Berlin 1961 [Quenched]

[Wisse]

hmm i don't like the style of this map much but thats something you can't do anything about anyway i have got some things:

the pictures of the soldiers, aircrafts etc. seems to be off the map, you could fix that by blurring the borders of those pictures

the arrows are not in the same style as the whole map (they don't look old etc.)
also your legend borders doesn't look old, thats a bit strange

[oaktown]

Little changes, including the addition of a wall.

hmm i don't like the style of this map much but thats something you can't do anything about

Nope, I have no control whatsoever.

the pictures of the soldiers, aircrafts etc. seems to be off the map, you could fix that by blurring the borders of those pictures

You were right... good catch. I think the problem was that the artwork was solid black while everything else on the map was a sepia tone. I've lightened them a bit and I hope they fit in better.

the arrows are not in the same style as the whole map (they don't look old etc.) also your legend borders doesn't look old, thats a bit strange

Tell me what you think of the legend now. As for the arrows, they are still on my to-do list, as is making openings in the wall (once we've figued out where to put them), moving some territory titles around, and making changes to accommodate a future small map.

Once this poll is deleted I'll start a new one asking what the bonuses should look like for the airfields and artillery. Throw your two cents in so I have several options for the poll.

[Simonov]

just one suggestion man - it would be good if when someone hold air port he can bombard and invade (via paratroopers from airfield) all the territories on the map, and if someone holds antiaircraft gun his territories can't be bombarded. sounds good?

ps why did you remove russian tank? could put few katyusha's in russian territories as a way to bombard but not to actually conquer other territories on the map...

great map so far

[oaktown]

just one suggestion man - it would be good if when someone hold air port he can bombard and invade (via paratroopers from airfield) all the territories on the map, and if someone holds antiaircraft gun his territories can't be bombarded. sounds good?

Fun idea, but I'm quite certain the XML won't allow for that at present. You can set a territory to attack or bombard another, but the ability to do so isn't contingent on what another player can do.

ps why did you remove russian tank? could put few katyusha's in russian territories as a way to bombard but not to actually conquer other territories on the map...

I liked the suggestion of giving the unit the power to bombard air units only, and the anti-aircraft gun image fit that role better than a tank. I liked the tank picture better, but whatever.

[I GOT SERVED]

I really like how this map is progressing. Especially the bit with the anti-aircraft artillery, and the wall.

Keep up the excellent work!

[jako]

just one suggestion man - it would be good if when someone hold air port he can bombard and invade (via paratroopers from airfield) all the territories on the map, and if someone holds antiaircraft gun his territories can't be bombarded. sounds good?

do read some of the posts before replying. there isnt that much yet, only 6 pags worth.

the whole reason we scrapped teh tank idea was because it could attack any terr on the map, thus giving too much power to one terr and also ruining game play. now u want us to do the same thing for airports?

[oaktown]

do read some of the posts before replying. there isnt that much yet, only 6 pags worth.

I'm going to cut simonov some slack... i've recently been guilty of shooting my mouth off before reading back-posts, so I understand where he's coming from.

[Simonov]

I liked the suggestion of giving the unit the power to bombard air units only, and the anti-aircraft gun image fit that role better than a tank. I liked the tank picture better, but whatever.

ok, but then please change text saying that aa can bombard airfields - sounds stupid to me. try something as aa gun can shoot down aircrafts above airfields. bombarding involves dropping bombs somewhere as far as i know.

[edbeard]

bombarding is the name of the type of attack. that has to be there. It means that you can attack it but not conquer. When you take it over, one neutral army is placed there instead of being able to move your own armies to it

[DiM]

several thoughts:

1. army numbers. where will you put them? this is the large version and already some territories have no place for army numbers. imagine the problem will be bigger for the small version.
2. your sig. i like it and it's well designed. but to me it inspires a 60s happy american look. not a european bleak and sad look. but this is just my opinion people use the same sig regardless of the theme of the map so i guess it's ok.
3. arrows are bad. they don't fit with the overall aspect
4. bonuses are strange. and i'm saying strange because i don't want to say bad. there's a big imballance because you can hold 8 russian terits with just 2 borders marzahn and lichtenberg. with +5 and the aa gun the domination is rather easy.
5. will you make the airports and borders neutral?

