I just want to say again.... the map is darn near perfect.
This is a Oaktown sort of map.. that guy is smiling somewhere just from the karma this map is sending hom.
Its simple BUT friggin deep.
Its graphics are within the threshold of what you would expect of a chessboard.
Gameplay A+
and finally what makes it great is that it is different.
dude you didnt make another europe map or a state map. I know you borrowed from the chess Idea that was floated around here for 6 years, but you are the one that did it.
I dig it. I predict as people play it, and realize that in a way it is as strategic and slow as waterloo, it is going to become a favorite.
I might be wrong though... but at least from me, thanks
The current language: "You will receive 5 troops per round and 5 extra troops when you control 40 squares" is awkward ...
Perhaps it should read: "You will receive 5 troops per round." ... and then list the 5 bonus troops for controlling 40 squares under the bonuses ... with the rest of the bonuses ...
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 10:50 am
by koontz1973
The Cheat wrote:The current language: "You will receive 5 troops per round and 5 extra troops when you control 40 squares" is awkward ...
Perhaps it should read: "You will receive 5 troops per round." ... and then list the 5 bonus troops for controlling 40 squares under the bonuses ... with the rest of the bonuses ...
That is the thing though, it is not a bonus. It might not be the best English, but I have not found a better way of saying it.
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 12:03 pm
by ender516
Based on what I read in the XML, it is a bonus, as it is awarded for holding a continent. The game log will describe it that way, so why not put it on the map that way?
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 12:42 pm
by koontz1973
It might be in the xml as a bonus, but it is not a bonus as such. I do not want to describe it as such. If they was a way to do it as reinforcements within the xml then I would. I could change the name of that bonus continent to Extra Reinforcements though.
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 10:16 pm
by ender516
koontz1973 wrote:It might be in the xml as a bonus, but it is not a bonus as such. I do not want to describe it as such. If they was a way to do it as reinforcements within the xml then I would. I could change the name of that bonus continent to Extra Reinforcements though.
Just to back up a bit, I am not sure I see what TheCheat sees as awkward, so maybe there is nothing more to be said about this, but if others do not like the current wording, I propose "You will receive 5 troops per turn if you hold 39 squares or less, but 10 troops per turn if you hold at least 40 squares."
As far as your stand on whether it is a bonus or not, it seems like you are making a distinction without a difference. I don't understand your reluctance to call it a bonus. I do agree that more flexibility in the XML would be welcome: the ability to specify a multiplier as well as a divisor would be very handy.
Finally, I think that name change would be counter productive. "Player received 5 troops for holding Extra Reinforcements" is not as informative as "Player received 5 troops for holding At least 40 squares".
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 11:07 pm
by koontz1973
ender516 wrote:I don't understand your reluctance to call it a bonus.
I had a long debate with natty about bonuses. I never wanted them on the map in the first place, so after about 4 pages of to and fro with him, I put them on. You know how persuasive he can be sometimes.
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 11:15 pm
by army of nobunaga
no bonus would have been better
but as it is, I like it
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:39 pm
by chapcrap
army of nobunaga wrote:no bonus would have been better
but as it is, I like it
With the win condition, I'm not sure a bonus is really necessary any longer. But, I don't have a problem with it at 40, because the game is decided by then anyway.
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:56 pm
by AndyDufresne
Here is some feedback I stumbled across while looking at a game chat. It is older and may be a moot point now, but just in case:
I don't understand the confusion, because it says "shields", not "squares".
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:59 pm
by nippersean
Neither do I - I thought it was v clear - but I'm not sure about the gameplay tho - maybe bitter 0-1 result but that's a tough tert bonus and a tough shield bonus not to make it a dicefest in 1v1 games
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:43 pm
by koontz1973
That game chat was written before one of the updates when the map did say squares. It was confusing as that chat shows, which is why it was changed. As for he tough shield bonus and region count, it is the best way to make all sides equal over the short run. Only strategy will will allow you the upper hand. That or play noobs.
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:01 am
by thehippo8
koontz1973 wrote:.. will will ...you ... play noobs
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:16 am
by sirgermaine
This map is specifically geared towards 1v1 games; aren't maps supposed to be reasonably playable at all settings? I am in an eight player game on this, and the extra +5 troops is totally out of reach for anyone, as well as for the most part shield bonuses (nobody has had 4 of a color for even one turn, even in a fog game). How does this map address playability for more players than the specifically designed 1v1 setting, or is there some admin or higher-up that said that it's okay to ignore that?
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:39 am
by nolefan5311
The ability to take/hold bonuses is not considered in the playability of map, in the sense you're talking about. The only thing we make sure of is as fair a drop as possible (which this map has because the shields begin neutral), or that certain bonuses don't yield too many reinforcements for the amount of territories and/or access points.
Cyprus, Luxembourg, etc. (most of the smaller maps), also aren't conducive to players holding bonuses in 8 player games. Those aren't flaws in those maps...it's just the way it is.
