England Map [Quenched]

[lespaulstudio]

The North seems easy to defend, with the south nigh impossible. Just my opinion though.

[edbeard]

re-post image for new page


1. apologies for not reading everything but here's a viewpoint from someone just looking at the image

2. the region (note the CC-ified name change) bonus thing isn't explained well enough

a. "No Region Bonus" is a bad idea as seen in the Poker Club map because you always get +1.
b. The rest of it is just confusing. If I think it's confusing in nature then it's going to be a problem for a lot of people.

7 regions in same [area] +2, 10 regions +4, 13 regions +6, etc..

3. I'm not really fond on the gameplay on this map. I really hate having to do starting positions to make the gameplay "work". I think for this reason and because holding bonus regions is very very very difficult on this map, a new approach to gameplay should be taken.

a. take a page from the Brazil map and go back to your lined off areas. instead of having them be totally random, however, perhaps use major roads and highways as the inspiration for which regions allow "travel" from one "Area" to another.
b. why not just start both Northeast regions as neutral? you have 41 regions other than those. why not add one more territory and then you start with 42.

[thenobodies80]

I'm satisfied that I've done all I can do to make 1v1s as balanced as possible, without adversely affecting other gametypes. If it transpires that there is an overwhelming disadvantage once the map is in play, I think we'll have to revisit it then.

I'm with Benn about this.
I think that the current gameplay is the best balanced he could do for a 1vs1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My best concern is about the legend. I like the road sign, it's nice!
Anyway it's not so immediately understable.
The main problem is about the use of terms on CC.
On the legend it's clear that territories are the counties.
But the "region" word make confusion...(nothing that can't be solved taking 3 minutes to think )
It's not immediately clear if regions indicate the 9 regions in England or the 3 main zones (north/midlands/south)

The "no other territory bonus" line is unnecessary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On the whole, i think that is very difficult to hold a region bonus, due to the lack of some impassables. Anyway i think that it's difficult to create some impassables with a bit of logic in this map, so i think adding them is a forcing.
So the game could be played on the north/mid/south bonuses instead of the region bonuses, in my opinion this thing could help to prevent a real flat game based on the usual choice "take a region, fortify it and then take another one till you win".
I'm of the opinion that we can try to set this map in hundred ways to make the game more balanced, but probably we can't have a perfect balanced map for 2/3..8 players in the same time. This current result is good and the percentage of an unfair drop are low.
And then, who don't like to complain about a loss for an unfair drop, or boast about an impossible victory?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, a stupid graphic nitpick
Some lines on waters are a bit pixellated.

It's a nice map Benn, Well done!

thenobodies80

[gimil]

For hte sake of lingo regions should be changed to zone.

The CC lingo classes territories as regions and continent bonuses as zones.

I would say it is better so try and stick with CC lingo for the sake of being standardised and universal but it isn't really a big issue.

[MrBenn]

1. apologies for not reading everything but here's a viewpoint from someone just looking at the image
2. the region (note the CC-ified name change) bonus thing isn't explained well enough
a. "No Region Bonus" is a bad idea as seen in the Poker Club map because you always get +1.
b. The rest of it is just confusing. If I think it's confusing in nature then it's going to be a problem for a lot of people.
7 regions in same [area] +2, 10 regions +4, 13 regions +6, etc..
3. I'm not really fond on the gameplay on this map. I really hate having to do starting positions to make the gameplay "work". I think for this reason and because holding bonus regions is very very very difficult on this map, a new approach to gameplay should be taken.
a. take a page from the Brazil map and go back to your lined off areas. instead of having them be totally random, however, perhaps use major roads and highways as the inspiration for which regions allow "travel" from one "Area" to another.
b. why not just start both Northeast regions as neutral? you have 41 regions other than those. why not add one more territory and then you start with 42.

