A discussion about maps . . .

[stockwellpete]

I have started a separate thread for this because we may eventually want to direct the game developers here in future if a new consensus emerges about the sort of maps we would like to see in the game. It is my view that there are far too many maps in the game at the moment that can lead to stalemates or "negative play" if the army match-ups pit HF or Cavalry armies against predominantly MF ones. I think the situation could be easily remedied by either withdrawing the "bad" maps and replacing them with "good" ones or by slightly modifying the "bad" maps so that stalemates are no longer possible on them.

To start the discussion, here are what I regard as five "bad" maps . . .

This is the map from my match with claymore. He won the initiative and chose a map with a big open area for his Swiss pikes to do their work in. I deployed in the left-hand corner because I calculated I could fit all my army in there if I abandoned my camp. We agreed a draw very quickly . . .



This one has similar problems with terrain in opposite corners where a MF army could hide . . .



Ditto, plus it is a damn silly symmetrical map . . .



The last two are virtually identical with all the terrain down one side where a MF army could hide . . .




Depending on the army match-ups all these types of maps could lead to stalemates, in my opinion. In my next post I will include five of my newly designed maps that I hope might be stalemate-proof.

[stockwellpete]

These are all brand new and not in the game as yet but I have designed them specifically to avoid the possibility of stalemate . . .







I would be interested to hear any views about these maps. When HexWar were involved with the game I sent about 100 empty maps to them, many of which are now included in the game. I see no reason why a small group of us could not do something similar in the future.

[batesmotel]

Heaven help the MF army in Pete's world is my initial reaction. For what it's worth so far, I believe all the DAG maps in the FoG beta are new ones and so far I've been pretty happy with them.

Chris

[stockwellpete]

Heaven help the MF army in Pete's world is my initial reaction. For what it's worth so far, I believe all the DAG maps in the FoG beta are new ones and so far I've been pretty happy with them.

Chris

I think you are missing the point, Chris. If a player with a HF or Cavalry army wins the initiative at the moment, it is quite possible that the map with the widest open spaces on it will also have areas where MF armies can hide and cause a stalemate (as in the 5 "bad" maps). So my new maps are designed to address that specific problem. If a player with the MF army wins the initiative then they are not going to choose an "open map", are they? So I don't see how your argument works.

Do you know if some/many/all of the maps we are using now will be transferred to the new version?

[batesmotel]

Heaven help the MF army in Pete's world is my initial reaction. For what it's worth so far, I believe all the DAG maps in the FoG beta are new ones and so far I've been pretty happy with them.

Chris

I think you are missing the point, Chris. If a player with a HF or Cavalry army wins the initiative at the moment, it is quite possible that the map with the widest open spaces on it will also have areas where MF armies can hide and cause a stalemate (as in the 5 "bad" maps). So my new maps are designed to address that specific problem. If a player with the MF army wins the initiative then they are not going to choose an "open map", are they? So I don't see how your argument works.

Do you know if some/many/all of the maps we are using now will be transferred to the new version?

So essentially a good open map for you is one where the MF can't hide and is essentially doomed to be ridden down by mounted or get smashed by HF. If you really thought the MF could come out and have a decent chance fighting in the open, why would you decide to hide your MF in the terrain to start with ????? Doesn't sound like much fun to play to me. I'd rather take a chance on some open maps that allow the possibility of a stalemate than to havethissort of mismatch always turn into essentially an automatic victory for the side that wins the initiative.

Chris

[stockwellpete]

So essentially a good open map for you is one where the MF can't hide and is essentially doomed to be ridden down by mounted or get smashed by HF. If you really thought the MF could come out and have a decent chance fighting in the open, why would you decide to hide your MF in the terrain to start with ????? Doesn't sound like much fun to play to me. I'd rather take a chance on some open maps that allow the possibility of a stalemate than to havethissort of mismatch always turn into essentially an automatic victory for the side that wins the initiative.

Have you not been following the discussions, Chris? A number of players are saying that they do not like "agreed" draws where armies can "hide" in various parts of the map, while other players are now expressing concerns about what they see as increasingly prevalent "negative play". I am just trying to suggest some practical solutions, that's all. And in the light of what people have been saying, I now think that is probably for the best if a player with a predominantly HF or Cavalry army wins the initiative and they have chosen "Very Open" terrain then that is what they should get. The five maps of mine are intended to be "Very Open"; obviously "Open" maps would have more hexes with terrain in them and would be better for MF troops.

I also think that if players knew from the outset of a competition that "Very Open" really did mean very open then that would impact quite considerably on their choice of army. But at the moment we are not always sure what we are going to get with the maps - some "Very Open" maps seem to have lots of terrain in the central areas and wide open spaces on the edges; and some "Very Crowded" maps have most of the terrain hexes round the edges and these can often cause very weird battles.

