[Abandoned] Marooned

[ManBungalow]

http://i462.photobucket.com/albums/qq35 ... /draft.png

What you need to know;
The 'shelter' regions are divided randomly up between the players in the game.
The 'food' and 'jungle' regions all begin as neutrals.

152 regions in total:
18 shelters
19 food
115 intermediates

At the moment, I'm looking for the gameplay stamp. Once I have that, I can find an XML person and patch up any dodgy graphics.

[bigimg]http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr317/ManBungalow/MN01.png[/bigimg]

[spoiler=original post]Hey team,

I'm going to try something a little different today. It's called Marooned, and you won't have heard of it.
Now, enough of the technicalities and formalities, here's the masterpiece you all came to see:

[bigimg]http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr317/ManBungalow/MAROONEDV10.png[/bigimg]

At the current stage, I'm interested mostly in gameplay criticism (or applause); so please acquaint yourself with the gameplay notes on the image above before making comments, as this map proposal has an overall quirky gameplay style. I figure that each player should start on a number of sheltered regions, but always so that some shelters are neutral. All other regions should begin neutral, more specifically 1 or 2 for the normal regions and 2 or 3 for the food regions, I should think.

The shelters aren't positioned so that every game will be perfectly balanced, but not so that being dropped a certain shelter immediately wins you the game. Some are 2 'steps' from the next shelter, some are more. Some are closer to food regions than others, but that's what I hope will give this map a spicy meatballs edge.

Beyond that, I think it's self-explanatory. Those trails are used as attack routes, and the makeshift bridges are used to cross the river.

If you really want to leave graphical criticism (or applause), go for it. I won't shout at you.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=previous drafts]In some disordered order:
http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr317/ManBungalow/MAROONEDV10.png
http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr317/ManBungalow/MAROONED.png
http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr317/ManBungalow/MAROONED_02.png
http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr317/ManBungalow/MAROONED_03.png
http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr317/ManBungalow/MAROONED_04.png
http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr317/ManBungalow/MAROONED_05.png[/spoiler]

[Boler]

Nice Idea! But I don't exactly understand how the food areas work. Is it even possible to code, "if you start with the food area you lose 2 troops" or something like that? And I think there should be more forms of getting bonuses, as there are only 2 on your map.
Perhaps raft parts? Like if you own all of them you win?
Or mabey holding certian regions of the beach could get you a bonus, like the east area, the southeast area etc.

Oh, and something about graphics, the map looks like its made of 3 islands, which would be unlikely if you're marooned.
I think it should be a river instead, running through the middle

[ManBungalow]

Nice Idea! But I don't exactly understand how the food areas work. Is it even possible to code, "if you start with the food area you lose 2 troops" or something like that? And I think there should be more forms of getting bonuses, as there are only 2 on your map.
Perhaps raft parts? Like if you own all of them you win?
Or mabey holding certian regions of the beach could get you a bonus, like the east area, the southeast area etc.

Hey Boler, thanks for your comments.

There is a function available to map-makers on this site known as auto-decay. It can be coded so that a given region, when held by a player loses troops automatically. You can find it already implemented on some, but not all maps. This means that a stack you have on this given region will lose a pre-determined number of troops each round, while having no effect on the number of troops you are given to deploy. Crucially, the troops are deducted when you hit 'begin turn'. Play a game on the Oasis map and you'll understand what I mean. I should also add (maybe as a note on the map...if there's space) that when a region with only 1 troop on it is subjected to auto-decay, nothing happens to it.

This is what I intend to do for the food regions. More importantly, so that the player has to juggle the +5 troops and the -2 auto-decay. Perhaps by taking advantage of the fact that nothing happens when the food region has only 1 troop left on it? This leaves it vulnerable to attack, but saves troops ultimately. In short, that's what I hope will make this project unique.

I'm seriously considering adding some more gameplay aspects, as there isn't really that much going on here at the moment. Some fishing points would be reasonable to include, and perhaps a battle for fresh water.

Anyway....
WHY AM I THINKING [about gameplay] FOR MYSELF WHEN THERE'S A THREAD FOR PEOPLE TO DO THAT FOR ME?????