1. No worries... thanks for dropping by
2. Good point. What I wanted to say is that the standard territory bonus (1 army per 3 terrs) doesn't apply, and that the only 'territory' bonus will be the standard +3. That said, I might drop it, as it overcomplicates things in any case.
2a. I think the issue in Poker, is that the bonus values on the map appear to be out by 1, because of the terr bonus thing...
2b. You're right that 7 counties in the same area = +2; 10 counties +4; 13 counties +6.... I thought the wording I had made sense?
3. The starting positions are only in use to ensure as balanced a drop as possible for 2p and 3p games. I'm indifferent about them, in the same way I'm actually indifferent about 2p and 3p games in any case Holding bonus regions will be difficult; but the build-your-own bonuses have been designed to complement them.
3a. There didn;t seem to be any support for the draft you're referring to, and I personally prefer thew way things have evolved
3b. Adding an extra territory is easier said than done... It would be a bit like suggesting to add another state to one of the USA maps

[MrBenn]

Does this clear up the legend issues?

[TaCktiX]

The map looks gorgeous, it seems that the only thing truly holding it up is the confusion that the bonus legend is causing. So here's my fix:

- Torch the cross symbols. You don't need them.
- Change "Area bonuses" to "Region bonuses" to mesh with CC official rules and terminology. Add a short little blurb that it's total territories owned or something like that.
- Separate the continent (zone) bonuses from the separate region bonuses. A simple white line between the two a la highway signs (I assume they're similar in England to what they are in the US) should be easy.
- Put two different headings: the aforementioned Region bonuses, and the Zone bonuses up top. You'll likely need to increase the size of the sign for the extra verbiage, but it'll be easier to understand.

On a tangent, was there any discussion about Isle of Wight's attack route? I realize it's really dang close to Hampshire and I assume that's what it borders, and only that territory, but was any other way to "fix it" suggested or worked through?

[saaimen]

- Change "Area bonuses" to "Region bonuses" to mesh with CC official rules and terminology. Add a short little blurb that it's total territories owned or something like that.

I think you are wrong about CC terminology.
"Territories" don't exist anymore, they're actually called "regions" now. And calling the bonus "region bonus" is not a good idea, as the necessary regions (here: counties) are all supposed to be in the same "area" (North/Midlands/South).

[TaCktiX]

"Territories" don't exist anymore, they're actually called "regions" now. And calling the bonus "region bonus" is not a good idea, as the necessary regions (here: counties) are all supposed to be in the same "area" (North/Midlands/South).

Argh, knew I missed a facet of the gameplay. To accommodate for that, a note that the bonuses only count per area of the map, with the area bonuses still off to the side.

[Danyael]

- Torch the cross symbols. You don't need them.

i have to disagree with that because then people might think they get +2 for holding any 7 place not justs in one area
i'm sure that 90% of players will get it but the other 10% will be the ones commenting in beta "wtf i had 7 places and didn't get my +2 "
but then again with the cross people might still be confused
i'm trying to think of a different way to have it but the way it is makes the most sense to me

[MrBenn]

All I want to do right now is to sort out the gameplay....

The current concerns about the legend are important, as that is the only tool I've got to explain to people what's going on... Each region has a discrete bonus (North East, Thames Valley, South West etc); the map is additionally broken up into three areas (North, Midlands, South), each of which has a build-your-own bonus (BYOB) that is separate from and additional to the discrete bonuses.

While I'd like to see slightly smaller BYOB, I'm convinced that the current setup there represents the most balanced option for all gametypes (even if it does require some manipulation for 2/3p games through starting positions). I still think there's a little bit of wiggle room on some of the individual region bonuses, but that is small change in comparison to making the instructions on the legend clear.

I changed the language from regions to 'area' in the last update, to bring some clarity to the 3 'areas' and to avoid confusion between common CC usage. I think the dagger symbol on the legend aids the insinuation that the Area bonus applies to each of the three areas, without requiring a lengthy sentence. Previously I had a line of text that said something similar to "Any 7 counties in the same region +2, and every 3 thereafter +2"; but amended that to the current "any 7=+2" any "10=+4" etc. Personally I preferred the descriptive text rather than the list of numbers, but all I want to do now is to get this map stamped.

