Rorke's Drift. [QUENCHED]

[Victor Sullivan]

Nice! Now it's gameplay time! oops, I mean

1. Clarity is key! Nowhere do you explain what a warrior is. After studying the map and legend a bit I was able to infer that the warriors were the regular territories.
2. Overall, there simply doesn't seem to be very many bonuses to be had. All I've seen is the King auto-deploy, the King and warrior in the same iButho bonus, and the standard territory bonus. With the auto-decay within the 150 yard line and the hefty amount of neutrals to go through to get to the objective, it will be awhile before anyone even ventures there, and it seems more probable that players would end up going for eliminations. I'll ponder on this and get back to you.
3. Perhaps include a brief summary of the situation here. Not many (I imagine) is familiar with "Rorke's Drift".

-Sully

[koontz1973]

Onward and Upward!

Thank you oh mighty wise one.

[koontz1973]

=D> Nice! Now it's gameplay time! oops, I mean

1. Clarity is key! Nowhere do you explain what a warrior is. After studying the map and legend a bit I was able to infer that the warriors were the regular territories.

Warriors are the ones in the rivers. There is a symbol on the map and in the legend that ties this together.. I have to reword the bonus and take out the word warriors to stop this confusion.

Overall, there simply doesn't seem to be very many bonuses to be had. All I've seen is the King auto-deploy, the King and warrior in the same iButho bonus, and the standard territory bonus. With the auto-decay within the 150 yard line and the hefty amount of neutrals to go through to get to the objective, it will be awhile before anyone even ventures there, and it seems more probable that players would end up going for eliminations. I'll ponder on this and get back to you.

The reason for the low bonus structure was to try and balance the game out some. If I lower Schiess (I am thnking of this) to 5 neutrals, this will make it 31 neutrals to take before winning. This may seem high but if this map is played by only 2 or 3 players who receive between 7 and 10 deployable armies per round, it becomes smaller. I was trying to give a balance between small and large games. Any input on this is gratefully received.
If you take the iButhos as a whole (if someone controls all territs) you get (now)...

Shaka-1+1auto-3 (to small)
Mpande-2+1auto (OK)
Kingul-3+1auto (OK)
Phunga-4+1auto-4 (to small)
Ndaba-8+1auto-5 (to small)
Cetshwayo-10+1auto-4 (OK)
Dabulamanzi-10+1auto-4 (OK)

I can always increase the kings auto deploy to 2 or 3 but do not want to go to high as they have the ability to bombard there iButhos. To much power may stagnate the game. This would also solve the problem with the 3 areas which have small bonuses. So...

Shaka-1+3auto-3
Phunga-4+3auto-4
Ndaba-8+3auto-5

Alternative or as well, increase the king +bonuses to..

king + 2 = +2
king + 3 = +4

Doing both would solve the problems of the bonuses that are to small, make the kings more playable and allow the players to go for the winning condition.

Perhaps include a brief summary of the situation here. Not many (I imagine) is familiar with "Rorke's Drift".

-Sully

I had one in the first couple of drafts but it took up way to much space. This is something that I have always wanted in but over the drafts, it has become smaller and smaller to accommodate all necessary information. I have still not given up on it though and am still trying to fit it in.


New bonus structure for next draft.
Kings get +3 auto deploy.
King with 2 warriors in same iButho =+2
King with 3 warriors in same iButho =+4
Result being- King with
2 warriors = +2
3 warriors = +4
4 warriors = +4
5 warriors = +6
6 warriors = +8
7 warriors = +8
8 warriors = +8
How does that grab you all.

Sorry Victor, sometimes it helps to write these things down to see how they look.

[Victor Sullivan]

No worries, koontz. Now onto my next concern: starting positions.

The kings carry too much weight not to be starting positions. You unfortunately only have 7 of these, so it won't be able to accommodate an 8-player game. In addition, not all of the iButhos are very balanced (as you have pointed out in your list above), so this is also cause for concern. Will you have the river warriors and territories within the 150 yard line be random drops, dealt out with the starting positions, or be random drops with the rest of the territories? Will even just the regular territories have to be dealt out in starting positions to a certain extent? These are things to consider. I feel this will likely be the largest stumbling block.

-Sully

[koontz1973]

No worries, koontz. Now onto my next concern: starting positions.