[Boler]

Thanks for posting back. I have known about autodecay before, but I understand what you are getting at now. -2 for the spot its self, and +5 to put on any spot you want.

Why am I even posting suggestions, I'm a new recruit!

[Victor Sullivan]

Welcome to the Dark Side of the Forums, ManBungalow! I am Grand Ma Tarkin, your tour guide through this Death Star (before it blows up along with me). You should also know the higher-ups of this facility, Darth Vito ([player]thenobodies80[/player]) and Emperor Pawlpatine ([player]MrBenn[/player]). Let us "Evacuate the Dancefloor" and "Get Jiggy With It":

1. Firstly, you have too many territories and have unnecessarily linearized your map, stifling movement.
2. Second, I'm not sure how well the auto-decay will benefit this map. It will mostly make this map a camp-and-go type map. Basically, I envision players just stacking on shelters or food supplies, jumping from one to the next every few turns (which, I do suppose, simulates the strategy one might have on a deserted island). I think you should make it a more reasonable -1 auto-decay, and institute an objective, as Boler briefly touched on. Thinking in logical terms, if you're marooned on a forgotten island, you want to get rescued, not take over the island to build a resort and spa that no one will ever come to! Maybe include raft parts scattered around the map, as Boler suggested?
3. Third, what are your plans for starting positions, specifically? Could you label them on the map?

*APPLAUSE*

-Sully

[Army of GOD]

Welcome to The Conquer Club ManHungalow. I see you're new here. Let me be the first to wish you a happy birthday.

[the.killing.44]

Welcome to the Dark Side of the Forums, ManBungalow! I am Grand Ma Tarkin, your tour guide through this Death Star (before it blows up along with me). You should also know the higher-ups of this facility, Darth Vito ([player]thenobodies80[/player]) and Emperor Pawlpatine ([player]MrBenn[/player]). Let us "Evacuate the Dancefloor" and "Get Jiggy With It":

1. Firstly, you have too many territories and have unnecessarily linearized your map, stifling movement.
2. Second, I'm not sure how well the auto-decay will benefit this map. It will mostly make this map a camp-and-go type map. Basically, I envision players just stacking on shelters or food supplies, jumping from one to the next every few turns (which, I do suppose, simulates the strategy one might have on a deserted island). I think you should make it a more reasonable -1 auto-decay, and institute an objective, as Boler briefly touched on. Thinking in logical terms, if you're marooned on a forgotten island, you want to get rescued, not take over the island to build a resort and spa that no one will ever come to! Maybe include raft parts scattered around the map, as Boler suggested?
3. Third, what are your plans for starting positions, specifically? Could you label them on the map?

*APPLAUSE*

-Sully

shut up. he was here (yes even in your precious foundry you so dotingly call the dark side in your boorish attempt at a witty wisecrack) when you were still in your 40s.

[grifftron]

Why would you say less terts would be better? I think the more the better on this map, i think its a brilliant new idea for a map, sullys just pissed because he tried to start from scratch on this one...

viewtopic.php?f=63&t=145598

-griff

[Gilligan]

I demand a man in a red turtleneck shirt and a white hat be placed on this map!

G

[40kguy]

I will play it the way it is.

[Victor Sullivan]

shut up. he was here (yes even in your precious foundry you so dotingly call the dark side in your boorish attempt at a witty wisecrack) when you were still in your 40s.

Contrary to popular belief, I'm not stupid, I know that he knows how things work around here and thenobodies and MrBenn. I was just continuing with the fun theme It's okay, killing, I still love you.

-Sully

[ManBungalow]

1. Firstly, you have too many territories and have unnecessarily linearized your map, stifling movement.
2. Second, I'm not sure how well the auto-decay will benefit this map. It will mostly make this map a camp-and-go type map. Basically, I envision players just stacking on shelters or food supplies, jumping from one to the next every few turns (which, I do suppose, simulates the strategy one might have on a deserted island). I think you should make it a more reasonable -1 auto-decay, and institute an objective, as Boler briefly touched on. Thinking in logical terms, if you're marooned on a forgotten island, you want to get rescued, not take over the island to build a resort and spa that no one will ever come to! Maybe include raft parts scattered around the map, as Boler suggested?
3. Third, what are your plans for starting positions, specifically? Could you label them on the map?

