other people's thoughts on this though because more perspectives always helps.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:36 pm

edbeard wrote:well I think an important question is if you want the territories to be used in multiple bonus areas?

Because, unless you designated +2 for 2, +4 for 4, by saying +2 for 2 territories, you're also implying +6 for 3 territories. I don't think that's a good idea.

would +1 for 2, +2 for 5 be better.

So, maybe give the castle a +2 per territory so there's an incentive to get there. And, maybe +2 for every two (+4 for 4, +6 for 6....) in the other areas. It makes them good to get, but not overly powerful. I'd like to see other people's thoughts on this though because more perspectives always helps.

I'm still not on favour of giving the castle a bonus.
the idea of the map, is that you have to use those bonuses you accumulate to forward attack to gain your objective.
this stops players from holding some position to ransom.

yes, other perspectives are definitely needed. :wink:

Herakilla · Post by **Herakilla** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:52 pm

ya you want to avoid giving the objective areas a bonus since basically they for the most part can be held from one territory which allows for one player to easily defend it

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:58 pm

Version 9

OK...i've added three more terts...
Why?
Another dimension to gameplay
So that you can kill the minus bonuses on the checkpoints if you get stuck there. But there is no bonuses for holding those terts.
Make sense?

Night Strike · Post by **Night Strike** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:31 pm

As of right now, the objective is the only way to win because the person territories in the lower right can't be attacked once held. Are you meaning to make it objective win only???

Herakilla · Post by **Herakilla** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:44 pm

Night Strike wrote:As of right now, the objective is the only way to win because the person territories in the lower right can't be attacked once held. Are you meaning to make it objective win only???

ya he said the main reason hes making this map is because the higher powers asked for more objective maps

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:13 pm

Night Strike wrote:As of right now, the objective is the only way to win because the person territories in the lower right can't be attacked once held. Are you meaning to make it objective win only???

yes....that's what attaining an objective is all about isn't it?
first person to gain it wins.

Night Strike · Post by **Night Strike** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:22 pm

Herakilla wrote:
Night Strike wrote:As of right now, the objective is the only way to win because the person territories in the lower right can't be attacked once held. Are you meaning to make it objective win only???

ya he said the main reason hes making this map is because the higher powers asked for more objective maps

I know, but I didn't think it would completely negate eliminating each other. There are so many territories to hold for the objective that it would probably be near impossible to hold in 5 or 6 player games. Especially on escalating. There should be options for both win scenarios.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:51 pm

Going to disagree unless someone with more sway then me says we can't have objective only maps.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 3:18 am

Night Strike wrote:I know, but I didn't think it would completely negate eliminating each other.

Well, yes in this game you won't be able to eliminate each other, but if you gain a foothold in the town, you can stop someone from achieving their objective. And there are a number of bottlenecks you can do that at.

There are so many territories to hold for the objective that it would probably be near impossible to hold in 5 or 6 player games. Especially on escalating. There should be options for both win scenarios.

This will of course mean that expenditure of forces will have to much more prudent that simply wham bam striking, especially in 5 or 6 or even 8 players games if they come.

I think it could be more exciting all round.

However, don't take this example as the last scenario, Night Strike. There could be several more alterations to this model before it goes live. I guess "watch this apace".

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 3:03 pm

Further comments?