[oaktown]

bombarding is the name of the type of attack. that has to be there. It means that you can attack it but not conquer. When you take it over, one neutral army is placed there instead of being able to move your own armies to it

Right. I'm not thrilled about the term either, but that's the CC language. I'll entertain suggestions that capture both the spirit of the artillery piece and the game play feature.

1. army numbers. where will you put them? this is the large version and already some territories have no place for army numbers. imagine the problem will be bigger for the small version.

Yep, this will be a problem, but one I can tackle. As I update I'll be doing so with the army counts and the small map in mind, but my concentration has been on the playability and the overall style.

2. your sig. i like it and it's well designed. but to me it inspires a 60s happy american look. not a european bleak and sad look. but this is just my opinion people use the same sig regardless of the theme of the map so i guess it's ok.

At least it's the right decade!

3. arrows are bad. they don't fit with the overall aspect

You're probably only the fifth person to point this out, and so I'll say yet again that the arrows are temporary until I come up with something I like. To quiet my critics new arrows will be the next thing on my to-do list.

4. bonuses are strange. and i'm saying strange because i don't want to say bad. there's a big imballance because you can hold 8 russian terits with just 2 borders marzahn and lichtenberg. with +5 and the aa gun the domination is rather easy.

LOL! Everybody else says the bonuses are whack because whoever starts in the Russian sector is screwed. I've been saying all along that I think the Russian start is the best start on the map, yet everybody is pushing me to make Russia stronger. There will be a poll on this as soon as the old poll is removed.

5. will you make the airports and borders neutral?

Yes and no. See post #1.

[DiM]

1. army numbers. where will you put them? this is the large version and already some territories have no place for army numbers. imagine the problem will be bigger for the small version.

Yep, this will be a problem, but one I can tackle. As I update I'll be doing so with the army counts and the small map in mind, but my concentration has been on the playability and the overall style.

may i suggest the small map as your first priority?
it would be a waste of your time to finalize the large version and then discover you have to change everything to accommodate the small.

and just to do a bit of ranting AoR wasn't allowed in the main foundry until i produced a small version and yet this one is allowed. another example of "equality". note that this is not directed at you oaktown. it's directed at the system. end of ranting

2. your sig. i like it and it's well designed. but to me it inspires a 60s happy american look. not a european bleak and sad look. but this is just my opinion people use the same sig regardless of the theme of the map so i guess it's ok.

At least it's the right decade!

yep true.

3. arrows are bad. they don't fit with the overall aspect

You're probably only the fifth person to point this out, and so I'll say yet again that the arrows are temporary until I come up with something I like. To quiet my critics new arrows will be the next thing on my to-do list.

well since i'm the fifth i guess this is a good indicator of how bad the arrows are
sorry didn't have time to read all the posts.

4. bonuses are strange. and i'm saying strange because i don't want to say bad. there's a big imballance because you can hold 8 russian terits with just 2 borders marzahn and lichtenberg. with +5 and the aa gun the domination is rather easy.

LOL! Everybody else says the bonuses are whack because whoever starts in the Russian sector is screwed. I've been saying all along that I think the Russian start is the best start on the map, yet everybody is pushing me to make Russia stronger. There will be a poll on this as soon as the old poll is removed.

well, then i guess i'm the only one that sees the way this map goes
seriously though. don't make a poll. people will look and see lots of terits so they'll ask for a huge bonus when in fact the russian sector is the greatest place to start. as i said you can get a +5 with just 2 borders plus you have the aa gun. when you secure this bonus you can steadily expand and take the rest of the russian sector. and it will be easy because once you have that bonus you'll have enough troops and since the rest of the russian sector doesn't offer anything people will be reluctant to wasting their troops there. so when you get the whole russian sector you'll have a nifty +12 (5+5+2) bonus for only 3 borders plus the aa gun.
so again don't do a poll or the gameplay will be screwed badly.

5. will you make the airports and borders neutral?

Yes and no. See post #1.

[/quote]

why not the borders? they offer a +2 and starting with 3 terits is not uncommon on a map this size.
and if you make them neutral you'll have a map with 30 playing terits so it's still a great number (except for 4 player games)

[oaktown]

may i suggest the small map as your first priority?
it would be a waste of your time to finalize the large version and then discover you have to change everything to accommodate the small.