The kings carry too much weight not to be starting positions. You unfortunately only have 7 of these, so it won't be able to accommodate an 8-player game. In addition, not all of the iButhos are very balanced (as you have pointed out in your list above), so this is also cause for concern. Will you have the river warriors and territories within the 150 yard line be random drops, dealt out with the starting positions, or be random drops with the rest of the territories? Will even just the regular territories have to be dealt out in starting positions to a certain extent? These are things to consider. I feel this will likely be the largest stumbling block.

-Sully

Hopefully this image will answer most of your concerns.

Click image to enlarge.

I have kept the kings neutral to stop lucky drop syndrome. All players start equal (depending on drop and play order).
All troops start random, if a game starts and you have 4 troops in the 150 yard line, big problem but the next game you may get none.
The kings stay at 7. This was done with some thought behind it. Any game larger than 7, the kings become very important as there is not enough to go around (I started with only 5 but saw this as to low). It is just another element of the game play that is not done before apart from the small maps and that is only because people play large games on them. Another thing is if the site ever went into larger games (12 players) then even 8 would not be enough.
Reduced Schiess to 5 neutrals to make it easier to get to winning condition (I could probably reduce Chard and Bromhead to 5 as well but most players will not go for the winning condition).
Mpande iButho now only has one point of entry. The other 2 becoming one way assaults out. This becomes stronger, maybe to strong so one can be removed.
Phunga iButho stays the same.
Dabulamanzi lost one of the river attack routes so needs to defend without being able to assult. This should give it some weakness.
Shaka is now immune to the 150 yard line. With the new +2 and 3 auto deploy makes it a lot stronger. (This makes the case to reduce the kings to 3 neutrals, move the whole iButho or removing it completely)
Kingul has lost one of its river warriors. Easier to capture and defend.
Ndaba has lost 2 territs (both within the 150 yard line). Reduced the territs that attack the king to 3 (missed a border there, will add it later).
Cetshwayo has an added territ within the 150 yard line. Not really happy with this so will remove it if at all possible without destroying game. (Missed an army circle, will add it later).
Increased territories able to attack king to 3.
Added bonus for river warriors. This will change to anything. Any ideas?

Total bonus troops
Cetshwayo 20+3 auto
Dabulamanzi - 15+3 auto
Ndaba - 14+3 auto
Phunga 8=3 auto
Kingul - 6+3 auto
Mpande - 4+3 auto
Shaka - 2+3auto
This is the new bonus structure.
Total river troops within iButhos (the ones not on the water or bridge)
Cetshwayo 4
Ndaba 3
Kingul 1
If the bonus was to hold 3 adjacent for +2, this could work and even some things out. It would make taking those iButhos that have the dry river running through them harder to capture and hold but once they were, would be almost imposable to retake.
Total troops that degrade 1
Cetshwayo - 5
Dabulamanzi - 4
Ndaba - 3
Phunga - 4 (could be reduced to 3)
Kingul - 0
Mpande - 0
Shaka - 2
Apart from Phunga (to many) and Kingul (none) this is pretty even. Remember though, these may lose one troop but you have to have them to get into the outpost so that evens it out from losing a troops to being able to get the winning condition.

[Victor Sullivan]

Okay, good update. Some (more) comments:

1. I'd suggest changing Thembinkosi to a one-way the opposite direction, just so the Mpande iButho isn't too easy to hold, and it prevents someone holding Mpande from hogging all three river warriors there.
2. For the river warriors something like +2 for 3 would work, as you said, though I think you could drop the "adjacent" requirement.
3. Some little things: change "degrade" to "decay" - this is more typical terminology - and explain or change "Zulu's" in the legend.
4. Okay, I think for starting positions you've got a decent plan, but I think starting positions are still needed, if nothing else for the territories within the 150 yard line (you have 16 currently, which is a nice number for starting positions). Other things that could be dealt out via starting positions are the territories adjacent to the kings and the river warriors.

-Sully

[koontz1973]

....

[koontz1973]

Minor fixes till gameplay sorted.
Moved a territ from Catshwayo back to Ndaba. Now all iButhos around outpost have 4 (Shaka is the anomaly).
Removed one of the one way attacks.
Changed degrade to decay.
Added proper river bonus.

Click image to enlarge.