Hey Victor_Sullivan, let me be the first to welcome you to the forums!
You raise some valid points, and I'll address them in the appropriate numerical order after a short notice about my gameplayural intentions:

I want this map to work in a manner where shelters are built up until the player feels confident enough to move out and take another shelter or food region. Specifically, I want the player who makes it all the way up to the region which borders to target bonus then fails to take the last region to go "Oh shit". I'm not saying that this is supposed to be a dice defecating contest; rather that taking [or not taking] the gambit will add a new layer of fun to the game. When is it a good idea to rush out and try to take a shelther? Will your opponent gain the upper-hand by taking a shelter before you?

I'd also like to point out that I'm really not too stubborn to change any aspect of this map proposal, but I'm going to justify my choices for you now, so that you can understand what I'm trying to achieve here.

1. The more-linear-than-usual setup illustrated in this map is crucial for the gameplay I'm trying to create, where you jump from bonus-to-bonus, potentially leaving an existing shelter un-defended, whereupon an enemy may take it from you and you can't retaliate because your offensive stack is blocked off by a string of your own regions with 1s on. So, in essence, stifling movement is what I want...to an extent. I honestly don't feel that it's too linear. There are plenty of ways into each trail. Where you could ambush an opponent, if you'd care to imagine.
2. As I tried to explain above, I want players who make a dash for a bonus then fail to get it to be punished. As for camp-and-go, I'm going to describe my plan in more depth in the next point. Furthermore, I'm tempted by your idea to add more bonuses. I could try add some fishing points, or otherwise, with a different bonus structure to the existing ones.
3. Okay, starting positions. This bit is important. I want players to start on random shelters, scattered around the island. However, some of the shelters must start as neutral. As bait. I know this is possible because I played a game on Kings Court where some of the castles began as neutrals.

Over to you, Victor and others.

[Victor Sullivan]

Could you label the other territories so I can refer to specific ones?

-Sully

[natty dread]

I just want to comment, that I like this map idea, and I hope daBungalove goes through with this!

I'll be keeping an eye on this. Nice map. Good.

[AndyDufresne]

I think it has some potential as well. I'm interested to see how it develops.


--Andy

[OliverFA]

Hello! Interesting concept.

So, basically, there are 24 1-region continents that provide a bonus of +5. Each of them has a -2 autodecay.
The rest of territories have -3 autodecay. Except for the "safe" territories which are marked blue.

Don't you think it would be better to have all territories pay -3 autodecay? I think that having -3 to normal terriotires and -2 to food makes things more difficult to understand for new players without really adding much. The unique value to food territories is the bonus. So leave the decay the same as with the other territories.

This map shows promise. However, I think that choosing very well where to place the special territories is vital to develop this concept to its best. For example, placing safe territories just in a crossroads have a very big effect. So you have to be sure that if that crossroads territory is a safe one, you really wanted it to be, and was not just "luck".

You could also add a few territory types:
- Objective: Hold that territory (or territories) to win the game. Maybe the boat that will allow you to leave the island? Or a bottle to write a message?
- Losing requirements: You need to have at least one base or the jungle will eat you forever
- Killer neutrals: Shortcuts that allow you to quickly cross from one part of the jungle to the other part without having to do all the way. However, they become neutrals again the next turn

[AndyDufresne]

I like the possibility of of Killer/Reverting Neutrals--kind of like hacking your way through the brush with a machete---only have it to grow back.


--Andy

[ManBungalow]

Don't you think it would be better to have all territories pay -3 autodecay? I think that having -3 to normal terriotires and -2 to food makes things more difficult to understand for new players without really adding much. The unique value to food territories is the bonus. So leave the decay the same as with the other territories.

This map shows promise. However, I think that choosing very well where to place the special territories is vital to develop this concept to its best. For example, placing safe territories just in a crossroads have a very big effect. So you have to be sure that if that crossroads territory is a safe one, you really wanted it to be, and was not just "luck".