Uh huh, i read that DiM. It's easy enough to subtly tweak borders as I go, which I do with each new version. What I will be doing soon is doing a test of numbers without army circles to see if I can get away with just dropping the numbers on the sepia tones. (my fingers are crossed right now)

well, then i guess i'm the only one that sees the way this map goes seriously though. don't make a poll. people will look and see lots of terits so they'll ask for a huge bonus when in fact the russian sector is the greatest place to start. as i said you can get a +5 with just 2 borders plus you have the aa gun.

good observation, but I may still do something just to quiet critics. And originally I had the gun farther north, but I dropped it in its current spot accidently and decided to leave it for now.

5. will you make the airports and borders neutral? ...why not the borders? they offer a +2 and starting with 3 terits is not uncommon on a map this size. and if you make them neutral you'll have a map with 30 playing terits so it's still a great number (except for 4 player games)

Wait, DiM, are you arguing for smaller maps? I don't like the idea of making the borders tert's start neutral, because
1) I prefer maps in which you start with more territories, so an unlucky start doesn't end your game. This one's already pretty small.
2) It would lead to players settling in and building up on one side of the wall or the other as there'd be no advantage to wasting forces going through six neutral armies.
3) The russian sector would be even more valuable, because you've got two layers of natural defenses behind which to build up,
4) There's already another bonus that already requires just three territories out of four, so the checkpoints aren't the most egregious potential lucky start.
5) With only starting 36 territories, the odds of scoring three checkpoints is similar to scoring all of australia in Classic, which happens pretty rarely, plus
6) Since the 3 territories don't support each other, and in the western case aren't even in the same Sector, the odds of holding onto all three is slim.

[btp3]

I like the theme and the clever bonuses. I agree that the territories are cramped, and I look forward to seeing how you squeeze in the armies.

I probably wouldn't spend much time playing this map because the territory names are lengthy and unfamiliar to me. I'd make a ton of mistakes. I'm not suggesting you change the names though.

[Qwert]

Protesting again-Its standard in CC become lower or what?
I must work wery hard and finishing 80-90% of map to get second stage!I must resolve to many things-Borders-Army numbers-Legend-colours-and been very long time in map idea.
These not good.

[oaktown]

Protesting again-Its standard in CC become lower or what?
I must work wery hard and finishing 80-90% of map to get second stage!I must resolve to many things-Borders-Army numbers-Legend-colours-and been very long time in map idea.
These not good.

I never asked that the map be moved here... maybe that has something to do with it?

But seriously, can somebody tell me what they think of the Wall that I droppd on the latest update? I think it looks fine but it doesn't fit the old military style of the - I think I'm going to go back to some sort of line.

[Incandenza]

It's looking better. I'm much happier with that whole gatow area now.

The Wall is going to be tricky. I'm not wild about what you've got at the moment, but it beats the shit out of just some black line. And while the latter might be more befitting the map style, it's the Berlin Wall, for crying out loud. It would be nice to see such a momentous piece of concrete portrayed with some panache.

I see what you guys are saying about the russian sector, and maybe the easiest fix is to have treptow connect with friedrichshein instead of lichtenburg. Voila, 3 borders for the bonus.

Otherwise it's coming along nicely. I'm behind you 100% on not making the guards start neutral (for the reasons you enumerated above), but I still think the airfields shouldn't. But I keep harping on that, so I'll shut up about it now.

Actually, I take that back. Just a bit more harping: if the airfields are going to start neutral, than there needs to be a better reason for taking them than just a +1/per bonus, especially since one could go any kill the neutrals there, only to be bombarded by the russian artillery. So maybe have the airfields connect.

[Coleman]

Is a Berlin map worth continuing?

Sure, let's see what we can make out of this. 83% [ 64 ]
Nah, don't waste your time. 16% [ 13 ]

Total Votes : 77

[Wisse]

the arrows are not in the same style as the whole map (they don't look old etc.) also your legend borders doesn't look old, thats a bit strange

Tell me what you think of the legend now.

much better, great

[hulmey]

I think the wal is gonna be a tough one for you espicallt since the map is not 3D...At the moment it reminds of targelitelli ( which is the larger flat version we call spaghetti pasts)!!!!

[cairnswk]

Protesting again-Its standard in CC become lower or what?
I must work wery hard and finishing 80-90% of map to get second stage!I must resolve to many things-Borders-Army numbers-Legend-colours-and been very long time in map idea.
These not good.