By not having the adjacent you get back to the lucky drop syndrome with one player maybe getting a bigger starting bonus.
Starting Positions.
Kings remain neutral (No one player can start of with a bonus)
Territs by kings. 18 in total. Can be programmed to be given evenly.
River Warriors. 11 in total (for now) Can be programmed to be given evenly and stop the bonus for round one.
150 yard territs. 18 in total for decay. Balancing out the loss of troops to ability to get into outpost these should remain random. These also count in the iButho bonuses.
Normal territs remain random.

[koontz1973]

Version 7

Click image to enlarge.

Changes.
Tidied up bridge.
Redid territ lines.
Added a territ around Mpande king.
Re did legend.
Added back story to legend
Added shading to areas.
Moved and compressed forests.
Cleaned rocks up so they do not over lap outpost.
Changed 150 yard line. Slightly thicker but reduced opacity. (now more prominent as important part of game).
Redid one way arrows.
Thinned out impassable.

[Sniper08]

hey koonitz , nice map

maybe this has been asked before but why is thembinkosi 1 way attack but sihlengosethu isnt?

[koontz1973]

hey koonitz , nice map

maybe this has been asked before but why is thembinkosi 1 way attack but sihlengosethu isnt?

Thanks Sniper, always great to hear an opinion from someone different.

I have had them both open, closed and either one one way.

With both going one way into the main part of the map, Mpande becomes to easy to defend.
Giving it two routes to attack into gave it a nice balance from being too open to being too closed.
Cetshwayo seems to be slightly stronger than Dabulamanzi so it seemed reasonable to have it going there.

It would have to be going into Mpande for balancing. One was on the map in page 5. Go and look and tell me what you think. If there is enough demand for it, then it will go back in.

[koontz1973]

This is just a test shot. With the small map, do I just need to scale my large map down which this is or do I need to re draw the whole thing?
SMALL MAP

Click image to enlarge.

Which one is used in live game play, small or large?

[Sniper08]

mpande is easy to defend and i can see why you would want 2 attack routes to him. perhaps removing the trees so wandile can attack nhla would be a way of making that area more open. now someone could sit on siyanda and the bridge and get a nice region + the bonus count, if you open up the trees on nhla-wandile 2 more terr get taken away from blocking as you would need to sit on wandile to defend the bonus so the region bonus becomes less.

also separetly i dont see ppl attacking the neutrals, its like oasis in 1v1s, ppl rarly go for the objective but rather attack around the edges.perhaps change the 10 to 8?.

[koontz1973]

mpande is easy to defend and i can see why you would want 2 attack routes to him. perhaps removing the trees so wandile can attack nhla would be a way of making that area more open. now someone could sit on siyanda and the bridge and get a nice region + the bonus count, if you open up the trees on nhla-wandile 2 more terr get taken away from blocking as you would need to sit on wandile to defend the bonus so the region bonus becomes less.

Like the idea with the trees. Will add that to the updated picture for tomorrow / tonight.

also separetly i dont see ppl attacking the neutrals, its like oasis in 1v1s, ppl rarly go for the objective but rather attack around the edges.perhaps change the 10 to 8?.

I know with the neutrals. They started higher and have been getting lower and lower. The neutrals for the kings though give you a good enough bonus so even in 1v1 games, players should go for them. It is going into the outpost that will not be done like Oasis. The outpost with the killer neutrals will really come into play in foggy games. I want the neutrals low enough to get taken but not so low that people walk into bonuses or the outpost.
Any suggestions for level?

[Sniper08]

if you start with 3 troops ,i think the kings neutrals are perfect and dont need to be changed but if you start with 5 troops then maybe they need to go up 1 troop maybe.

right now there is 31 neutrals to take the objective, it seems a bit much for one player to take and hold ,drop the 10s to 8s imo is good but lets see what others think.schiess could possibly be changed to a 4 or 3. i think the front line dont need to be changed 5 is good for them.

[koontz1973]

if you start with 3 troops ,i think the kings neutrals are perfect and dont need to be changed but if you start with 5 troops then maybe they need to go up 1 troop maybe.

right now there is 31 neutrals to take the objective, it seems a bit much for one player to take and hold ,drop the 10s to 8s imo is good but lets see what others think.schiess could possibly be changed to a 4 or 3. i think the front line dont need to be changed 5 is good for them.

Will change the neutrals to lower numbers for a couple of reasons.

