Antarctica [Quenched]

[army of nobunaga]

you could number them in order of degrees and level... so the numbers would be arranged 1 degree through 360 degrees according to position from the center... and then according to how close to the center, closest being level 1..


so b3 would be something like
3L (level 3 furthest away from center)03 degrees so
3L03

I think tert names like that would rock with the theme.

[ender516]

If you are going to go that route, I would suggest lat-long coordinates, but I think it is really a little more complicated than it needs to be.

[army of nobunaga]

i thought about the long lat, but the numbers get too large, well I guess you could do with 2 digit minutes.. that would make each tert 4 digit with a character in the middle...

but people dont klnow that system. I think all of us nerds that play CC know degrees of a circle. It would look cool I think. anyway, I have to go do stuff today. gl

[ender516]

Well, the degrees of the circle equate to the longitude (give or take 180 degrees and the E/W designation), and the prime meridian (0 degrees) seems to be at the top of the map, so it isn't very different from your suggestion. The latitude measures from 0 degrees at the equator to 90 degrees south at the pole, so that is analogous to your levels, but counting the other way.

[army of nobunaga]

I understand how it works man ñD not sure if everyone would though.

I dont even venture into the potty without a gps machine and a compass.

But either Idea would be cool and novel in myopinion.

[Evil DIMwit]

You know, now that I think about it, the victory condition seems superfluous. To hold all the bases you have to dominate this map to a pretty extreme degree, no?

[ljex]

Not sure if anyone else has this problem but this map is really bright and hurts my eyes to look at.

[natty dread]

You know, now that I think about it, the victory condition seems superfluous. To hold all the bases you have to dominate this map to a pretty extreme degree, no?

A valid concern which will no doubt be addressed, soon.

Not sure if anyone else has this problem but this map is really bright and hurts my eyes to look at.

Since you're the only one who is having problems with this, I suspect your monitor settings. But either way the map is not in gfx yet...

[ljex]

You know, now that I think about it, the victory condition seems superfluous. To hold all the bases you have to dominate this map to a pretty extreme degree, no?

A valid concern which will no doubt be addressed, soon.

Not sure if anyone else has this problem but this map is really bright and hurts my eyes to look at.

Since you're the only one who is having problems with this, I suspect your monitor settings. But either way the map is not in gfx yet...

It could be my monitor though i don't have problems with anything else...

[natty dread]

Isaiah seems currently unavailable to continue GP development, so I would like this to be moved to vacation for now.

[Evil DIMwit]

Isaiah seems currently unavailable to continue GP development, so I would like this to be moved to vacation for now.

Done.

[natty dread]

New year, new graphics... somewhat new gameplay.

Click image to enlarge.

graphics changes: well, everything.

gameplay changes: streamlined lots. Got rid of the decay thing - interesting as an idea, but I think it wouldn't have functioned too well in practice. Also got rid of safe zones and airstrips. Bonus values will need to be reworked, of course... we still have the basic dynamics intact: start from the central sectors, attack southpole via the bases, take sectors from southpole.


- forgot from the legend: sectors get +3 autodeploy.. will add in the next version.
- also forgot labels for the islands...

[natty dread]

hey mods ... hello?

[Evil DIMwit]

There, moved.

A little sad to see the decay go, but mechanically it is probably for the better, particularly considering how very open this map is.

[natty dread]

Thanks evil.

Something me & Isaiah have been discussing is the victory condition. I haven't yet included it in the map image since we haven't really come up with a good solution, so if anyone has any ideas please put them forward...

Previously we had the objective to hold all bases, but as was mentioned it was probably too hard as an objective... we've also considered options like "hold 12 bases" or "hold 8 bases and 2 sectors" but are they still too hard...?

[carlpgoodrich]

Quick question. I imagine everyone starts with one sector, do all the "regular" territories start as neutral, or do they get divided up? I usually like conquest style maps, but I am not a fan of how close the starting positions are (assuming your answer is the former), and I am very worried about inequalities in the starting positions. For example, sector E is 2 territs away from a base, while sector B's closest base (the same base) is 4 territs away.

[natty dread]

Everything else starts neutral according to current plan. We are planning to offset the inequalities in base distances by neutral values.

[carlpgoodrich]

Everything else starts neutral according to current plan. We are planning to offset the inequalities in base distances by neutral values.

Won't you then have the trouble of making it easier/harder to get card, which depending on the game type can be a big advantage/disadvantage?

[natty dread]

Not if we only adjust the neutrals on the bases themselves...

[isaiah40]

Quick question. I imagine everyone starts with one sector, do all the "regular" territories start as neutral, or do they get divided up? I usually like conquest style maps, but I am not a fan of how close the starting positions are (assuming your answer is the former), and I am very worried about inequalities in the starting positions. For example, sector E is 2 territs away from a base, while sector B's closest base (the same base) is 4 territs away.

In talking with natty and confirming what we had discussed earlier, the bases are territories on their own. So in your example Sector E is 4 territories from the closest base and Sector B is 6 away. But you are right about the inequalities. Natty and I are discussing this and we will come up with a way here in the next few days.

[Victor Sullivan]

Nice to see this back in action! I do miss the auto-decays, but I suppose it's for the best. I suggest against having the sectors play a part at all in the victory condition, especially considering the bases attack the South Pole which attacks the sectors. With 15 bases, I think 8 is your best bet.

-Sully

[natty dread]

Ok, we have an idea that will help balance the map, but it will probably change the gameplay drastically... stay tuned for update.

[isaiah40]

Okay while natty works on the next draft here is what we have decided:

1) Make the bases as starting points thereby you'll start with at least 2 territories
2) Reduced the Sectors from 8 to 4 with a decay (actual you would freeze to death) of 2 or 3 (not too sure on the number, but I'm thinking 2 is just right)
3) Bases can only be attacked from the South Pole and,
4) If you lose your bases, you are eliminated Our losing condition.

So stayed tuned for natty's draft!

[natty dread]

Here is the update. Forgot to add in the losing condition (always something...) but you can pretend it's there (it will be like "you must hold at least one base to stay in the game")

Click image to enlarge.

[Victor Sullivan]

The N,W, E, S labelings are a little flawed, no? They all point North, technically...

So I assume there is no win condition, just losing conditions? You should prolly include that on the map...

I am not convinced your bonus values are quite right, but I will look into them further at another time.