Re: 1v1: Promontory Summit [10.3.14] BETA

by **jonofperu** on Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:14 am

I'm playing this map for the first time and trying to figure out the endgame strategy.
It seems like more of a race to the round limit than a race to the gold spikes.

by **Donelladan** on Fri Jun 26, 2015 6:15 am

Personally, I kind of hate this map.
If you have better dice than your opponent, then you have strong chances to get objective first, hold it and win.
If somehow dice are normal for both side - then yes you gotta wait for a round limit. And it's boring.

Now imagine if you forgot to put a round limit on it...

by **jonofperu** on Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:30 am

Exactly. And you can get to the objective first with better dice, but all your opponent has to do is bomb you off the bridge.
So it's extremely unlikely that one player will get far enough ahead to hold the bridge AND the spikes... therefore it goes to round limit.

And if you get behind in the dice fight against neutrals you can only hope your opponent takes the extra spike neutrals and gives you an opportunity to use attacker advantage to even things up attacking him...
If you desperately try to sieze the objectives before the round limit since you're behind in troops, he will just bomb/attack you and unless he gets really bad dice, attacker advantage + troop advantage hands him the win.

by **ManBungalow** on Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:13 pm

Admittedly a very linear map, but nevertheless there's some strategy to be had, just a different kind of strategy to what we're used to! If you're looking for classic gameplay, I can give you a list of all the maps with classic gameplay.

Otherwise just remember to put a round limit on your games; even random map games!

by **jonofperu** on Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:31 pm

I've now finished several games on this map.
It has a simple, basic strategy. Once you figure it out, there isn't really much to do.
If there's no round limit, it's broken.
If there IS a round limit and you get good dice against the neutrals and end up ahead of your opponent, then you just wait for the round limit...
No sense in taking the objective and letting your opponent have attacker advantage. It's too easy to break the objective.

So this map has a great concept - straight up 1v1.
But its all about who gets better dice against neutrals.
There are a few details to pay attention to, but I think the gameplay is deficient.
Maybe not broken, but sub-par.

by **jonofperu** on Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:16 pm

These are some great observations / suggestions to improve it! (I don't agree with all)

josko.ri wrote:If you have 2 options (take objectives or attack opponent's zone) it is much more playable than if you have only one option (take objective).

T21b wrote:Suggestions for improvements:
1. two bridges each side, identical neutrals north and south
2. the 4 spikes should all have +2s
3. a 5th (central) spike should have a +4
4. no bombardment of bridges from the start zone, maybe from the 4th +1 neutral along the line, or so
5. bridges reset to neutral start of each round (ideally set to a neutral value = to the round number! else to 10)

A final suggestion (but might undo the intent of the author:
6. if someone holds all the spikes (whether 4 or 5) but has not the victory condition yet, allow to attack further into the opponents line (this gives another way to win - elimination of opponent troops - or at least an alternative strategy.

TheCrown wrote:1. Those middle spikes (gold & silver) should also have a +1 or something to help the enemy to engage. Many games people just sit at the end of their line and just wait for the other person to take the gold spike in front of them. That means that the first player to take those middle 8 neutrals out get punished and nothing for their efforts.

I don't actually agree with giving complete access to the opponent's zone, but I think you need something more than the objective to spice things up.
1. There needs to be a bonus or autodeploy on the spikes so there is a reason to take them before your opponent.
Without this, if you get ahead against the neutrals, the best strategy is to sit and wait for round limit.
2. Perhaps more bridges or other ways to affect your opponent - maybe you can control the indians and sabotage... I like the limited access to each other's sides, but I think the bridge idea can be expanded.

by **degaston** on Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:59 pm

The mapmaker won't even fix the "Morman" typo. I wouldn't count on any gameplay changes at this point. Then there's the problem of the foundry being broken.

by **Fuchsia tude** on Mon Sep 21, 2015 5:53 pm

What if spikes could bombard starting positions? That would resolve the permanent bridge bombing stalemate, right?

