Multiplayer - Sandstorm At The Oasis

[uran21]

You used... Arabic script to name locations Well that was something new.

[Shards]

You used... Arabic script to name locations Well that was something new.

If we're going to fight in Libya, it seemed right to use the local script

[Shards]

Do you want to restart our battle using 0.5?
I would not mind getting a chance at proper purchasing

uran got the new challenges I set up, I'll make 2 new ones with Erik as the password for you

Ta

[Shards]

I have 5 games of this on the go now... going to get confusing

[Shards]

Thanks to the guys who are testing this!

I'm generally happy with the RP and CP now, but I think that the Victory points have got just too confusing now.

My thought is to remove the bonus for holding 4 Primary points at once and also to change the central Supply Depots into VP awarding locations. So the players are fighting over the broad front with 4 VP awarding locations. And I'll change the other Primary Objective to be to take any of your opponents initial bases (So still rewarding a quick strike and stopping people from only committing to one side of the battlefield).

I'll keep the rear supply depots as a reward for players to raid into the flanks.

What do you think?

[Shards]

After 15 turns of bashing and clashing, Uran and I managed to actually get a Draw in one of our 0.5 games (I resigned the other as he'd battered me!)

For tournaments, I'm thinking that a instant victory should award 60 VP to the winner (equivalent of 4 VP per turn, which is impossible, but the highest theoretical VP/Turn) so that we can just use VP total across two paired games to determine the winner?

Also, I have a version 0.7 where I've removed the 2 Bonus VP for holding 4 points (it was incongruous and double rewarded the leader) and moved the outer VP onto the ridges above the where the supply depots are now. This should move the action more into the centre whilst keeping the flanks as a stretch goal/outflank potential. The battle lines ended up rather straight in 0.5

[Shards]

Updated to v0.7

edit: Left a huge bug in 0.7, updated to 0.8!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/98bbo6rvnpuv1 ... 8.zip?dl=0

[Erik2]

You should create variants of these with different factions and terrain/climate.
Just reuse the victory system.
5-6 scenarios and you've got a tournament

[Shards]

See my latest post

And Two Bridges is already very much in this same vein!

[Shards]

The 6.1.8 unit balance changes have had a positive impact on this map I think.

Harder for both sides to take such a raft of tanks, and the british portee's are now actually useful...

[Shards]

Updated to v0.9

Uran kindly pointed out some misplaced resources points!
Also tidied up some of the language in the briefings and objectives
Added a road going up the hill to points Alfa and Delta

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pcearfm4h9ynp ... 9.zip?dl=0

Ta

[uran21]

The frontline dynamic is better than in our previous game. RP is so sufficient that I have a feeling war of attrition will not kick in. This influences purchase options, there is no need for strict cost-effective units which is good. The only thing that is lacking is an uneven number of objectives that award VP. For 2/3rd of the game, we play a draw or near it and this is no good for tournament type scenario. There are some scenario specific tactics that are evolving in this one which are not obvious on the first playthrough.

I may say I liked the first concept better with VP awarded for kills but too bad Disband option kind of ruined it.

[Shards]

In our current games, we're both being somewhat cagey as I think this is our sixth game in a row which has helped with us saving cash!

In general, I think this is close to a v1.0 for this version. It does what I set out for, just lacking the kills aspect that just isn't possible yet.

[Shards]

Did you get your maths wrong on the stalemate game we just finished? I was expecting an onslaught as I was generally ahead in VP, but I'm guessing that we were tied in VP on your turn (which was unfortunate as you were the first player)?

Very much enjoyed squeaking out the victory in the other game with that HQ capture! Especially as your dogged VP defence left me with no other hope for victory

[uran21]

Definitely, a miscalculation in the second game because of points being the same on my plate for a long time and then suddenly a difference at the end. I wonder could this be more straightforward with what you see is what you get results.

[Shards]

That is exactly how it is. The VP you see is the VP as they are at that moment. But VP are awarded at the turn start for each player (so I get my VP as player 2 at the start of my turn, not yours, otherwise it's unfair as player 2 would have control over things as they would get the chance to take VP back, where Player 1 wouldn't).

[uran21]

But Player 1 has the advantage of an opening move so when Player 2 has a chance to counter it all sits in its place. If I am not mistaken Fork is made that way.

[Shards]

This way is the method I use in all my scenarios (e.g. 2 Bridges). I prefer this route as it means that both players can push each other off points to deny them VP.

[Shards]

Small update to a new download location:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8zn3hz81u07h6 ... 0.zip?dl=0