[iancanton]

I would predict that player one would often have a huge advantage from the following scenario:

Dropping 2 x +2 bonuses in the Midlands and the South in 1 v 1
With 14 territories to be handed-out, the chances of player one getting 1 of the 6 available in the Midlands and 2 of the 5 in the South are high (although difficult to calculate).

In this scenario, player one would most likely be able to deploy his 7 troops strategically and prevent player two getting either the two or one bonuses (s)he may have dropped. Certainly, player one is most likely to retain a bonus advantage going into, and beyond, round 2.

i agree with this analysis for 1v1. our map fails the normal criteria for a gameplay stamp because of this. one way i can see of making the build-ur-own bonuses work is to restrict them to a bonus for every 5 counties within a bonus zone (for example east midlands), which is not close to the original vision.

a new approach to gameplay should be taken.

we could stamp the map with a big health warning at the top of the map which says not recommended for 2-player games. i think this isn't within the current gameplay principles, where each map is supposed to be for all numbers of players, especially as, for average-sized maps, 2-player games are the most popular by far, for example the recently-quenched oceania has 449 2-player games and 139 4-player games. an additional complication is the new random map feature, where it's not possible to avoid this map unless we tag it so that it's incapable of being chosen randomly.

however, if there's some way of making clear in the game finder (without looking at the map thread) that this map isn't designed for 1v1 games, then that is a different story.

ian.

[MrBenn]

Any suggestions?

[Echospree]

I really don't like the area-bonuses at all, actually. I'd rather see them scrapped. What was the purpose of adding them in the first place, again?

[MrBenn]

I really don't like the area-bonuses at all, actually. I'd rather see them scrapped. What was the purpose of adding them in the first place, again?

Which ones? The discrete area/region bonuses, or the larger build-your own bonuses?

[iancanton]

mrbenn

i went back to page 13 to try to find a way forward.

receive 2 armies for every 3 counties held in the same region (bonus zone).

this isn't good for fair drops but, if we assume that the drop is fair, lets 8 players have a decent chance of holding a bonus of some sort.

what if we use bonuses like the gang bonuses in supermax: prison riot, but with a build-ur-own twist? let each bonus zone have a capital (roughly equivalent to a gang leader), giving 9 capital counties, perhaps shown by a dagger, crown or some other symbol. the capitals (for example middlesex, warwickshire and lancashire among others) obviously have to start neutral to give fair drops, but nothing else needs to be neutral and no start positions are needed.

if u hold at least one capital, then receive 2 armies for every 3 counties held in the same region (either bonus zone or north, midlands or south - what works better?).

the wording can then be amended to fit on the road sign.

ian.

[Echospree]

I really don't like the area-bonuses at all, actually. I'd rather see them scrapped. What was the purpose of adding them in the first place, again?

Which ones? The discrete area/region bonuses, or the larger build-your own bonuses?

The build-your-own-bonus one, the one labelled "area bonus". It hurts 2 and 3 player play too much, I think.

Though the most recent suggestion of having a neutral capital nicely gets around this problem, I think.

[Teflon Kris]

Alternative Suggestion for 1 v 1

We have the capitals idea and going back to an old build-your-bonus system above. The suggestion below may provide another option. It involves a seperate set of coding for 1 v 1 (whilst maintaining the current bonus system and the set of coding already stated for 3-player):

'Build Your Own' System

1 v 1 Games
Would it be possible to have the blue territories (in the 3-player) coded as neutral in 1 v 1? If enough of the blue Midlands and South territories were coded as neutral for 1 v 1 this would eliminate bonus drops (they could be coded as neutrals with 2 troops instead of 3 to encourage players to 'build their own? If this is possible and acceptable, I would suggest all blues in the Midlands coded as neutrals and three of those in the South.

Alternatively, and along similar lines - if, just for 1 v 1, there were no coded starts but one neutral in each of the 9 regions then the chances of player 1 dropping a +2 for 7 bonus would be 11.22% in the Midlands. If an extra neutral were in the Midlands, as opposed to the South (i.e. 4 overall - 2 in one of the regions), then this probability would drop to 7.15%.