Qwert...these is not good that you have this happen.
I do not think standard is lowering in CC, but oaktown has very different style of map from what you have.
Also, because of your map, and to some extent i have same problem, people expect a lot more of us in new ideas because we have presented very good maps in the past to start.
Yes you do work hard, but these and yours is very different maps.
The process from New ideas to Map Foundry will be very closely scrutinised in future forward movements.

[insomniacdude]

Actually, I take that back. Just a bit more harping: if the airfields are going to start neutral, than there needs to be a better reason for taking them than just a +1/per bonus, especially since one could go any kill the neutrals there, only to be bombarded by the russian artillery. So maybe have the airfields connect.

That sould work. Or have an additional +1 bonus for holding all three airfields at the same time. So holding all three would give a person 4 troops. ...?

[oaktown]

On the airfields... it would seem that at least part of the concern over the airfields is that they can be pummelled by the artillery from across the map. What if instead of hitting the airfields, I turn the AA gun back into a tank, which can bombard any of the three western checkpoint territories?

This would make sense historically, as the russians did indeed bring tanks right up to the borders in times of crisis (checkpoint charlie, 1961). It would also be fun strategically because the russian player could camp a big stack on the tank, bombard a border territory, then move in to the now neutral territory with their border troops.

If the airfields were better protected (which they would be in this case) it would significantly increase their value.

Also - neutral territories do not need to open the game with three armies. We could go to four if you all think the +1 is too strong, or start them with just 2 if you think the bonus isn't worth it. Lowering the starting value would make for some easy cards early on, but there would be four across the map, and it would mean the other players don't get hit the first turn.

??

[insomniacdude]

What is your original reasoning behind making the airfields neutral? If it's only to stop people from starting a game off with a troop bonus, then just make the airfields start with a single neutral and leave everything else the way it is. I haven't read the whole topic, so please excuse my redundancy.

There are a lot of ways to go about this and I don't think any one way is the "best" way. You might want to put this to a poll.

The ideas so far:
Change the AA gun back into a tank which bombards the western borders.
Don't bother setting the airfields to start off automatically neutral.
Change the starting neutral army count on each airfield.
Change the bonus/worth of an airfield(s) (either per airfield, or for holding 2+ airfields).
Connect all three airfields so that they can attack (or bombard?) another airfield.

[oaktown]

There are a lot of ways to go about this and I don't think any one way is the "best" way. You might want to put this to a poll.

Right, I suggested a poll a few days ago, but some people said this was too complicated to leave to a poll and we'd get uninformed responses. I guess now I have to poll whether or not I should make a poll! But I agree that I'd rather leave it up for some healthy debate by those advisers who have been following this issue, then make an executive decision. Like the man said, I'm the decider.

Thanks go to insomniac for summarizing the possible options for changing things up, and let me address each one:

Change the AA gun back into a tank which bombards the western borders.
This is as per my last post. I think this solves a lot of problems, but may create new ones.

Don't bother setting the airfields to start off automatically neutral.
Right, but then somebody either starts with a +1, or I alter the bonuses (see below).

Change the starting neutral army count on each airfield.
I think this would be a good option in combination with another change.

Change the bonus/worth of an airfield(s) (either per airfield, or for holding 2+ airfields).
I really like giving each one an independent bonus since we already have a inter-sector bonus in the checkpoints.

Connect all three airfields so that they can attack (or bombard?) another airfield.
We've gotten to where we are now because there was concern that the airfields were too strong... I don't want to make them any stronger. Anyway, historically the West Berlin airfields were more important as a source of supply than for their military capabilities.

My favorite possible solutions are:
1. Staying with the current arrangement but lowering the start value of the neutral airfields to 2. Nobody has to defend the airfields to maintain control of your sector because the AA gun can't advance AND you only need a majority to collect your bonus; you only have to defend it if you want to keep the double bonus. The way I see this playing out is that the airfields will be particularly valuable early in the game, and less so later - much like the planes in Pearl Harbor.

2. Lose the AA guns altogether. Western sectors include airfields, +1 'supply' bonus each, neutral to start with yet-to-be-determined starting armies; Russian sector gets a tank, no bonus, able to bombard (but not occupy) the three western checkpoints, neutral to start with yet-to-be-determined starting armies... see my post from an hour ago for the thinking behind this.

Either way, the bombardment options are good because they drop the overall value of the French Sector, which it has been pointed out is very easy to hold. And really when you look at it the overall bonus for holding the entire french sector - 5 territories with 2 borders - isn't all that high even with the airfield.