Slitherine

Wanted to try out a balanced map in a Sandstorm!

Updated to v1.0!

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

It's a small map, 60CP of Land units on either side with a well mined no-mans-land to fight over...

Ta!

and yes, this is where it got the name from...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bjzuSO27fA

I was in the process of creating a desert scenario myself craving a bit of multiplaying.
So I got greedy and grabbed both

You may possibly some time want to work a bit on the scenario title.
Looks like a Roy Orbison contest.

Hm, a quick look and this looks like this may a fine candidate for a tournament scenario...

Edit: is there a sandstorm moving across my screen in the deployment phase?

Hah, the full name displays on my machine? Not sure why it's not showing on yours!

And yeah, this did morph into a close to mirror match for tournament play..

Victory Locations and Victory Points are too similar terms that can cause confusion in brains too much used to associations. I would recomend to replace Victory Locations with Primary Objectives. PO vs VP is better than VL vs VP

And yeah, as the name implies, it's sandstorm from the start on this one

Generous allotment of mines. I already regret my Axis unit composition

uran21 wrote:Victory Locations and Victory Points are too similar terms that can cause confusion in brains too much used to associations. I would recomend to replace Victory Locations with Primary Objectives. PO vs VP is better than VL vs VP

Makes sense!

Erik2 wrote:Generous allotment of mines. I already regret my Axis unit composition

There is a warning in the briefing, but I should probably make more of it

FWIW, it's randomised too, so I'm hitting plenty of them as well!

And it looks like we've gone for somewhat opposite force compositions! I think you'll do better in the long run though as I think that the income for all sides is too low right now

I run hotseat mode. If any side grabs 5 objectives it gets victory and the other side gets defeat. So this is fine.

In other test I did nothing, just clicking end turn. British got Major Defeat and Germans got victory. 42 vs 40 Victory points for Germans.

uran21 wrote:I run hotseat mode. If any side grabs 5 objectives it gets victory and the other side gets defeat. So this is fine.

In other test I did nothing, just clicking end turn. British got Major Defeat and Germans got victory. 42 vs 40 Victory points for Germans.

That's interesting... I wonder if it's adding those extra 2 points in that phantom turn "at scenario end"? Not quite sure how to defend against that? Any ideas?

edit: Maybe add a "Check Turn < 21" as well as "Check Turn > 0" in the trigger tests?

The turn by turn VP's are added in a turn start trigger that checks who's turn it is, and then awards points depending on how many primary VP's are held. Then there's a "scenario end" set of triggers that checks who has the most VP and awards victory or draw.

Shards wrote: edit: Maybe add a "Check Turn < 21" as well as "Check Turn > 0" in the trigger tests?.

Yep, that did it. FYI, The Phantom "End of Scenario" Turn will still trigger Turn Start events for the first player.

Shards wrote:The Phantom "End of Scenario" Turn will still trigger Turn Start events for the first player.

Sometimes it is usefull.



Ger Win on VP and UK Win on VP triggers under End of Game Victory folder have swaped names. No functionality issue but usefull if you need to return to it later.

Regarding wording conventions I've taken a look at The Fork. Flaged locations are refered as VPs and points as Control Points. Since in here points are not earned only by territory control it is not a suitable name. Maybe just Points. But it is good to follow already established conventions in official MP scenarios especially if this one ends in some future tournament.

Award Turn Start VP trigger...

...theoretically what if one or both flags stay neutral and in the same time flag belonging to one of the factions at start switched sides. No one gets instant victory and faction with only one flag does not get its point. But less likely to happen in real life.

Thanks! And yeah, I can see that edge case now

Updated a few things, and made v0.2

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zc46pzhdxf8fa ... 2.zip?dl=0

We should carry on with our game Erik, as I'm interested to see how the Income in v0.1 compares to the increased income in v0.2

Uran, want to pick these up if I create a couple?

Ta

I think you need to say in loud words that engineer units must be purchased.
Or you could add an aux eng unit at the start of each road.

Something that bothers me and I mentioned in beta: The escarpment is very difficult to spot. So a player will probably make a lots of wrong deployments whenever a scenario has a lot of escarpments.
In real life these would be sort of landmarks. I think the edges need to be more dark or something. They stand out in the editor, but that does not help me in the game

I've had a couple of crashes while playing this scenario.

Erik2 wrote:I think you need to say in loud words that engineer units must be purchased.
Or you could add an aux eng unit at the start of each road.

There are other solution to mines than engineers but since mines in while flag objectives are not randomized they could be visible at start to both sides. This is better warning than any briefing.

I added that reveal in 0.2