New map selection process

[pantherboy]

Does anyone like the new map selection process? Personally I feel that this will push games to the extremes of maps. I posted this concern before and I'm wondering if any of the beta players feel this isn't an issue. I just tested out setting up games versus the AI and when presented with four maps I found I could select a very open one to a fairly terrain heavy one. Also I could select something that would be ideal to defend or occupy thus creating a stalemate.

[Blathergut]

I feel it's better than what was, anyway. At least if two people are playing a match and agree on fairly open, they should end up with it. If you are doing a random challenge battle, and you lose initiative, you can still end up with anything. The wish still remains that the majority of maps be simpler, but that might just be me. But having the choice is better, since you can pick the best of the worst. Some randomness is nice though...I wouldn't want the same map each time. But in the beta I found I was still given a choice of maps I probably wouldn't pick if running Romans or pikes or whatever...but there was usually one that was better than the rest. At least, if you have initiative, you have a choice and can pick according to some tactical plan...where the opponent has no option, just here you go, deploy.

[pantherboy]

For me I feel that the winner of initiative may select the map but then it passes to the defender who opts on what side they wish then deploys. The initiative winner then deploys and takes the first move. Otherwise the loser selects the map and then the winner chooses a side and deploys. The loser then deploys and the turn passes to the initiative winner who takes the first move.

[davouthojo]

Having played several games in Beta, I share some of Steve's concerns, particularly for competitive games.

Initially the side you started from was random, which I preferred. This is what i posted in the Beta forum, but did not get much discussion.

=================================================================================

I'm not sure the change to showing your map side is a good idea.

Some maps hugely favour one side - not because crowded vs open, but because you start at the top of a huge hill for example.

If you can see your side, many more of these maps are going to be chosen. And they are no fun to play against - when you open up your game and are on the sh****y side, you get a sinking feeling.

As it is currently implemented, you pick one of those maps at your peril, because you could end up on the sticky side of it.

I think the random element will help us play on balanced maps - yes, the type of terrain will favour the initiative winner, but they won't be helped by the inbalance of placement of features. More like TT.

As I see it now, the terrain feature in LT:

Problems solved
1) Some maps classified as “Very Open” look like the Himalayas. Since you get 4 to pick from, you are guaranteed at least one will be OK if you win initiative
2) It is now worth winning the initiative, since you can choose a more exact match – e.g. do you want forests, hills or scrub/lakes in your crowded map? Initiative loser still goes first, so if you pick a map with a big hill in the middle, you know the other side will get there first, and can take this into account in map selection.

Problems remaining
1) Map balance.
a) There will be more "unplayable" games, where the initiative winner has terrain that suits their army so well, the loser will just camp, ask for a draw or go home.
b) This will be made worse if the side selection change is made as suggested

2) Variety
100 maps might sound like a lot, but a regular player will have used all 4 that come up before. Variety should be a huge advantage for the PC game - new maps are free! My suggestion is that Slitherine should open-source this – players create additional maps using the scenario builder, upload to Slitherine, quality control from Slitherine or player votes, then added to next patch.

[stockwellpete]

The jury is still out for me with this new terrain selection process, but I did feel it was quite a good idea when I first read about it. I do actually find it a bit difficult to work out what is exactly on the four maps that we can choose from at the start, but I suppose it will take a bit of time to recognise the various terrain features. One definite problem is this though - I was just trying out the system against the AI and I selected two War of the Roses armies but then ended up with a battle on arid terrain!

I agree with davouthojo that we need more battlefields. I have submitted forty empty maps in the last few weeks (20 of 30x20 and 20 of 40x30) and will be submitting more in due course. Perhaps if a few more of us did this (the other size to send to Keith is 50x30) then it would help the developers expand the range of maps a bit more quickly. It doesn't take long to write a map - 10 minutes or so.

[Morbio]

The jury is still out for me with this new terrain selection process, but I did feel it was quite a good idea when I first read about it. I do actually find it a bit difficult to work out what is exactly on the four maps that we can choose from at the start, but I suppose it will take a bit of time to recognise the various terrain features. One definite problem is this though - I was just trying out the system against the AI and I selected two War of the Roses armies but then ended up with a battle on arid terrain!