[Londo]

Hi SP! I agree with you very much about having more open maps available - and I'd be very happy for yours to be added to the mix.

Almost all the armies of major powers throughout the ancient and medieval worlds were based on a core of HF or cavalry/knights. That's what the game should focus on, IMHO, rather than worrying about the odd MF army that doesn't like playing on an open map. Too bad for them. There weren't exactly a host of great, successful MF-based armies in history. (English and Indians are the only ones I can think of, and both have good open field troops anyway: dismounted knights and elephants respectively.)

Most MF armies are boring and one-dimensional - I rarely bother playing them. Seleucids or Late Romans, with all their colourful and varied troop types, are far more interesting to play than any MF army.

I am a little surprised, however, regarding that Swiss vs English game with Claymore on the first map. Why didn't you line up the dismounted knights on the hill - they're quite capable of standing up to pikes with the extra POA for uphill. The LBs would have shot him up on the approach. I wouldn't have even thought about positioning behind the river, myself.

Also, if you'll indulge my curiosity, could you post a screenshot of the map of your infamous game vs Aristides - the map which led to riot, mutiny, and death threats!

[stockwellpete]

Hi SP! I agree with you very much about having more open maps available - and I'd be very happy for yours to be added to the mix.

Almost all the armies of major powers throughout the ancient and medieval worlds were based on a core of HF or cavalry/knights. That's what the game should focus on, IMHO, rather than worrying about the odd MF army that doesn't like playing on an open map. Too bad for them. There weren't exactly a host of great, successful MF-based armies in history. (English and Indians are the only ones I can think of, and both have good open field troops anyway: dismounted knights and elephants respectively.)

Most MF armies are boring and one-dimensional - I rarely bother playing them. Seleucids or Late Romans, with all their colourful and varied troop types, are far more interesting to play than any MF army.

Cheers Paul. I basically agree with what you are saying here about HF versus MF in history. And, in any case, if MF armies win the initiative against HF armies they can still put them in terrain if they want to.

I am a little surprised, however, regarding that Swiss vs English game with Claymore on the first map. Why didn't you line up the dismounted knights on the hill - they're quite capable of standing up to pikes with the extra POA for uphill. The LBs would have shot him up on the approach. I wouldn't have even thought about positioning behind the river, myself.

I did consider it but I was on a bit of a losing streak so I thought behind the river was safer as the hill allowed me to have two ranks of shooters protected by terrain. Standing on the hill would have meant the Swiss could have just attacked one end of my line and then moved across. I thought I would probably lose in those circumstances.

Also, if you'll indulge my curiosity, could you post a screenshot of the map of your infamous game vs Aristides - the map which led to riot, mutiny, and death threats!

Ha-ha! You will have Steve after me again! Here it is. I did not win the initiative and I took m army into the plantation to get away from the Medieval German knights and Swiss pikes that I could see. Unfortunately, I couldn't see his 8x MF spearmen that eventually won the battle for him. I think the map is a bit unusual, but basically it is OK . . .

[stockwellpete]

I also think that if players knew from the outset of a competition that "Very Open" really did mean very open then that would impact quite considerably on their choice of army. But at the moment we are not always sure what we are going to get with the maps - some "Very Open" maps seem to have lots of terrain in the central areas and wide open spaces on the edges; and some "Very Crowded" maps have most of the terrain hexes round the edges and these can often cause very weird battles.

Just to illustrate my point - here are three maps that appear for selection if you win the initiative and have chosen "Very Open" for the terrain you want . . .







EDIT: I do realise that the terrain type choice of the player who loses the initiative does have some impact on which four maps appear in the selection screen but I have never understood exactly how this works. Does anybody know?

[stockwellpete]

This is another interesting thing and you can try it for yourself. I picked a 500pt Swiss army, gave it an "inspired" leader and set up a solo game against another Swiss army. I chose "Very Open" terrain. Now presumably the AI would have picked "Very Open" or "Open" too. Yet this map appeared in the selection of four three times in a row! The only way I can explain it is if the FOG system does not recognise "slopes" as terrain when it is sorting out the maps.

[davouthojo]

From what I remember, this is how the system worked before the selection of 4:

All the maps where ranked by Slitherine. Initially 1 to 100, more after new maps were added.
They made a human judgement about "openness", 1 the least "open", 100 the most "open". Sometimes they got this about right - for example, I agree that the map above with a lake in the middle and sloping hills is open - there is nowhere for MF to hide (I've tried, but the swamp is too small). There are other notorious mistakes where "Open" comes out like the Himalayas.

