Lunar War [GP, G, X] files on p.1

[natty dread]

So, as all the feedback seems to be related to "legibility" issues rather than the gameplay dynamics, I assume the gameplay is fine and no further tweaks to the actual gameplay needs to be done?

I'm not begging for a stamp, I just want to know if there's any more gameplay adjustments (territory moving, connection changes, etc) to be done, or can I "fix" them in place and start working on the legibility. After all, that is why gameplay workshop is first, so that one can get the gameplay in place before one starts to develop the visual side.

rant

Frankly, I don't really get how the "clarity" & "legibility" things can be considered part of gameplay. After all, legibility & clarity are really achieved with visual adjustments. The gameplay shop should be used to figure out the gameplay dynamics, and any visual adjustment should be done in the GFX shop.

[porkenbeans]

Yes, that is why I have always maintained that, GP and GFX naturally develop together. They are NOT really a separate thing. The GP idea, or the GFX idea, can be where a map starts. It does NOT matter which one is first. They work hand in hand, when you are talking about development. Every map that I have followed has progressed this way. Most maps have already gone through the majority of their graphic development, before they reach the GFX Workshop. I will say this about the "order" of things, GFX. are always the last thing to be tweaked, but to say that the graphics should come after the GP has been fully developed, is just NOT what happens, in reality.

[yeti_c]

So, as all the feedback seems to be related to "legibility" issues rather than the gameplay dynamics, I assume the gameplay is fine and no further tweaks to the actual gameplay needs to be done?

I'm not begging for a stamp, I just want to know if there's any more gameplay adjustments (territory moving, connection changes, etc) to be done, or can I "fix" them in place and start working on the legibility. After all, that is why gameplay workshop is first, so that one can get the gameplay in place before one starts to develop the visual side.

rant

Frankly, I don't really get how the "clarity" & "legibility" things can be considered part of gameplay. After all, legibility & clarity are really achieved with visual adjustments. The gameplay shop should be used to figure out the gameplay dynamics, and any visual adjustment should be done in the GFX shop.

The problem is though - if you have an illegible map - it becomes a LOT harder to study game play...

I'm seriously proposing to the foundry team that for "simple" continental based maps - that the author creates a flow chart style version of their map - so that you can study that without worrying about the GFX...

In fact - with the GP/GFX forums this could be exactly how map making could be done - create the map as a flow diagram or similar - and then once into the GFX - get someone to work on that - this would be the only way I, for instance, can "map make" as my GFX skills aren't good enough.

C.

[natty dread]

Well you know I've done lots to improve the clarity of gameplay here. Some people (76%) think the map is legible. Apparently others (24%) do not. I guess it's just too hard to imagine the moon surface as impassable ocean and the craters as islands... meh, either way, I will be starting serious graphical work once I know the gameplay is in place.

I'll post a flowchart of the gameplay soon.

[natty dread]

So, the poll has ended.

79% of people can understand the territory connections either easily (34%) or after investing a little work in it (43%).

21% wouldn't be able to play the map...

I'll have to think about this. On one hand, the majority of people seems to feel the map is well legible. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to make a map that people complain about.

This map is really giving me headache at the moment. I wonder if it would be best to put this on vacation and concentrate on other projects until I come up with something cool and innovative that saves this map...?

[Teflon Kris]

Well, now we are getting somewhere. Thanks e_dw, I like it when someone comes up with solutions instead of just spewing mindless insults.

The #2 suggestion is something I have already considered. Like I said, if the connections prove too hard to grasp, I'm willing to make all connections into line-connections, but I'm going to wait until the poll is finished before I do anything to this map.

edit.

Now that I think of it, #1 could maybe be a better solution. Adding all the lines for the seas would probably just clutter the map even more, which would better be avoided.

I concur - it is also worth considering whether 79% of players could cope with Forbidden City and Das Schloss etc.

I'm sure two types of connection can be coped with - just a few minor graphical adjustments

[thenobodies80]

Are you able to understand the territory connections of this map?
Poll ended at 04 May 2010, 23:09

Yes, easily.......10......36%
Yes, with a little work.....12......43%
No, I wouldn't be able to play this map......6.......21%

Total votes: 28

[iancanton]

I just want to know if there's any more gameplay adjustments (territory moving, connection changes, etc) to be done, or can I "fix" them in place and start working on the legibility. After all, that is why gameplay workshop is first, so that one can get the gameplay in place before one starts to develop the visual side.

this map has made superb progress. although i have in mind some changes to neutrals to offset positional advantages enjoyed by some countries such as usa (i'll post the full list after i've worked through them all), i can confirm that i'm happy with virtually all connections and shall not be asking u to make major gameplay changes.

there are still issues related to how the gameplay is explained in the legend. use seas in the legend for everything and not mare because some seas are called oceanus on the map. territories connected by connecting lines reads better as territories joined by dotted lines.

u've used the wrong country abbreviations in two cases: south africa uses ZA (SA is saudi arabia, which is actually a good alternative country) and china uses CN (CH is chile). this is the full official iso list.

http://www.iso.org/iso/english_country_ ... e_elements

ian.