I agree with davouthojo that we need more battlefields. I have submitted forty empty maps in the last few weeks (20 of 30x20 and 20 of 40x30) and will be submitting more in due course. Perhaps if a few more of us did this (the other size to send to Keith is 50x30) then it would help the developers expand the range of maps a bit more quickly. It doesn't take long to write a map - 10 minutes or so.

I know I'd love to design a few battlefields, so if this was an option then I'd be up for it. I'm yet to try the new map selection process so it'll be interesting given the comments so far!

[batesmotel]

I am reasonably happy with the map selection process in the games where I've used it so far. It does seem to reduce the problem where both armies wanted to fight in very open and you end up fighting to cross the Alps instead.

I believe Keith posted at some point that they would be happy to consider player submitted maps.

Chris

[ianiow]

The only problem I see with the new map choosing process would be in ultra competitive games, especially if armies are of very different troop composition. A map choosing MF player will be tempted to go for a map with lots of terrain if facing a pike army. The downside of choosing a 'dense jungle' map is that the pike player might refuse to fight him! When I choose a map, I will always take into account the chance that my opponent will refuse to fight me. I will choose a map that gives my opponent at least a bit of incentive to 'have a go' at me.

That said, Im sure there will be quite a few "lets call this a draw" games before people start getting the message, and choosing a more 'moderate' map to fight on.

PB's idea of letting one player choose the map and the other the deployment edge seems reasonable, but still doesnt stop the choosing of a totally MF or HF friendly battlefield.

Personally, I liked the original idea of playing the map you are given. (I would also like to play an army totally chosen by the computer as an option, but thats another story!). Im happy to give this new choose-a-map thing a go however

[Archie]

Have not selected any maps yet, but I do like the idea.

Perhaps in the future you may have a choice of a randon button, or better still even Alternative Vote system...
woops...

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, I think the issue migt not be that the winner of the initiative gets to select the map and knows what side he gets (although way too early to tell) but the rather subjective classification of the maps thems selves i mean what is the definition of open vs very open for petes sake? The ratio of "open hexes" or large dominating features? No one knows, not even the map creators:).....

I think a better aproach would be to have maps classified according to a more descriptive reasoning ie: agricultural, steppes, primeval forrest etc etc.. Also maybe an "open with dominating terrian feature" to simulate an army that likes to fight on open flat ground but would like to anchor a flank againt a forrest or river or something like that.
Clearly though, alot more maps are needed. I am likly going to stop playing 40-650 ap sized battles(which i think is an ideal size) simply because i am getting bored of the same maps over and over , often times getting the same one 3 out of 6 games!

I would be happy if every single map submitted by players were just slipped into the program regardless if they are playtested or not for balance , especially since so many of the originals certainly wernt:)

[deeter]

The new system is an improvement, but the choice of set up side should be given to the loser of initiative. Some day, hopefully, we'll be given the tools to create proper maps like on the TT.

Deeter

[stockwellpete]

A lot of interesting points, TGM. Some of the maps we get are extremely odd, to say the least. When I design an empty map I don't really think too much about "balance" in the sense that each army has some defensive terrain that they can use, or an open flank that they can use to attack - I just concentrate on making a landscape in the way that you describe e.g. moorland, open plain, agricultural, marshy etc. The only thing I don't do, in fact, is to put a whacking great hill at one end of the map.

A lot of the maps in the game do have terrain features, but they are very much peripheral to the great big open space in the middle, so they are not very interesting to use. Perhaps we only need 3 categories of map - crowded, mixed, open - and there should be a range of hexes covered by terrain in each category, something like 0-10%, 11-20%, 21-30%?

The other thing that I have suggested, but I don't know if it is possible to do quickly, is to just empty all the historical maps of troops in the game and then use them a second time as DAG maps.

[Morbio]

A lot of interesting points, TGM. Some of the maps we get are extremely odd, to say the least. When I design an empty map I don't really think too much about "balance" in the sense that each army has some defensive terrain that they can use, or an open flank that they can use to attack - I just concentrate on making a landscape in the way that you describe e.g. moorland, open plain, agricultural, marshy etc. The only thing I don't do, in fact, is to put a whacking great hill at one end of the map.