by **Im stupid** on Mon Jun 20, 2016 12:14 pm

I came here cause I'm trying to figure out how to win at this map. I don't think that will happen anytime soon based on what I've been reading. The settings my game has are trench zombie no round limit and fog. basically zombie mode makes this and endless game without a round limit if I have to hold all the sections of my line. just providing feedback.

by **riskllama** on Mon Jun 20, 2016 12:43 pm

Im stupid wrote:I came here cause I'm trying to figure out how to win at this map. I don't think that will happen anytime soon based on what I've been reading. The settings my game has are trench zombie no round limit and fog. basically zombie mode makes this and endless game without a round limit if I have to hold all the sections of my line. just providing feedback.

yeah, horrid settings for that map. try sunny, chained, flat rate/no spoils next time. maybe a round limit, if u prefer. have fun!

by **Im stupid** on Mon Jun 20, 2016 1:08 pm

thanks ^^
technically its not my game actually.
It was a game someone else created that I joined without knowing the map was broken.
personally I think the map would be better if you just had to hold all 4 spikes like the center thing in the oasis map.
It makes a lot more sense, and the map would be playable on all settings.

by **Dukasaur** on Sun Jul 03, 2016 9:20 am

Yeah, with round limits it tends to become a stacking game.

Three ideas:

Try to play it with a really long round limit to force people to go for the objective.
Play no round limit and escalating spoils to force people to go for the objective.
Play with nuclear spoils to try to discourage stacking. The trouble is that sometimes this backfires and people will just stack on a "safe" tert, Still, it sometimes works.

by **cairnswk** on Fri Jul 15, 2016 6:58 am

Mormon fixed! And Ogallala too!
Somebody please test images over xml and upload if fine.

Version 17.

There is also a new xml with the Ogallala name change in it.

by **cairnswk** on Fri Jul 15, 2016 7:35 am

TX AG 90 wrote:
Is Ogalulla a typo or a historical spelling? I could find no historical record spelling it that way. It should be with an "o" instead of a "u"

Also, Ogalalla peak is in Colorado. The town in Nebraska referenced by the map is Ogallala.

Thanks,

TX AG 90

The town was named Ogallala, and I have fixed this on the map.
There is other references I have seen to spelling it as Ogullula, but I have also seen Ogallala in historical documents from 1863.
So decision made...it is now Ogallala

by **iancanton** on Mon Aug 08, 2016 2:54 pm

cairnswk wrote:it is now Ogallala

well, would u believe it? having tested the xml and made sure that both the small and large maps, plus the xml, all consistently say ogalalla, i asked bigWham to update the live map, which he has done.

now, looking again at the thread, is it supposed to be ogallala rather than ogalalla?

not only that, but is humbolt bridge correctly humboldt bridge?

no need for an immediate file update at this stage, in case anything else crops up.

ian.

by **Dukasaur** on Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:43 am

iancanton wrote:
cairnswk wrote:it is now Ogallala

well, would u believe it? having tested the xml and made sure that both the small and large maps, plus the xml, all consistently say ogalalla, i asked bigWham to update the live map, which he has done.

now, looking again at the thread, is it supposed to be ogallala rather than ogalalla?

not only that, but is humbolt bridge correctly humboldt bridge?

no need for an immediate file update at this stage, in case anything else crops up.

ian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_ ... map-01.png

by **Fuchsia tude** on Sun Dec 11, 2016 10:56 am

Can you bold or increase the line-weight of the "+2" "+1" "& all stations in-between" box's text? The combination of thin black and white glow combines to make the text nearly invisible, gray on midtone.

by **Butters1919** on Mon Dec 12, 2016 8:20 pm

Fuchsia tude wrote:Can you bold or increase the line-weight of the "+2" "+1" "& all stations in-between" box's text? The combination of thin black and white glow combines to make the text nearly invisible, gray on midtone.