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:58 pm
by koontz1973
sirgermaine wrote:This map is specifically geared towards 1v1 games; aren't maps supposed to be reasonably playable at all settings? I am in an eight player game on this, and the extra +5 troops is totally out of reach for anyone, as well as for the most part shield bonuses (nobody has had 4 of a color for even one turn, even in a fog game). How does this map address playability for more players than the specifically designed 1v1 setting, or is there some admin or higher-up that said that it's okay to ignore that?
You are right that this map has an xml designed for 1v1 games in as much as the positions are set at both sides of the board. But I also took into account the larger games. It is superb fun in assassin mode or even terminator large games. The bonuses where added as a way for extra troops, not that you need them. The extra 5 was placed there to end games faster when you are a few turns from finishing.
Large games, you need to build up slowly and not be so aggressive. This is not your typical land grab, bonus holding game but one of slow methodical turns, out thinking your opponents every turn. You need to be able to think a few goes ahead and plan for the long game. Reacting to what your opponents do each and every turn. Key points to think about, centre is the strongest position as your knights can attack 8 ways, but also the weakest as 8 can attack them. Starting at a corner and working out is the best for the large game as you leave no one behind you to attack.
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:39 pm
by sirgermaine
nolefan5311 wrote:The ability to take/hold bonuses is not considered in the playability of map, in the sense you're talking about. The only thing we make sure of is as fair a drop as possible (which this map has because the shields begin neutral), or that certain bonuses don't yield too many reinforcements for the amount of territories and/or access points.
Cyprus, Luxembourg, etc. (most of the smaller maps), also aren't conducive to players holding bonuses in 8 player games. Those aren't flaws in those maps...it's just the way it is.
The ability to take a bonus in those maps is almost a non-issue, since they are such small maps. When the map is fully occupied at 2-3 terits per person, it makes sense that few if any players will take a bonus. However, on a map with 64 terits, it makes game progress really slow, if not totally stalled.
koontz1973 wrote:
sirgermaine wrote:This map is specifically geared towards 1v1 games; aren't maps supposed to be reasonably playable at all settings? I am in an eight player game on this, and the extra +5 troops is totally out of reach for anyone, as well as for the most part shield bonuses (nobody has had 4 of a color for even one turn, even in a fog game). How does this map address playability for more players than the specifically designed 1v1 setting, or is there some admin or higher-up that said that it's okay to ignore that?
You are right that this map has an xml designed for 1v1 games in as much as the positions are set at both sides of the board. But I also took into account the larger games. It is superb fun in assassin mode or even terminator large games. The bonuses where added as a way for extra troops, not that you need them. The extra 5 was placed there to end games faster when you are a few turns from finishing.
Large games, you need to build up slowly and not be so aggressive. This is not your typical land grab, bonus holding game but one of slow methodical turns, out thinking your opponents every turn. You need to be able to think a few goes ahead and plan for the long game. Reacting to what your opponents do each and every turn. Key points to think about, centre is the strongest position as your knights can attack 8 ways, but also the weakest as 8 can attack them. Starting at a corner and working out is the best for the large game as you leave no one behind you to attack.
Okay, I'll grant that maybe terminator and assassin would be something cool on this board. It sure would be a pain trying to track down a target in a fog game. However, that doesn't address my actual concern, which is standard games with more than two players. The best strategy is to wait and to stock troops, but if everyone does that, then it is a total standoff. I'm sure that the powers that be want a real 1v1 map that is really unique. I get that this map will probably get quenched regardless of what I think. I just don't see how this map really "works" for larger standard games (and by that I'm not asking for strategy advice-- I figured that out pretty early on in the game I'm running on this map), for a game where all the players follow good strategy.
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:06 pm
by koontz1973
for a game where all the players follow good strategy.
No matter how good the strategy is, someone will work it out. Looked into your game and you are currently at round 16. Lots more to go. A lot go 30+ rounds at your settings. But you have one player out already, and 3 nearly out. What I am trying to say is that this map is not your typical game where you can win quickly. But, to answer your first question, no admin ever gave this permission to be made for one type of game. I had to go through the foundry like all other maps and prove my concept was worth while.
Here is my original draft and as you can see, not much has changed apart from the bonuses and the extra troops. These where added to allow player to finish games quicker when the outcome was decided.
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 2:50 pm
by grunion
Hi, enjoying this map very much in 1v1 fog trench. Don't know if this has been mentioned but looking at "Resign sucker" on top of the board the whole game is kind of harsh. Would appreciate if the name of the objective was changed to something more civil.
Thanks grunion
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:11 am
by koontz1973
Harsh, I found it amusing.
It is not mentioned on the board and only appears when it is done?
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:00 am
by x-raider
I like backgrounds 4 and 5. Both white and clean. They are {relevant / not irrelevant}.
Re: Knights [BETA]
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 9:37 am
by ender516
koontz1973 wrote:Harsh, I found it amusing.
It is not mentioned on the board and only appears when it is done?
If you are running BOB, I believe the objective is visible when the Continents Overview is visible, so you can see who is getting close.
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 8:59 pm