A lot of the maps in the game do have terrain features, but they are very much peripheral to the great big open space in the middle, so they are not very interesting to use. Perhaps we only need 3 categories of map - crowded, mixed, open - and there should be a range of hexes covered by terrain in each category, something like 0-10%, 11-20%, 21-30%?

The other thing that I have suggested, but I don't know if it is possible to do quickly, is to just empty all the historical maps of troops in the game and then use them a second time as DAG maps.

Balance is only needed if you want to have a competitive game whereby neither side is favoured. I'm sure most historical battlefields were broadly neutral simply because if they were too one-sided then many opposing generals would have refused to fight. I think the only times when non-neutral battlefileds occurred were mostly from ambush, e.g. Romans in Teutoberg Forest, by accident, e.g. Cynocephalae, or where a side is determined to attack through invasion, e.g. Romans at Medway.

If you want historical accuracy then sometimes a whacking great hill is appropriate, e.g. Hastings, so if you want a random game map that might be refflective of some historical battles, then a hill at one end is required.

I suspect that for Ancient times, maybe through to Medieval, then most battlefields will be wide open spaces with terrain at the periphery because many armies needed the open terrain to fight effectively. I think battles in forests and towns is only a relatively modern (2-300 years) event.

[TheGrayMouser]

I agree that the concept of balance is quite subjective. i am not suggesting maps should give either player equal odds by any means (likly would be impossible unless maps are made with mirror image terrain , which is kinda silly)

What I mean is some maps are bisected/trisected by such game favourable terrain (ie "steep hills) etc that if you guess wrong where your opponent deploys you (or they) are hosed. IMHO it is the blind deployment which renders many maps that other wise would be quite natural and realistic to fight on, completely biased or just plain unenjoyable for either player.

[deeter]

Once again, the TT mechanics can show the way. Armies there are broken into four grounds which players alternate placing on the table (starting with the looser of initiative.) Don't know how that could be replicated on the PC, but some indication of starting position would be helpful.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

Once again, the TT mechanics can show the way. Armies there are broken into four grounds which players alternate placing on the table (starting with the looser of initiative.) Don't know how that could be replicated on the PC, but some indication of starting position would be helpful.

Deeter

I have long been advocating this, as an option not a requirement, when one issues challenges.
The problem is the powers that be consider this too 'complicated' for the masses, many players too have also posted that they dont want to pass turns back and forth before the action starts.. (which shouldnt matter since it should be optional, like fow and double moves)

[deeter]

How about, the initiative loser sets up his people first. These are all shown on the map, but with their identities obscured. Then the winner sets up. At that point the identities are revealed and the loser take his first move.

Deeter

[stockwellpete]

Balance is only needed if you want to have a competitive game whereby neither side is favoured. I'm sure most historical battlefields were broadly neutral simply because if they were too one-sided then many opposing generals would have refused to fight. I think the only times when non-neutral battlefileds occurred were mostly from ambush, e.g. Romans in Teutoberg Forest, by accident, e.g. Cynocephalae, or where a side is determined to attack through invasion, e.g. Romans at Medway.

I agree up to a point, but sometimes the historical context meant that one side accepted battle even when disadvantaged by the terrain. I am thinking of battles like Hastings and Bosworth Field here, even though in those two battles the army with the more difficult deployment eventually triumphed. Other times, one army would assume a defensive position and await the assault e.g. Aljubarrota.

If you want historical accuracy then sometimes a whacking great hill is appropriate, e.g. Hastings, so if you want a random game map that might be refflective of some historical battles, then a hill at one end is required.

Yes, of course. But I was specifically about creating empty maps for DAG battles.

I suspect that for Ancient times, maybe through to Medieval, then most battlefields will be wide open spaces with terrain at the periphery because many armies needed the open terrain to fight effectively. I think battles in forests and towns is only a relatively modern (2-300 years) event.

I wouldn't go that far more, Morbio. Most of the scenarios that I have created have quite a bit of terrain in them - all of them have undulation of some kind, some woods and some scrub, maybe a stream or a marsh. Most of them are north European battles so this sort of terrain would be commonplace.

[blastpop]

Maybe there should be a chance that the winner doesn't get the map he wants- basically if he wins the initiative roll by a lot he has a better chance than if he misses it by a little?

If he doesn't get his choice either the other player maybe gets a choice or maybe a randomly chosen map is used?

Just thinking...