Lol. This map has been in beta for well over a year, if not two. Something tells me that this is not what they were waiting for in order to quench. That said, I'm sure your feedback is valid. I'm laughing at the deplorable state of the foundry.

by **Fuchsia tude** on Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:08 pm

Butters1919 wrote:
Fuchsia tude wrote:Can you bold or increase the line-weight of the "+2" "+1" "& all stations in-between" box's text? The combination of thin black and white glow combines to make the text nearly invisible, gray on midtone.

Lol. This map has been in beta for well over a year, if not two. Something tells me that this is not what they were waiting for in order to quench. That said, I'm sure your feedback is valid. I'm laughing at the deplorable state of the foundry.

Well, sure. A while ago I suggested maybe allowing the spikes to attack or bombard the starting locations to prevent the deadlock situation. Jonofperu's idea of controlling local tribes ala Fall of Rome would be interesting too.

by **Gilligan** on Sun Jan 29, 2017 1:54 pm

Butters1919 wrote:
Fuchsia tude wrote:Can you bold or increase the line-weight of the "+2" "+1" "& all stations in-between" box's text? The combination of thin black and white glow combines to make the text nearly invisible, gray on midtone.

Lol. This map has been in beta for well over a year, if not two. Something tells me that this is not what they were waiting for in order to quench. That said, I'm sure your feedback is valid. I'm laughing at the deplorable state of the foundry.

going on three lol

by **blacky365** on Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:31 am

BetaMarch comments...

1. I enjoy the simplicity of this map, not too difficult to read and allows for some limited strategy
2. Negative point is that it is too easy for players to wait for time limit, there should be more impetus on attempting to win.

I would suggest possibly having bigger bonuses on the bridge and spikes

by **Butters1919** on Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:10 pm

BetaMarch comments:

Quench or delete. It's been in beta for 3 years and the map maker is gone. You're either happy with it (quench) or not (delete). Having this map still in beta is pointless.

by **Kevi** on Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:26 am

betamarch comments

1. - I do like it - I don't mind killing neutrals and there is strategy involved.

2. - With a 20 round limit and adjacent forts this only goes to the round limit.

by **molespe** on Sat Mar 04, 2017 2:17 am

I must say I have some simpathy for this map. With adequate settings it may lead to very interesting games.
Games tend to be minimalist but there is a strategy involved. It is not just a matter of luck as my statistics prove with a 74% ratio of win.
It is slightly unbalanced but there are different strategies for both sides of the map. Being first tend to be quite irrelevant, something that cannot be said from many other maps in 1 v 1 play, including the classical map.

Unfortunately, only 1 v 1 is possible with this map and with unadequate settings, games can be a bit boring (just waiting for the round limit) but this also typically happens in all maps with round limit, multiple player and without escalating settings. Some players seem to appreciate boring games so this map will also be interesting for this type of players with appropriate settings.

by **Dukasaur** on Sun Mar 05, 2017 10:07 pm

BetaMarch Post

The think I like best about this map is the look and feel of it. I used to play a lot of the original version of Sid Meier's Railway Tycoon, and this map just recaptures that feel very nicely. I don't know if that's what cairns was trying to accomplish, but he did it. Knowingly or unknowingly, he has done an outstanding job of capturing the graphical look and feel of Railway Tycoon without actually stealing anything.

The thing I dislike most about this map is the tendency to deadlock. Now that we have the capability to lock out certain settings, we should lock out "no round limit". There's no quick fix to the deadlock problem that I can see. Round limits are the way to go. Most people know this, but it's so easy to accidentally forget the round limit, so I think it should just be locked in.

Finally, I agree with Butters:

Butters1919 wrote:BetaMarch comments:

Quench or delete. It's been in beta for 3 years and the map maker is gone. You're either happy with it (quench) or not (delete). Having this map still in beta is pointless.

Let's quench this thing. I realize it still has imperfections, but so do other maps on the site. It's basically play-balanced, it looks good, and it has a lot of people who enjoy it.