Suggestion for more balanced maps

PC/Mac : Digital version of the popular tabletop gaming system. Fight battles on your desktop in single and mutiplayer!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft, Slitherine Core, NewRoSoft, FoG PC Moderator

Post Reply
Xiggy
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:55 pm

Suggestion for more balanced maps

Post by Xiggy » Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:58 pm

In the current LOEG, I have gotten the same maps multiple times. Every time I play a certain army the same map shows up. A lot of the maps we all know seriously handicap one side or the other.

This suggestion will add 1 round extra as part of the setup, but is doable.

First you will be playing 3 sizes of terrain small, medium and large. They would be kind of like your baggage area but larger. You cant stack them on top of each other. You have 6 total points to play with. small is 1, medium is 2, large is 3 points.

The person who wins the initiative places 6 points worth of terrain anywhere except his opponents deployment area. See above for cost. The person that lost the initiative, can now select which terrain pieces he wants to remove. He has 6 points to play with as well. If he allocates 1 point he has a 2/6 chance to remove a piece of terrain. 2 points 3/6 and 3 points will have 4/6 chance of removing a piece of terrain. He can also add terrain, but he has a chance of failing depending on size. Small costs 1 point and has 3/6 chance of staying, medium 2 points and has a 2/6 chance of staying, large has 1/6 chance of stay and costs 3 points.

This system or one like it adds 1 more round before the game starts, and will give a much more balanced terrain set up. The code for camps is very similar to what is needed for the terrain setup and exists. The time will be to form the terrain sections.

I was hoping for a more balanced terrain set up and this or some variant of it would do this.

Morbio
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
Location: Wokingham, UK

Post by Morbio » Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:42 am

I agree with the sentiment, but not necessarily with the solution... although I don't object to it.

My preference would be for the winner to of initiative to be offered a normally generated map, with an option to decline, then they are offered a 2nd map which they can decline again, then they get a 3rd and final map which they must play. This gives some choice to the winner of initiative similar to how I'd imagine it may be to an ancient commander, a choice whether to fight or wait for a better opportunity, which may or may not come.

Ideally, there'd be a bigger pool of maps to chose from too.

Geordietaf
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 9:19 pm

Post by Geordietaf » Wed Oct 06, 2010 1:14 pm

Sounds good. also can the player who wins the initiative move FIRST please?

Morbio
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
Location: Wokingham, UK

Post by Morbio » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:08 pm

Geordietaf wrote:Sounds good. also can the player who wins the initiative move FIRST please?
I agree! :D

Xiggy
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:55 pm

Post by Xiggy » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:18 pm

The only problem with your solution is that the defending player is stuck based on 1 roll of the dice. That isn't a balanced solution. I want a solution that favors no one.

ianiow
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1129
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Post by ianiow » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:31 pm

Morbio wrote:
Geordietaf wrote:Sounds good. also can the player who wins the initiative move FIRST please?
I agree! :D
I agree too!

Xiggy
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:55 pm

Post by Xiggy » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:33 pm

Another option based on maps would be both sides are presented with 3 maps and they rate them 1 for lowest 3 for most want to play on them. Then you compare the ratings. If both rate one pair the same then you play on it. if all 3 maps are different for both sides then take play on the middle rated one that the side that won the initiative picked.

Example side 1 which won the initiative rates map a as a 3 map b as a 1 and map c as a 2
side 2 rates the maps a is a 1, map b is a 3 and map c as a 2, then map 2 would be where the battle is fought. side 2 rated a as a 1 b as a 2 and mac as a 3, then you would play on map b.

This system is for tournaments or leagues where we play each other 1 time. I am more interested in generals skill determining the outcome of a match.

There are other systems. I hope the dev's think this is an important enough issue to improve the current system.

Epicouros
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:19 pm

Post by Epicouros » Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:52 pm

Maybe the maps of the historical scenarios could be added to the DAG maps. They look more 'natural' anyway and it would add greater variety with little effort. They'd just have to be graded according to size and how open/crowded they are.

Oh and just a pet peeve: impassable terrain (cliffs) should really block LOS and provide FOW, both in historical and DAG battles. As it is now, they have exactly the same effect as a body of water...

Morbio
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
Location: Wokingham, UK

Post by Morbio » Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:00 pm

Xiggy wrote:The only problem with your solution is that the defending player is stuck based on 1 roll of the dice. That isn't a balanced solution. I want a solution that favors no one.
I partly agree....