[natty dread]

Thanks Ian, that's good advice. The legend & country abbreviation changes seem reasonable.

By the way, I tried both using line connectors for all territories, and that other suggestion, adding borders around craters with holes towards territories they connect to, and IMO they both looked like crap and only made the map harder to understand. I can post the images of the drafts I made later, but now I gotta run...

[natty dread]

Here's some graphical things I'm trying out.

Click image to enlarge.

I haven't changed the legend or country names yet, but it's next on my list...

[iancanton]

each of the missile bases is well-positioned and all countries have reasonable access. however, the number of neutrals must be 15 to 20, otherwise targetting opponents' rockets will be many players' sole strategy and much of the map will be ignored by such players.

aliacensis needs to be increased to 4 neutrals to make things more difficult for IN2 and RU1. an increase to 3 neutrals for arzachel will prevent EU2 from securing both the albalegnius and purbach mines so easily.

reduce mare serenitatis to 3 neutrals to give some play to RU2. north mare imbrium can be reduced to 4 neutrals to let BR1 have an easier route to anywhere.

i also recommend that each rocket starts with only 3 troops, so that each player in a 2-player or 4-player game must make a decision as to how to distribute his deployment (does he want to take more landing sites or put everything into assaulting a sea?). at the moment, even if someone deploys everything on country 1 rocket, there is enough on country 2 rocket to conquer a country 2 landing site.

other than the above, i can only commend u on the excellent gameplay design!

ian.

[natty dread]

Thanks for that ian. To me all changes seem reasonable...

[isaiah40]

each of the missile bases is well-positioned and all countries have reasonable access. however, the number of neutrals must be 15 to 20, otherwise targetting opponents' rockets will be many players' sole strategy and much of the map will be ignored by such players.

Do you mean 15 - 20 neutrals between landing sites and missile base? Or do you mean 15 - 20 neutrals on the missile base itself? Right now we have 18 neutrals between the landing sites and the missile base. 3 on the landing site, 5 on the sea and 10 on the missile base.

aliacensis needs to be increased to 4 neutrals to make things more difficult for IN2 and RU1. an increase to 3 neutrals for arzachel will prevent EU2 from securing both the albalegnius and purbach mines so easily.

I agree with increasing Aliacensis to a 4 neutral, as for increasing Arzachel to 3, I would have to disagree with you as EU2 needs to go through 16 neutrals to get to either of those mines while everyone else only has to go through 13 neutrals to get to a mine. So really, Mare Nubium needs to be reduced to a 2 from the current 5. Which brings this point up, Mare Crisium also needs to be reduced to a 2 to give BR2 an equal chance at a mine.

reduce mare serenitatis to 3 neutrals to give some play to RU2. north mare imbrium can be reduced to 4 neutrals to let BR1 have an easier route to anywhere.

I can agree on both these points.

i also recommend that each rocket starts with only 3 troops, so that each player in a 2-player or 4-player game must make a decision as to how to distribute his deployment (does he want to take more landing sites or put everything into assaulting a sea?). at the moment, even if someone deploys everything on country 1 rocket, there is enough on country 2 rocket to conquer a country 2 landing site.

This seems fair, I have no objection to reducing them back to start at 3.

other than the above, i can only commend u on the excellent gameplay design!

Thank you Ian!

[natty dread]

Ok well, ian & isaiah, let me know when you reach a consensus regarding the gameplay changes and I'll put them on the map

[iancanton]

each of the missile bases is well-positioned and all countries have reasonable access. however, the number of neutrals must be 15 to 20, otherwise targetting opponents' rockets will be many players' sole strategy and much of the map will be ignored by such players.

Do you mean 15 - 20 neutrals between landing sites and missile base? Or do you mean 15 - 20 neutrals on the missile base itself? Right now we have 18 neutrals between the landing sites and the missile base. 3 on the landing site, 5 on the sea and 10 on the missile base.

i mean 15 to 20 neutrals on each missile base itself. this is because it's currently almost as easy to capture ur opponents' rockets (killing at least 17 neutrals), which is the only way to achieve final victory, as it is to gain the easiest mine bonus (killing 11 to 21 neutrals). there ought to be more of a difference.