Going back to that post - MrBenn's reply analysed the chances of player 2 having a byo bonus when player 1 drops. Ian pointed out that this isn't great as it still provides too much advantage to player 1 - restricting the chances of player 1 dropping a byo bonus is the ideal.

[brian fletcher]

i like this map. i mean, i really like this map!!!

being from englands green and pleasant land i can see that a large percentage of my future games will be spent on here, and while i am eagerly awaiting it coming into play, i do appreciate there are lots of niggly things that need to be ironed out first.

now i dont play 1v1s so dont particularly care about the aspect of the game in that perspective, but, obviously there are people who do play those games. so what about, and i dont know if it can be done..... bearing in mind i havent a clue how the games are made, or coded, but could it be set up in 1v1 that in the 1st go there is no attacking allowed, just deploying troops and reinforcing? now i realise that player 1 will still have an advantage, that is obvious. but at least it will give player 2 a chance to place his troops in a position to defend or attack on his 2nd turn. whether you would still have to make blue a neutral is something for you to work out. another option, again depends if it can be worked and coded. but what about player one cannot attack? can only deploy and reinforce? so attacking doesnt start until player 2 takes his/her turn.

[MrBenn]

Thanks for the feedback.... I was on the verge of throwing in the towel when I had a revelation....

I'll stick with 3 coded starting positions (with Durham as an underlying neutral), but will reduce the number of territories in each. This has the effect of increasing the number of neutral armies on the map; and decreasing the odds of picking up bonuses on the drop. in 2/3 player games. 4p+ games are left unchanged:

In 4p games, the odds for the Midlands are 5.28% for +2, trace% for +4; In the South the odds are 2.33% for +2, trace% for +4. There is 1.05% chance of getting Yorkshire, and less than 1% for any of the other discrete bonus areas. For >4 player games, the odds are significantly lower, and in 7/8 player games a physical impossibility.

1v1 Games

• With the three starting positions in a 1v1, each player would be given one of the red/green/blue sets of 9 territories. There are 16 territories still in the pot, to which the unused position would be added. This means that there will be 25 territories (24 if Durham reverts to neutral) to be handed out at random. This means that each player will receive 8 additional territories into their hand.
  
  The Midlands
  Each player will have 3 Midlands terrs, with 12 left in the pot. The odds of dropping an additional 4 or more terrs for +2. is now 66.66% (reduced from 95%). The odds of dropping an additional 7 terrs for +4 is now 1.36% (reduced from 4.7%).
  
  The South
  It's a similar picture in the South, with each player having 3, and 10 left in the pot. The odds of dropping an additional 4 or more for +2 is now 43.89% (reduced from 70.6%), and 0.2% of dropping an additional 7 terrs for +4.
  
  Both
  If you drop 4 Midlands terrs for +2, then the 4 remaining terrs you get given must all be in the South. My brain is too tired to work out whether the odds of this occurring are 4.33% or 2.89% (=66.66% x 4.33%); well below the arbitrary 10% threshold.

I'll reiterate what I said earlier; that if one player has a "good" Midlands drop, then the other player is more likely to have a "good" Southern drop. The idea of regional capitals is intriguing, but I'd rather not overcomplicate things any more
Without compromising the direction I've taken thus far, the setup below offers the most balanced start I believe I can achieve for 1v1 games (which will always be biased towards the first player in any case).

[saaimen]

Sounds good to me

[Teflon Kris]

It's definitely the kind of direction I think we need for 1 v 1 - more neutrals reducing the probability of player 1 advantage.

But with a such a high probability of +2 for player 1, England would be on the front cover of Farmer's weekly.

2 Possible Solutions

• Is it not possible to have seperate coding just for 1 v 1 with more neutrals (i.e. coding for 3p and seperate coding for 1 v 1)?
  
  Or,if the 16 unused territories weren't handed-out, each player would start with 9 in 3p and 9+3 in 1 v 1 - 0% chance of dropping anything. This may be unsatifsactory, although the starting value of some of the neutrals could be set to 2 or 1 to encourage rapid building gameplay. That could be interesting.