In a 2/3/4 player game, I do not see the neutrals being played much. This might encourage some to play them. In the bigger games, they should be played more often but with less chance of doing a sneaky on other players (city mogul objective)

How about Schiess to 3 and Chard / Bromhead to 5 or 7.

That should lower it more than enough to encourage them to be played. It will also add excitement in case anyone gets through first go.

[Sniper08]

5 seems to far maybe 6 on the cmdr's. 3 on scheiss sounds good. if it is 6 there will be 21 neutrals in the way which is reasonable to take and hold.

[koontz1973]

3 to Schiess and 6 on the commanders. Will get that changed with the trees and post in a couple of hours the updated picture.

[theBastard]

this is also historic map and looks interesting.

I have some question (if they were asked before, sorry me).

adjacent "river warriors" - does it means that Ayize is adjacent to Sizwe despite of rock (impassable) between them?
if warriors are not part of any iButho could they have another colour as iButhos?

[koontz1973]

this is also historic map and looks interesting.

I have some question (if they were asked before, sorry me).

adjacent "river warriors" - does it means that Ayize is adjacent to Sizwe despite of rock (impassable) between them?
if warriors are not part of any iButho could they have another colour as iButhos?

Adjacent yes (including through the impassable or only a very few would be included in the bonus). If this proves complicated or confusing, then I can take adjacent out but increase the amount for the bonus. My whole aim is to try and reduce as much as possible one player starting with a bonus

With the other colour for the river warriors, the symbol should be more than enough to distinguish them within the iButhos. I made the dry river bed slightly darker. I will make it slightly more so, but too dark and I run the rick of losing clarity in Cetshwayo.

[theBastard]

Adjacent yes (including through the impassable or only a very few would be included in the bonus). If this proves complicated or confusing, then I can take adjacent out but increase the amount for the bonus. My whole aim is to try and reduce as much as possible one player starting with a bonus

there is no more impassable between warriors only where I mentioned. maybe only add there only small rock so Mzwenhlanhla can not attack Sizwe, but Ayize yes.

With the other colour for the river warriors, the symbol should be more than enough to distinguish them within the iButhos. I made the dry river bed slightly darker. I will make it slightly more so, but too dark and I run the rick of losing clarity in Cetshwayo.

yes the symbol is fine. but I like darker stripe in warriors areas, so when you will do upper regions of Cetshwayo iButho lighter as are in 150 yard line that should works.

[koontz1973]

Adjacent yes (including through the impassable or only a very few would be included in the bonus). If this proves complicated or confusing, then I can take adjacent out but increase the amount for the bonus. My whole aim is to try and reduce as much as possible one player starting with a bonus

there is no more impassable between warriors only where I mentioned. maybe only add there only small rock so Mzwenhlanhla can not attack Sizwe, but Ayize yes.

With the other colour for the river warriors, the symbol should be more than enough to distinguish them within the iButhos. I made the dry river bed slightly darker. I will make it slightly more so, but too dark and I run the rick of losing clarity in Cetshwayo.

yes the symbol is fine. but I like darker stripe in warriors areas, so when you will do upper regions of Cetshwayo iButho lighter as are in 150 yard line that should works.

The river is also impassable so those 3 are separated. With the one in Kingul being seperated, you only get 7 for the bonus. By removing that rock, you increase the openings into Kingul, this will make it to weak. Will re word that particular bonus to read, hold 4 for +2.
I have done the shading for the dry river bed for this test. Not particularly happy with it going for the darker / lighter shading but if people want this then fine with me.
Version 8 test.
Not on page one as test.

Click image to enlarge.

Removed the trees so new attack route in Dabualmanzi.
New one way arrows.
Test.Shading in dry river bed.
Minor rock fix.
New numbers for neutrals in outpost.

[theBastard]

deleted trees was good idea. I like dry rivers bed

[koontz1973]

Click image to enlarge.

Things changed.
Title got more pop
Kept shading in rivers. Still do not like it but it is growing on me.
Changed the river Zulu bonus to hold 4 for +2.
Minor fixes to defects in 150 yard and terit lines.

[natty dread]

Things are steadily improving here.

The bushes could use some slight black outer glow. Similarly, the bonus areas could use some dark inner glows. Do you have python-gimp installed? It's easier if you do, but they can also be done manually.