Re: Standards - MA Game (sign-up)
 

You're missing the point.

R'yleh's main troops get chewed up by the archers. There's nothing that comes out of their onland or offland citadels that carries a shield, or has really high protection, besides the meteroite guard, but it's better to just try to get a foot hold on land and build some heavy infantry. And even high protection, unless it's ridiculous Ulm levels, doesn't really protect you as well as having a shield and medium level armor.

Also, on this map, there's far fewer water territories to expand into then a given land nation has if you divide the number of land provinces / # of land players. Additionally, the land provinces are almost always in all directions, meaning you can expand in a concentric circle. On this map, the water nation has to basically expand in a straight line, which is awful because you have to do a lot of troop-time wasting back tracking.

Jazzepi

Re: Standards - MA Game (sign-up)
 

Not true, the little green Hybrid Troopers have a shield. And they're only 5 resources with 13 HP and two attacks. I avoided them for a long time, but that second attack makes them quite effective even against heavier troops - throw around some Body Ethereal or Luck buffing, and you've got a line that can shrug off a whole lot of arrows. ;)

Re: Standards - MA Game (sign-up)
 

Protection 5? :(

I don't think that makes them effective arrow catchers.

My point was that R'yleh lacks a really good means of "hey look at me, I'm your front line of shielded troops, we catch arrows".

Jazzepi

Re: Standards - MA Game (sign-up)
 

< shrug > Doesn't a 4 defense shield protect them from something like 60% of arrows anyways? If you are having purple Starspawns, or Starchildren buffing them, they'll be plenty survivable to most ranged troops, not to mention what they do to infantry.

Believe me, I was skeptical of their usefulness as well, until I decided to build a ton of them to replace my Meteorite Guards I had lost, and couldn't readily replenish. They're quite nice units. Not elite, just quite nice. ;)

Re: Standards - MA Game (sign-up)
 

I might have to try that out, then ;)

Jazzepi

Re: Standards - MA Game (sign-up)
 

When do we start?

Re: Standards - MA Game (sign-up)
 

AoE / All

I've been running a few test games on the map provided, and some of the start locations seem a bit un-balanced to me.

Good start locations include-

Land (120) - 5xMountains 1xWaste = Will have insanely good capital resources.
Land (128) - 3xNormal 2xMountains 1xForest 1xFarmland = Good all round, as 7 is a lot of bordering provinces for a start location.
Land (171) - 5xMountains = Will have insanely good capital resources.
Land (31) - 2xFarmland 2xNormal 2xMountain 1xSwamp 1xWaste = Good all round, and 8 is a crazy number of bordering provinces for a start location.
Land (148) - 3xFarmland 3xNormal = Should mean a huge amount on income very quickly.
Land (64) - 4xNormal 4xMountain = Good all round, and 8 is a crazy number of bordering provinces for a start location.
Land (100) - 5xNormal 1xFarmland 1xForest = Good all round, as 7 is a lot of bordering provinces for a start location.


Bad start locations-

Land (103) - 2xWater 1xFarmland 1xSwamp 1xNormal = Will have awful capital resources, and 3 bordering provinces is bare minimum for start location.
Land (72) - 2xNormal 1xFarmland 1xWater = Will have bad capital resources, and 3 bordering provinces is bare minimum for start location.
Land (45) - 3xNormal 2xWater = Will have bad capital resources, and 3 bordering provinces is bare minimum for start location.
Land (18) - 2xForest 1xSwamp 1xWater = Will have poor capital resources, and very poor income. Plus 3 bordering provinces is bare minimum for start location, and made worse by one being a swamp.
Land (176) - 2xMountain 1xFarmland = Any land start location that only has 3 bordering provinces is mostly always bad.


I'm not against Good or Bad starting locations in principal, but I think it will be too unbalancing if one nation starts in a really great location, while another nation starts in a really bad one. (18) and (103) being particularly bad in my opinion. These are also just a few examples which I seen, there way well be more of both.

Not sure if this is all just part of the map, and WaD, or if the fixed start locations aren't working or something (I have no experience with map making/editing).

What do others think? If this is a problem then best get it sorted before the game starts rather than having to go through several re-starts trying to make everyone happy.

Re: Standards - MA Game (sign-up)
 

Whoa. 8 connected provinces? :9 That's a bit much.

Jazzepi

Re: Standards - MA Game (sign-up)
 

Having tested a few games with the map, I agree with Calahan (no, he's not pointing a .44 at my head and forcing me to write this).

Some of the starting locations I received seemed really advantageous, while some were below average and presented some strategic difficulties at the same time.

I don't mind random maps, but fixed (at least on some level) starting locations are a must on them when playing MP.


PS. Looking at the start I just created, fixed locations would fix the possibility of crowded corners of the map etc. In this start, there's like 7 nations out of 12 packed in the southwest quarter of the map, and I have 3 nations' capitals 3 provinces away from my capital :)

Re: Standards - MA Game (sign-up)
 

The good news is that you all have the wrong map. I apparently have to delete the map I originally made in order to put up a file with the same name. The new map I made is indeed 216 provinces. I've yet to see if it carries the same good start / bad start location problem. Something easily fixed by adjusting start locations on llamabeasts version I assume. Thank you Calahan for double checking the map. The bad news is that the water provinces didn't come out exactly as I had hoped.

Try downloading the new map.

Also, I don't see a problem with you being Pythium chris. Now off to work, which I'm late for.