New York 1695 v15

[HitRed]

12 and 13 to see the shading differences.



[/quote]

[HitRed]

Might consider all the Yard starting neutral. I can already see players posting, "Bad Drop". With the streets being so dangerous you are either next to the pile of gold or you are not. Unless the value is reduced.

Three King Street has 4 rooms that don't connect, which is fine. But you must venture into the streets 3 times and leaving 1 troop behind to die on each one.

The Yard has 4 territories that all connect and NO street fighting needed.

They are both worth 4 but the effort isn't the same.

Assume a player starts with one position in a bonus. How much effort to take the rest of it? The more terr. and street battles the more the bonus. Assume 1 street battle gets you to 1 next room. Not 2 rooms even if possible by the map.

If player started with only Two B'Way "A" then 8 battles to take the whole bonus.

If player started on Four B'way "A" then 3 battles to take the whole bonus.

If player started on Five B'way "A" then 6 battles to take the whole bonus.

You get the picture.

Simple math is 1 troop every 2 battles. Might add extra bonus for larger bonuses to keep players reaching for them.

So, just for fun... the Yards.

If player started on The Yards "A" then 3 battles to take the whole bonus.

If you started the Fort at neutral 5 I would count that as 2 battles even though it is one terr.

Combine the Yards and the Fort equals 5 battles. Simple math would expecte 3. The 7 bonus looks killer. I expected fewer, but hay the Fort should be valued! Maybe a compromise on the bonuse there.

You could also run these numbers by troops to fight. Rooms are 3 troops and streets 2. Then the neutral 5 defending the Fort can be weighted properly.

If I have time tonight I'll run the numbers. There are no perfect numbers but it will point out overvalued and undervalued.

I am not suggesting any connection changes. The largest bonus so far is One Kings Street, a woppong 10 battles. Maybe that is OK as it sits next to the easiest bonus The Docks.

[HitRed]

Note: Optically the door from The Yards "A" into the Fort is a thick wall. Where as, The Yards "C" into the Fort shows a tan passage. Best to be consistent and have both with a tan passage. Helps the end user.

HitRed

[Minister X]

I fixed that dark bit at the southern gate of The Fort.

I made a spreadsheet. I'll explain below...



"Battles" = how many you'd have to make from any one tert to capture all the others. It doesn't matter which tert you start on, it's always the same.

"Neighbors" = the number of potentially enemy terts (other than in your target block) border all the streets bordering your target block. This is important because trying to capture a bonus block that's fairly isolated would be easier than capturing one that can be attacked from all over.

Column G takes the result of result in column E and multiplies it by the square root of neighbors. Neighbors gets that square root because it's less important than column E.

Column H: because column G yields a large number, I raise it to the .36 to reduce it to the penultimate basis for the bonus. That then gets rounded in column I, the actual bonus to be applied.

There are three bases to evaluate this method of bonus calculation:
1) Have I included all the important factors?
2) Does my math make sense?
3) Does the result look reasonable?

HitRed suggests considering the number of armies one would have to beat back. I don't think it matters much. We assume enemy terts have three armies. Roads have two but the one you must leave behind will get eaten by the killer neutral. So it pretty much works out even. So I THINK I've included consideration of all important factors.

We could argue about my math -- what factors to apply or whatever -- for ages. The real test is #3; do my final results seem appropriate? The range from 2 to 8 isn't bad, and every number in between gets used at least once, which is good. So I'd say that this calculation can serve as a good working model until playtest begins. Then we can see what really influences the ease or difficulty of taking bonus blocks and adjust accordingly.

[HitRed]

Will The Yards calculation take into consideration the extremely high possibility of holding The Fort?

If you could add this calculation on another line that would be great.

HitRed

To make the spread sheet complete please include a Battery.

Considering the valid defense of 2s in the streets it might be necessary to stack a turn or two. And then you have to face the other player. The small bonuses might be the real way forward.

[Minister X]

Will The Yards calculation take into consideration the extremely high possibility of holding The Fort? If you could add this calculation on another line that would be great.