A random number within a 20% range was generated based on your terrain selection:
Very Crowded 0% to 20%, Very Open 80% to 100%

The number of the initiative winner was weighted 75%; the number of the initiative loser is weighted 25%

The resulting number was matched against the ranked order of maps to determine which exact map to use.

I expect that they just added some additional variation around it to give the 4 maps.

There are problems with their ranking, the system also seems to throw up similar maps frequently, the ones at the extremes of the distribution get very rarely used.

I can see 2 nice solutions once Unity kicks in:
ST - Crowdsource more maps. Add lots in, let the community vote on in/out and level of openness.
LT - a terrain placement pre-game like in the boardgame would be nice. And/or an option to have more than one-dimensional choice - if I have an archer army, I want hills not woods, but all I can pick is "Very Crowded".

Hope this helps.

[Turk1964]

Gday
I believe map selection isnt working how it should be as the map Pete is highlighting is definetly not open.This happens quite often and both players will pick very open and end up with maps strew with rocks and bushes or mountains as is depicted above.The number T30 is supposed to be the map number,it never changes Map selection is a crucial part of the game and we need maps that are "Open" with very little terrain on them that can be selected.Ofcoarse other types of maps should also be included Crowded ,mixed etc.Maps need to be improved and they should be what they are intended to be.

Cheers Turk

[Jonathan4290]

I think regardless of how you classify maps, they just need to be better overall and more intriguing for creating complex tactical dilemmas.

Should hills really be considered when determining open vs crowded though? They don't disrupt so why would a lancer army be concerned about hills compared to a MF army? The only time this affects the battle is when the player who wins the initiative confuses hills for steep hills or vice versa because he can't see the map very well.

[TheGrayMouser]

Pete , have you considered ( especially your example in the very ist map pic you showed) that you don't have to deploy that way? In that map you still had the advantage of hills and a smaller force of archers could have been deployed in the left of the map , instead of you entire army ie you could have tried to draw him in and maybe get an open flank to work.....

Let me ask you this, was that a comp game? If a friendly game (non comp) would you still have deployed that way?

Conversely I believe claymore could have won that battle , although it would have been tedious and lengthy and not without risk....

[TheGrayMouser]

My Opinion on some of these maps:

note Pete's post time stamp 17:06 where the 4 maps are displayed

I think the only BAD maps are the ones that have feature like the very ist two

Seriously why would two armies deploy with some silly rocky crest between them? The battle plan is to race to the top of the hill? Even worse is the infamous Aristedes vs Pete map with giant sinkholes in the middle of the map

Its these kinds of foolish terrain features that turn many battles in travesties. Seriously, why would a huge medium foot army race to get INTO a sinkhole. Oh, because in fog they can still shoot uphill with no real penalties and being in rough terrain advantages out way any real life concern about fight from inside a hole LOL

Get rid of maps that have bizzare dominating terrain in the center-ish areas

Often time with these middle of the map features, you play ring around the rosy as one army literally chases the other one around.. yikes...

Also, how about restricting deployment zones in DAG battles ie no units can deploy within 6-8 hexes from the map edge
Conversely, the deployment depth should be increased a tad and field fortifications and artillery plus an equal # of medium or heavy foot(only) matching the # of field forts can deploy further out

I think small tweeks would go along way....

[TheGrayMouser]

Heaven help the MF army in Pete's world is my initial reaction. For what it's worth so far, I believe all the DAG maps in the FoG beta are new ones and so far I've been pretty happy with them.

Chris

I think you are missing the point, Chris. If a player with a HF or Cavalry army wins the initiative at the moment, it is quite possible that the map with the widest open spaces on it will also have areas where MF armies can hide and cause a stalemate (as in the 5 "bad" maps). So my new maps are designed to address that specific problem. If a player with the MF army wins the initiative then they are not going to choose an "open map", are they? So I don't see how your argument works.

Do you know if some/many/all of the maps we are using now will be transferred to the new version?

What your suggesting appears to be an attempt to control player behavior on how they deploy by removing any possibility that a map can have some small advantage /hope for certain army types. Thus the player that wins the initiative will presumably always get the huge advantage? Initiative (which is mostly luck) will be the deciding factor....

[stockwellpete]

Pete , have you considered ( especially your example in the very ist map pic you showed) that you don't have to deploy that way? In that map you still had the advantage of hills and a smaller force of archers could have been deployed in the left of the map , instead of you entire army ie you could have tried to draw him in and maybe get an open flank to work.....

Well, I don't really like splitting my force like that really, TGM. Plus claymore had about thirty Swiss pike and halberdier units that could have attacked just one end of my line had I deployed on the hill.