I agree with increasing Aliacensis to a 4 neutral, as for increasing Arzachel to 3, I would have to disagree with you as EU2 needs to go through 16 neutrals to get to either of those mines while everyone else only has to go through 13 neutrals to get to a mine.

my argument for arzachel being 3 neutrals is that EU2 can also reach albalegnius via ptolemaeus, which has only 2 neutrals - there is therefore a slight penalty for choosing the 3-neutral route that gives access to both mines, as opposed to the 2-neutral route that leads to only one mine.

So really, Mare Nubium needs to be reduced to a 2 from the current 5. Which brings this point up, Mare Crisium also needs to be reduced to a 2 to give BR2 an equal chance at a mine.

that's a good point. i concur with mare nubium and mare crisium being reduced to 2 neutrals.

ian.

[isaiah40]

i mean 15 to 20 neutrals on each missile base itself. this is because it's currently almost as easy to capture ur opponents' rockets (killing at least 17 neutrals), which is the only way to achieve final victory, as it is to gain the easiest mine bonus (killing 11 to 21 neutrals). there ought to be more of a difference.

Okay, I can go along with that reasoning.

my argument for arzachel being 3 neutrals is that EU2 can also reach albalegnius via ptolemaeus, which has only 2 neutrals - there is therefore a slight penalty for choosing the 3-neutral route that gives access to both mines, as opposed to the 2-neutral route that leads to only one mine.

Well ... I see what you're saying now.

Okay natty, make these changes and we'll go from there!!

[natty dread]

Umm... let's see.. Missile bases: 15-20 neutrals? IMO 15 would be enough...

arzachel -> 3
m nubium & m crisium -> 2
aliacensis -> 4
m serenitatis -> 4
n. m imbrium -> 4
rockets -> 3

Did I get everything?

[isaiah40]

Umm... let's see.. Missile bases: 15-20 neutrals? IMO 15 would be enough...

arzachel -> 3
m nubium & m crisium -> 2
aliacensis -> 4
m serenitatis -> 4
n. m imbrium -> 4
rockets -> 3

Did I get everything?

Looks like it!

[natty dread]

Click image to enlarge.

[isaiah40]

Hmmm ... I just noticed something. I think we need to increase Magnus to a neutral of 3 instead of the 2 Right now RU1 would have a slightly easier time getting to the missile base.

[natty dread]

Hmm, on the other hand, 5 troops on one territory is practically the same as 4 troops on 2 territories... since when you go through 2 territories you have to leave behind 2 troops, when you go through 1 you only need to leave behind 1, so even if we assume RU1 loses 1 less troop it would have the same number of troops against the missile base...

But anyway, I'm cool with either way, I can change it to 3 if it will get us out of gameplay

[iancanton]

mare serenitatis goes to 3 neutrals. u can also reduce the neutrals on mare spumansis, since it doesn't lead anywhere and is probably destined to remain unloved.

increasing magnus to 3, in line with isaiah's suggestion, is good because RU1 has one of the most favourable starts, being close to 2 mines and a missile base.

ian.

[natty dread]

mare serenitatis goes to 3 neutrals. u can also reduce the neutrals on mare spumansis, since it doesn't lead anywhere and is probably destined to remain unloved.

Ah, but you forget the sea bonus. The seas are very valuable if you manage to gather 7-10 of them...

Still, I guess spumans could be set as 4.

Serenitatis to 3 sounds reasonable as well.

increasing magnus to 3, in line with isaiah's suggestion, is good because RU1 has one of the most favourable starts, being close to 2 mines and a missile base.

Since you put it that way, yeah, I agree. I'll do it.

[isaiah40]

mare serenitatis goes to 3 neutrals. u can also reduce the neutrals on mare spumansis, since it doesn't lead anywhere and is probably destined to remain unloved.

I can live with sereitatis going down to 3. How about if we put in a connection between spumansis and crisium? Then we can leave the neutrals at 5, maybe even lower it down to 4.

[natty dread]

Well personally I'm not sure if a connection between crisium & spum would be wise: currently, all seas are connected by either bordering each other, or by a crater or other such thing connecting them together, but there are no seas directly connected by a connecting line. Which is good IMO. I don't know why exactly, but it just seems to make sense to me in some way.

Of course if you really want a connection between them, I could find a crater in that region, and add it between them. Although the space constraints are... well, constraining, there. But it could be managed, probably...