Hard to do. The Fort will start neutral TBD but more than two, that's for sure. And it can be bombarded. Trying to factor all that in would be futile. And one can ignore The Fort but hold The Yards. In fact, it might make sense to first take The Yards then worry about The Fort.

To make the spread sheet complete please include a Battery.

Impossible. The spreadsheet assumes you already hold one tert of a bonus block.

Considering the valid defense of 2s in the streets it might be necessary to stack a turn or two. And then you have to face the other player. The small bonuses might be the real way forward.

Aren't they always?

It's important to keep in mind that on a map like this no spreadsheet calculation can or should be taken as gospel. Common sense should play a big role, maybe the biggest. And then all of that means very little once playtest starts.

[Minister X]

v14 changes:

• bonuses altered to reflect the above spreadsheet - most were changed, increasing by 1 to 3.
• Not only was the dark area inside the southern Fort gatepost made to match the look of the northern gatepost, ALL gateposts that "opened" on dark areas had those areas removed.



I'm ambivalent about the changes to those bits just inside the gateposts. On the one hand, they do make the doors seem more like they open onto something other than a wall, more like they provide access to inner courtyards. On the other hand the disruption of all those clean lines does break up the overall visual in a way I find a bit damaging. But maybe I'm just used to the old look and fresh eyes would see this differently. One can easily compare v13 to v14 -- I'd love some opinions about this change. Is the overall appearance damaged? Does the extra clarity about gateposts really add much?

[HitRed]

Nice

[Fuchsia tude]

These images are all dead too. Maybe you should use imgur or something?

[Minister X]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've been using a free image hosting service called techpowerup.org. Their website is not responding. I'll wait a day or so to see if this is just temporary or if they've shuffled off this mortal coil. If they're dead I'll repost everything via a more reliable service.

[Minister X]

The TechPowerUp main site is operational and their forums are active. I suspect they're just having a temporary problem with the hosting server.

Later... yup. We're all okay again.

[iancanton]

shouldn't the text for church street and princes street (which i presume refers to more than one prince, instead of prince's street) run roughly west-to-east rather than north-to-south?

ian.

[Minister X]

shouldn't the text for church street and princes street (which i presume refers to more than one prince, instead of prince's street) run roughly west-to-east rather than north-to-south?

Both my original base map from 1695 and a 1728 map I found do indeed call this "Princes Street" with no apostrophe. I'm not sure why I added one. But in researching this I discovered a problem. I knew there was a "Prince Street" in New York and I thought it was this one, with the name just slightly altered over time. Incorrect. The current Prince Street is quite a bit north of Wall St. and thus not at all on my map. So if we continue to use "Princes" we might mislead some folk.

Now on both the 1695 and 1728 maps Princes Street is only east of Broad Street (which we used to name but don't any longer and which now bisects both Princes and Church) while the east/west street that's west of Broad is called Beaver Street. To avoid confusion about Prince/Princes/Prince's I think we ought to just change it to Beaver Street (so named because that's where beaver pelts were traded). What's more, Beaver Street still exists in more or less the same place.

Now as to whether the text of the names should run vertically or horizontally, I chose the latter because those streets are wider and thus leave more room for the names. Below is a map with them the other way, and I think if you compare it to the last version above you'll agree that aesthetically it's better on the vertical. As to whether this impacts on accuracy, given that Church and Princes or Beaver do run east/west not north/south, I suppose it does, but we've adopted these names to represent both types of streets and with Beaver/Princes it would represent only half of the east/west included in the tert. So it's technically inaccurate either way and my preference would be to opt for the more graphically pleasing version. That's why I include the below without making it version 15. I don't want to suggest that it's my "new" official version. (Am I breaking a rule here? Sorry.)

If I were to make v15 right now I'd use Beaver and leave them vertical but I figured maybe we could discuss that first.

[iancanton]

the original v14 does have its advantages, as u mentioned. if we run with that one, then it's possible to change church street to broad street, while prince's street becomes beaver street, with the refinement that we move the beaver-king gate from three king street d to three king street a, so that it looks a bit more like beaver street.

ian.