Let me ask you this, was that a comp game? If a friendly game (non comp) would you still have deployed that way?

Yes, it was a LOEG game. I probably wouldn't have deployed like that in a friendly - I may have stood on the big open hill just to see how well I could do. I think I would have lost the game doing this but you can learn quite a bit about your specific army by experimenting in friendlies.

[TheGrayMouser]

Pete , have you considered ( especially your example in the very ist map pic you showed) that you don't have to deploy that way? In that map you still had the advantage of hills and a smaller force of archers could have been deployed in the left of the map , instead of you entire army ie you could have tried to draw him in and maybe get an open flank to work.....

Well, I don't really like splitting my force like that really, TGM. Plus claymore had about thirty Swiss pike and halberdier units that could have attacked just one end of my line had I deployed on the hill.

Let me ask you this, was that a comp game? If a friendly game (non comp) would you still have deployed that way?

Yes, it was a LOEG game. I probably wouldn't have deployed like that in a friendly - I may have stood on the big open hill just to see how well I could do. I think I would have lost the game doing this but you can learn quite a bit about your specific army by experimenting in friendlies.

Ah so there is a distinction that LOEG (or any comp) battles are:
more important
deserve different "tactical" considerations
reserve the right to deploy any way you want to ensure a win (or a "play to NOT lose") strategy
"friendly" battles are for 'training purposes only" and thus only a players "real" win loss ratio and their understanding of game tactics and strategies derives out of their record in competitions?

(please don't take this personal, its just highlighting generalities and to some degree tongue in cheek to boot)

This thread on maps is in the LoeG section and thus its purpose must be to somehow attempt to level the playing field in comps/hinder "negative" gameplay etc
The problem pete is behavior, and as you just explained , you cannot control behavior(not even your own you had to deploy in the corner because it was a comp game), just incentivise people to not do certain things
You always have the choice to NOT deploy in a corner, you always have a choice to try and win a battle even in a hopeless situation...

You cant make players do or not do these things (especially as many behavours/maps are highly subjective anyhow) but you can say , for example in the LoeG, that NOONE gets any points for a draw (unless both armies break same turn)
Try to win or accept you get nothing as you didn't risk anything. Period.

[stockwellpete]

Get rid of maps that have bizzare dominating terrain in the center-ish areas

Agreed.

Also, how about restricting deployment zones in DAG battles ie no units can deploy within 6-8 hexes from the map edge
Conversely, the deployment depth should be increased a tad and field fortifications and artillery plus an equal # of medium or heavy foot(only) matching the # of field forts can deploy further out
I think small tweeks would go along way....

Agreed also.

[stockwellpete]

Ah so there is a distinction that LOEG (or any comp) battles are:
more important
deserve different "tactical" considerations
reserve the right to deploy any way you want to ensure a win (or a "play to NOT lose") strategy
"friendly" battles are for 'training purposes only" and thus only a players "real" win loss ratio and their understanding of game tactics and strategies derives out of their record in competitions?

(please don't take this personal, its just highlighting generalities and to some degree tongue in cheek to boot)

Well, I tend to use friendly DAG games as practice for the competitions that I enter, but I mostly play historical scenarios anyway which have much better maps and more realistic army compositions. No, not different tactical considerations in friendlies really - just more preparedness on my part to experiment. That is how I learn (and forget ). I am not too bothered about my rating or win/loss ratio - I devised the LOEG ratings primarily as a way to help tournament organisers create better competitions. Hidde is actually doing them now, not me - I would not be too bothered if they were no longer made public but were just available for tournament organisers in future.

This thread on maps is in the LoeG section and thus its purpose must be to somehow attempt to level the playing field in comps/hinder "negative" gameplay etc
The problem pete is behavior, and as you just explained , you cannot control behavior(not even your own you had to deploy in the corner because it was a comp game), just incentivise people to not do certain things
You always have the choice to NOT deploy in a corner, you always have a choice to try and win a battle even in a hopeless situation...

You cant make players do or not do these things (especially as many behavours/maps are highly subjective anyhow) but you can say , for example in the LoeG, that NOONE gets any points for a draw (unless both armies break same turn)
Try to win or accept you get nothing as you didn't risk anything. Period.

I have initiated the discussion on maps partly because of comments from some players about drawn games and "negative play" in LOEG, but it is also partly because the new version of FOG will be out soon and then we can talk about gameplay changes and FOGv2. My own view is the same as Jonathan4290 above - some of the maps are just very, very poor. Just look at maps 3,4 and 5 in my first post. You cannot tell me that much thought has gone into them. We need many more interesting and nuanced maps and we need to get rid of the dross.