DAG maps again

[deeter]

I'm still wondering if map selection for DAG games is working as advertised. I'm still starting on the same map edge of repeat maps regardless of who issued the challenge etc. I now seem some of these maps many times.

I'm even more mystified by the initiative deal. I'm in a game where both sides asked for very dense terrain and got open. In another, my opponent selected very close, won initiative and we ended up with open (which I wanted.)

Finally and less important, the map color sometimes seems to have no bearing on the armies involved. And why do some maps seem to come up so often when there are so many to chose from?

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

I feel maps worked reasonably well in ROR, but after SOA, as others have pointed out, its gotten a little wonky.

I think Iain described how it is supposed to work but I am a little unclear of the resolution.

If there are 5 map densities rated 1-5 I would think it should work as follows:
If A wins the initiative and chose 5, and his opponent B chose 1, i would think there should be may a 20 % chance to still get 5, may a 30% to get 4 and if not will certainly get 3

These %'s would increase toward the 5 end if player B chose 2 or 3
ie the map density should alway be weighted toward the one that one initiave, although still with the chance of getting a less dense map....
I believe I am an opponent in one of Deeters examples, outnumbered I chose most dense map and won the initiate but apparently I got the the Gobi desert map

[Xiggy]

I just wonder if the have reversed a > < combo. I have seen some unexpected results on maps.

[deeter]

Yes, that would be you. I guess that makes sense but what about always starting on the same map edge? Also, where do the maps reside? Couldn't find them on my hard drive, maybe they are on the server? I wanted to look at them to see what I've been missing.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

The always getting the same map edge is a bizzare phenomenon.....

One thing i notice is when players post screenshots of 800-1000 pt battles there appears to be some really cool maps out there that I have never seen, I usually play 500-600 pts

[batesmotel]

I think the largest size maps kick in from 700 points up.

Chris

[SRW1962]

Just started a new DAG game both picked very open terrain and got a map with a line of trees, marsh, water and rough extending two thirds the way across the map along roughly the centreline, and the same again extending one third way along the deployment zone from the other flank. Now, am I crazy or is that really what very open terrain is supposed to look like.

These maps are insane! They must have picked them all from the AA Book of Insane Maps, or from the Collins Book of Battlefields Not to Fight Over.

[TheGrayMouser]

So I took a challenge for my ist 800 point game all excited to have some new maps and what did we get? The map where the center is dominated by a huge rugged hill with no less than 3 concentric rings of trenches wrapping around it! It would have been perfect for a WW1 or WW2 Eastern front game

Actually , it would be a good map if there were diffenent DAG deplyment zones, dedicated attacker /defender set ups and the ability to have different ap sized armies
Example on this particular map would be "defend the hill fortress" defender get a smaller army and his deployment zone would be the center of the map, attacker would get 3 or 4 deploy zones at the map edges... This imho would be an interesting game,,,,

[IainMcNeil]

It probably needs a bit of investigation. Moving to tech support.

[batesmotel]

Is there any easy way to see the maps outside of the game just to get an idea of what maps there are for the different terrains classifications?

Chris

[deeter]

I couldn't find any DAG maps anywhere inside the FoG folder on my computer.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

Yeah they are probobly tucked into the exe.

[Morbio]

Suggestion:

Once the initiative has been given, why not allow the person with initiative select the battlefield? The person with initiative could be presented with a set of thumbnail pictures (say 5-8cm wide) to chose from. The battlefields presented could be a subset of the total based on the preferences selected by both players. This would be much more realistic

[deeter]

And closer to the way the TT rules work.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

Does the TT also feature a slow deployment phase where players alternatetly feed in elements one at a time?

Im not saying that I dont enjoy how it works now, but sometimes it feels a little gamey when "the shroud" lifts when you start and there is the enemy army , and neither player is set up in a remotely functional way.

Not sure if an alternate way of setting up would be worth the hassle in terms of how long it might take before play actually begins..

I like the idea of choosing ones own maps!

[deeter]

For the TT, each side prepares an order of march (each BG is numbered from 1 to whatever) and this is broken down into equal four groups. The loser of the initiative roll places his first group, then the winner, etc. until everyone is deployed. Leaders are placed next (remember they are not BGs on the TT). Finally ambush markers are deployed and then camps.

Some players like to place skirms first and killer units last. Phalanx players often put down their pikes first since it's going to be obvious where they're going. Cav usually go down late in reaction to the other side's depolyment. Lot's of games are decided during deployment because the armies are less nimble than on the PC.

Deeter

[Geordietaf]

I find the initiative system on the PC version totally counter-intuitive. The player with the initiative goes second -which means that if there is some important terrain halfway between the armies, the player who doesn't have the initiative gets there first. It would seem that the player who has gained the initiative is considered to have out-scouted his opponent and yet he has no idea about his adversary's set up until he has completed his own deployment. While I understand that the alternate deployment of the TT version isn't practicable on the PC surely there should be some tangible benefit for winning the initiative - at the very least the side with the initiative should move first.

[76mm]

I find the initiative system on the PC version totally counter-intuitive. The player with the initiative goes second -which means that if there is some important terrain halfway between the armies, the player who doesn't have the initiative gets there first. It would seem that the player who has gained the initiative is considered to have out-scouted his opponent and yet he has no idea about his adversary's set up until he has completed his own deployment. While I understand that the alternate deployment of the TT version isn't practicable on the PC surely there should be some tangible benefit for winning the initiative - at the very least the side with the initiative should move first.

Yeah, this is a head-scratcher for me as well. Not to mention the fact that I still have no idea what maps count as "open" "mixed", etc., because what I get doesn't seem to correspond very closely to what I request, even if I win initiative, but its hard to tell, since I don't know what qualifies as an "open" map for instance. I think being able to select the map be excellent and realistic. Opposing armies didn't usually just show up on some random patch of ground and say "gee, I guess we'll fight here...", one side or the other generally chose the battlefield (although maybe leave x% of maps as random, unplanned meeting engagements just to keep things interesting...).

[Morbio]

(although maybe leave x% of maps as random, unplanned meeting engagements just to keep things interesting...).

I believe, from the short blurb written with the scenario, that Cynoscephalae was one of those random encounters. Neither side chose the battlefield, they just stumbled on each other in fog, and I know the Macedonians wouldn't have chose to fight there as it's not very good for pikes.

I do agree with you though, most battlefields were chosen by at least one commander, and probably most of those were 'accepted' by the other.

[mschund]

I am okay about the current map system as long as when I play a English HYW scenario I get a mountain fortress to defend...similar when I play the Slaves or Spanish in RoR...seriously I think a map system should look at the two armies, iniative, and players choice to derive a map...

for example: HYW English should be a northern European Map, if I win initiative it would likely be terrain hilly on my side (instead of rough terrain maybe more options would be nice), and if I lose initiative my choice should "water down" the opponents choice a little...