You could also add a few territory types:
- Objective: Hold that territory (or territories) to win the game. Maybe the boat that will allow you to leave the island? Or a bottle to write a message?
- Losing requirements: You need to have at least one base or the jungle will eat you forever
- Killer neutrals: Shortcuts that allow you to quickly cross from one part of the jungle to the other part without having to do all the way. However, they become neutrals again the next turn

All of this makes so much sense. I'm currently doing a gameplay overhaul. The basic principles will be the same, but I'm hoping to make shortcuts a fairly major aspect of the game.
I'm going to position the safe regions more conveniently this time around, as well as potentially adding some small bonuses and considering a winning criteria.

Also, I briefly thought about having a region bonus where "+1 troop for every region held". I honestly think this is the best way to encourage expansion and prevent build games where possible. Can anyone offer any insight on this scenario?

[Victor Sullivan]

OliverFA brought up some great ideas, I agree with all of them. However, I don't think the +1 bonus per territory should be instituted. Firstly, it doesn't entirely make sense, given the jungle that gobbles up troops. Secondly, you could easily block off access to territories between shelters and food supplies (stack on the shelters and food supplies to protect all of your territories, reaping in large benefits). I think the best option is to drop a territory bonus from the map entirely, relying solely on the essential food supplies and shelters (and maybe objective pieces) for bonuses.

-Sully

[Nola_Lifer]

Killer first draft. Looks like you have a few things to sort out but a good community here to help and a even better start. Good luck

[OliverFA]

All of this makes so much sense. I'm currently doing a gameplay overhaul. The basic principles will be the same, but I'm hoping to make shortcuts a fairly major aspect of the game.
I'm going to position the safe regions more conveniently this time around, as well as potentially adding some small bonuses and considering a winning criteria.

Also, I briefly thought about having a region bonus where "+1 troop for every region held". I honestly think this is the best way to encourage expansion and prevent build games where possible. Can anyone offer any insight on this scenario?

My suggestion (and it's just a suggestion ) it's to proceed in that order:

1st - Enumerate the different gameplay elements. It could be something like:

• The map features a maroon maze with mostly "corridors" connected at key crossroad regions.
• Standard region is -3 decay
• Food region provides a +5 bonus (continent, not autodeploy) and also has -3 decay
• Safe regions don't have autodecay
• A few shortcut regions, which are neutral killer regions
• Crossroads can be any kind of region, but they are also important due to the maze nature of the map
• Any other gameplay feature (if any)

2nd - Once it all makes sense, you can proceed to design the map, carefully planning the maze and also carefully placing the different special regions.

[OliverFA]

OliverFA brought up some great ideas, I agree with all of them. However, I don't think the +1 bonus per territory should be instituted. Firstly, it doesn't entirely make sense, given the jungle that gobbles up troops. Secondly, you could easily block off access to territories between shelters and food supplies (stack on the shelters and food supplies to protect all of your territories, reaping in large benefits). I think the best option is to drop a territory bonus from the map entirely, relying solely on the essential food supplies and shelters (and maybe objective pieces) for bonuses.

-Sully

I agree. The +1 for every region held would change the nature of the map too much.

[Industrial Helix]

Interesting... I wonder if the initial decay for the food places is possible with the XML though. Actually, I think you might be able to pull it off if you make it a negative bonus coupled with something else...

[whitestazn88]

I think decay should be lower on normal territs, unless they're all starting neutrals... and that the decay should be higher for food maybe, since there is going to be a bigger "battle for resources" if you were actually marooned.

And I like the island idea, but if you're stuck on an island and smell like whiskey, maybe there should be a crash site section or a party beach section that has some other pithy bonuses such as a water bottle etc.

Looks like a fun map, nice graphics.

And welcome to the Map Foundry! Looks like you're getting yourself settled in very nicely, Praise the Lord!

[zimmah]

nice map, would love to try it out.

also the army bonus for holding regions (like when you hold 12 regions you get 4 armies, when you hold 15 you get 5, etc.) should be removed out of this map.