[MrBenn]

It's definitely the kind of direction I think we need for 1 v 1 - more neutrals reducing the probability of player 1 advantage.

But with a such a high probability of +2 for player 1, England would be on the front cover of Farmer's weekly.

2 Possible Solutions

• Is it not possible to have seperate coding just for 1 v 1 with more neutrals (i.e. coding for 3p and seperate coding for 1 v 1)?
  
  Or,if the 16 unused territories weren't handed-out, each player would start with 9 in 3p and 9+3 in 1 v 1 - 0% chance of dropping anything. This may be unsatifsactory, although the starting value of some of the neutrals could be set to 2 or 1 to encourage rapid building gameplay. That could be interesting.

Unfortunately it isn't possible to code different starts for different game-sizes. The only way to increase the number of neutrals is to code them in (not an option as it would effect all other games too); or to get rid of the coded starts completely.

I recalculated the drop odds without coded starts and in a 1v1 the probabilities of player 1 dropping a bonus are as follows (without any neutrals at all):

boring stats

• The North(7): 0.26%
  The Midlands(7): 33.51%
  The Midlands(10): 0.81%
  The Midlands(13): trace%
  The South(7): 19.20%
  The South(10): 0.20%
  The South(13):trace%
  (Midlands(7) & South(7): 0.05%)
  
  North East: 10.08%
  North West: 0.81%
  Yorkshire: 2.95%
  West Midlands: 0.21%
  East Midlands: 0.01%
  East Anglia: 0.05%
  Thames Valley: 0.81%
  South West: 0.05%
  South East: 0.05%

Interestingly, the chances of dropping the build-your-own-bonuses are lower here than any of the previous options that have used starting positions. Therefore, I intend to scrap the coded starts completely. I'm actually not at all bothered about a 10% chance to drop a +1 bonus (which drops to 5% in four-player games); particularly as in a bizarre twist of statistics, this marginally increases the chances of dropping one of the build-your-own bonuses.

As far as the specific regional bonuses go, I think there is a tiny bit of wiggle room, but am of the opinion that these can be tweaked in Beta

[Teflon Kris]

Now then, now then.

We still have a dangerous situation for 1 v 1. If it was +1 then there wouldn't be so much to worry about (as it would be a bit like maps with a 18/15/12 territory start).

Anyway, if this can be tested in BETA, given that we have innovative gameplay at workm then we need a 'safe' back-up plan ready in case.

I've been thinking and re-thinking and keep coming-up with the conclusion of coding loads of neutral and start positions - and to get low percentages (given that 10% is often suggested) - we are looking at lots of them. Although,if they were 1s and 2s then it would certainly encourage 'self-build' strategies.

My current thinking gives highest probs of 5% so I'll do some more tinkering tomorrow to see what I can come up with that has less coding and is still within general guidelines.

Plus, a fresh mind might enable some other idea to come up. One idea I had was for different zones - The North, The East (E Midlands & East Anglia), The West (West Mid & SW) and South-East (South & Thames)? But then,you would only be able to self-build so far.

[MrBenn]

Now then, now then.

We still have a dangerous situation for 1 v 1. If it was +1 then there wouldn't be so much to worry about (as it would be a bit like maps with a 18/15/12 territory start).

Anyway, if this can be tested in BETA, given that we have innovative gameplay at workm then we need a 'safe' back-up plan ready in case.

I've been thinking and re-thinking and keep coming-up with the conclusion of coding loads of neutral and start positions - and to get low percentages (given that 10% is often suggested) - we are looking at lots of them. Although,if they were 1s and 2s then it would certainly encourage 'self-build' strategies.

My current thinking gives highest probs of 5% so I'll do some more tinkering tomorrow to see what I can come up with that has less coding and is still within general guidelines.

Plus, a fresh mind might enable some other idea to come up. One idea I had was for different zones - The North, The East (E Midlands & East Anglia), The West (West Mid & SW) and South-East (South & Thames)? But then,you would only be able to self-build so far.

I'm looking forward to seeing your suggestion