I agree from the pure challenge perspective where you want the terrain to favour neither side, but if you want a pure test of generalship then the troops need to be the same too. This is great, but doesn't simulate the problems a general may have encountered. I suspect that through history sometimes a battlefield was totally by mutual agreement, but more often it was dictated more by one side than the other - one general being caught napping and then having no choice either because of ambush (e.g. Lake Trasimene) or through the consequences of loss of face (i.e. can't be seen to be weak by running). Of course, sometimes a battlefield is neither general's choice (e.g. Cynocephalae).

So, I'd prefer it the general winning the initiative gets a choice.

Please note: In the choice of the 3 maps presented then these maps would be based on the types of terrain each general prefers (e.g. the current process), so the defending general does have some, even if little, input. I may not have made this clear in my original post.
Last edited by Morbio on Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

deeter
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by deeter » Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:20 pm

Actually, most historians agree that set-piece battles were usually fought by mutual consent and that it was very hard to force a reluctant enemy into combat. So both sides would need to be resonably confidant of victory to offer battle and that means that troop strength, morale and terrain would all be nearly equal, or the inferior army would simply stay in camp or beat feet. Equal points armies ala DAG guarantee the first two but not the third.

The map system as it exists is simply a nightmare. Most maps seem to have nothing to do with actual battlefields of the era and are often so skewed that they make victory by one side (i.e. an MF army in bad terrain) a done deal before any moves are made. We need saner maps for a start and then some way to select them fairly. At the very least, let the player with initiative select the map and let the other select on which side to deploy.

Deeter

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4885
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:28 pm

I think Deeters suggestion is probobly a very good compromise, the player that wins the initiative selects the maps ( maybe a small window opens and displays pics with 30 or so randomly chosen maps that correspond closest to the choice both players made) The player that lost gets to chose the side he deploys on ....

Of course winning the initiate needs to make more sense.. right now the dice roll is the real determining factor on who wins.... I dont care what your modifiers are, more often I lose the initiate when i have an inpired leader and lots of light cavalry when i merely roll a 3 but my opponent rolls a 6

Maybe spread the modifers out a little more? (still would roll a dice as well to keep it interesting)
example :
Inpsired leader gives a +5
every leader beyond the CnC gives an additional (+1 if troop, +2 if field) This would encourage players to consider taking leaders/ better leaders as opposed to more cannon fodder troopies

make the bonus for having cavalry a comparative modifer instead of absolute ie if you have a 4-1 advantage in horses(all types) a +4, 2-1 +2 etc
there likly are ather things to that could be considered

Anyways the point being it woudl certainly make winning the initiative more under the players control intsead of a single d6

Xiggy
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:55 pm

Post by Xiggy » Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:02 pm

I agree with The reyMouser. Also, I hope the dev's think this is worth the time to work on it. As an example I have played the persians 3 times in the LOEG. I have played the same map on 2 occations. (All steep hills near the persian deployment area and scattered swamps.) the 3d time there is a narrow corridor of all steep hills and scrub.) The game is over before it starts. I am playiing it out hoping for some chain routes, but it is very discouraging to see the above continuously. My Army is HF and mounted with a smattering of chariots. Very little bow fire.

little
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:29 am
Location: London

Post by little » Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:43 pm

I agree that seeing the map and knowing the game is over before it begins can be frustrating. But, there are plenty of mechanisms in any of the tabletop rule books to draw on that I don't think would be to difficult to bring across to a Computer game. However, I think the most important one is allowing the player who wins the initiative to decide which side of the map he is starting on (and with a bit of tweaking of the maps there could be up to 4 sides, instead of the current 2). Then it would make sense for the player who won the initiative to move second to balance it out.

P.S. it would also be good if the terrain reflected at least one of the armies home patch. Right now I have an Indian army fighting a Greek Indian army in what I can only assume is NorthWest Europe..... Must be trying to get our Spices back from the Dutch!

Xiggy
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:55 pm

Post by Xiggy » Tue Oct 12, 2010 1:34 pm

My issue is with how extreme the maps are. If there was a map for a game, where both sides complain it would be a good map. The maps we fight on are where maybe 5 to 10 percent of surviving records indicate the battle of this period took place.

The current map system is one of the glaring weeknesses of the game in my opinion.

VMadeira
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:06 pm

Post by VMadeira » Thu Nov 11, 2010 11:20 pm

I agree, it is getting a little repetitive assaulting huge steep hills which occupy most of the useful area of the map.

At the moment winning initiative ends up being bad, as the winner has litlle choice of the terrain and then moves second.

Is anything planned to change this?

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory Digital”