[Minister X]

v15
• Princes Street changed to Beaver Street
• Beaver/King border shifted west from Three King D to Three King A



Despite Ian's suggestion, I did not change Church Street back to Broad Street. My main reason is, as originally stated, to avoid confusion with Broad Way. I also like Church simply because, like Dock Street and Wall Street, these are names that refer to actual landmarks and thus lend a certain air of verisimilitude to the map. And while Broad Way is indeed wider than other streets, Broad/Church is not (at least as currently mapped) and so would appear to be erroneously named. That said, Church Street no longer exists as mapped here (it's farther north now and runs north-south) while Broad Street does still exist in pretty much the same place. So I'd be happy either way.

[300spartans]

I gotta game up on this map. Looking forward to someone joining against me and I will test it out a little bit. Please someone join up with me and check my awaiting games.

[t4mcr53s2]

thanks Minister X ;
Iam canton is i think helping to revive foundry and beta site ;
dai not read the whole thread and only early in the 2 cames but 1v 1 and 3 player 2 things strike us so fatr ; tkae with a grain of salt;
only commenting so 1 dont forget later
1v1 and 3 player starting with 15 not 14 or 16 is big first player advantage and with the ease of tking the yard turn one it might bo nice to start with one being neutral (though not a killer neutral; possibly a neutral 2 or 3
it feels like the yard and 5 broadway will be like australia and south america in classic ..
Interesting map and Bravo

[Minister X]

FIELD REPORT FROM THE FRONT LINES

A bunch of beta games are underway and some have concluded. Based on comments made inside games and such I can report that at this early stage the following issues seem worthy of attention:

1) The Fort and The Yards. Too much of a focus? Too little? A neutral needed in there? Different rule for the Fort??

2) Blocks of buildings (bonus regions, continents) rarely have internal connections; one must get into the street first just to "hit" your next door neighbor. "Restrictiveness" is the adjective that's been employed. This was of course an intentional part of the original design, but was "offered" by me at the time because everyone involved in map design seemed to be craving the unusual. Maybe it's too unusual. Feel free to cut more doorways.

3) Bombardment. I checked all extant games. The two batteries rarely get taken. I don't know if anyone has bombarded anyone else. Perhaps not. It seems something ought to be done if this pattern continues so please keep your eye on it if you're beta testing. I don't think The Fort and the two Batteries should be able to bombard everywhere, but maybe a four-tert range for The Fort and a three-tert range for the Batteries??

4) The Harbor and the anchor terts. If no one ever uses the sea route we can get rid of it. Let's see if it ever gets used.

[300spartans]

I tried it out. It plays a lot like Salem map. I didn't run into any problems and I played it on the trench setting. Was hopping the bombardment would be important or play a role but I just avoided those altogether.

[Minister X]

I didn't realize it until just now because I haven't played trench in years.

THIS SETTING DESTROYS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS MAP

I'm not saying it shouldn't be used. It may even be the best possible setting for good gameplay. But the blurb in the upper left and the whole "idea" of this map is that streets are extremely dangerous but must be used. Using the trench rule makes them a minor nuisance. Perhaps this can overcome (if desired) with some minor rule changes.

But watching Beta games, playing in one, and simply rethinking this map, I'd like to offer for your consideration a radical redesign of this map. Four major changes:
1) Terts within "buildings" (bonus regions) now interconnect. All (but two internal terts) have one street exit but some could be given two.
2) Streets have been divided into three bonus regions. (Bonus values are just initial guesses and shouldn't be taken seriously.)
3) HMS Victory.
4) Streets degrade by one per turn. Between that and HMS Victory, they are still "dangerous".

Clearly this would radically change the nature of the game. I offer it for consideration should the original design prove to be not so good. This revision increases the strategic value of the anchors and the batteries and fort.

I altered the map in a sloppy manner simply to illustrate the alternative. If the alternative is adopted it will have to be redone with much more care.

I apologize to those to whom I said I'd be minimally involved in this process. I guess I'm addicted.