Nox Irradiata Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Probably has to do with the quality when exported, or its imgur downsizing it. Okay, I'll toggle the settings when I get home. At work now and don't have the original files on this machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lyman Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 And the problem with ferrying is even with movement penalties, it makes the rivers useless as boundaries.I wouldn't say no to a crossing somewhere else if it made sense. Arya and the hound crossed on a ferry somewhere I know and that's why I was suggested some sort of risk factors involved in crossing them. As far as being used as boundaries, you could use them as a defensive mechanism where the defenders get an extra +500. If you combine that with potential bad fording or a ferry accident, then what could initially look like 2500 Attackers vs. 2000 defenders, turns into 2000 Attackers vs. 2500 defenders. With supposed troop limits, the rivers still maintain some sort of boundary limit for the first few turns , when there are so many people on the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 The losses would have to be pretty grievous and the chance of it happening high in order to make it only viable when the other ways are not an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadwood Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 I like the idea of just the two crossings. Don't overegg the puddin'. The font is the same as Nog's map? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lyman Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 The losses would have to be pretty grievous and the chance of it happening high in order to make it only viable when the other ways are not an option. That's why a think the levy limit might help in this situation. If person can only have 3000 troops max, it is unlikely that all 3000 are going to be in the same army. Having them all cross at the same time would also be stupid as it leaves the rest of the player's regions open to attack. If the want to try and cross with 1000 men, they can, but they run the risk of losing no one, losing 500 or possibly the entire force. We can make it a variable, depending on a dice roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Et Cetera the Mouse Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Is the troop limit going to be 3000 total, or can we include a small home garrison (500 for each territory max, 1000 in one territory max) to protect? Otherwise, the first person to attack is at a pretty high risk of getting attacked by neighbors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Is the troop limit going to be 3000 total, or can we include a small home garrison (500 for each territory max, 1000 in one territory max) to protect? Otherwise, the first person to attack is at a pretty high risk of getting attacked by neighbors.Well that's part of the danger of attacking early hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadwood Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 If any limit is imposed, which I am still unsure on, it should be region based. We raised a lot in the last game, but did it beat the combined 200,000 odd thousand raised in the War of Five Kings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Syv Aldlark Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Limits basically guarantee people will get taken out easily. If you can only raise 3k and 2-3 guys around you decide you aren't needed anymore you'll have little recourse to defend yourself. Also I feel the more we cut one side of the map off from another we're more likely to see big alliances. It wouldn't take much effort for the 5 on the other side of the bloody gates to group up. Even if the other 12 players wanted to hurt them most of them are more than 10 moves away. Dorne really wasn't the same because anyone could go through the choke points or out to sea.. only a few of us didn't have the option for ports. I don't know what to do to fix it just saying what has a chance of happening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 That's just diplomacy though; its like being Germany in the real game.Then we should not have limits and continue on down the list, coming up with other ideas for controlling the power of alliances like the ones I suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrannogDweller Posted September 22, 2014 Author Share Posted September 22, 2014 If any limit is imposed, which I am still unsure on, it should be region based. We raised a lot in the last game, but did it beat the combined 200,000 odd thousand raised in the War of Five Kings? The casualties alone were around 200 000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 We raised a lot in the last game, but did it beat the combined 200,000 odd thousand raised in the War of Five Kings? Yes, we did. Raising about 30,000-40,000 men each turn for basically ten turns straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadwood Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Poor smallfolk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nox Irradiata Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Fiddling around with formatting and various file extensions. This version of the map looks much crisper to me, compared to the earlier one I posted, but I'm not sure. As a reference point, I also added a thick blue line to mark the Westerlands/Riverlands border (I'm not familiar with all the locations from the books, and some weren't even listed in Wiki, so some territories/towns that are considered border towns just got assigned to one side or the other)...and a red line to mark the Crownlands/Riverlands border. I think the Twins and the Ruby Ford (Harroway) make sense as logical crossing points for rivers. How do you guys feel about the population density on this map? Less, more? There's space for 18 players right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Pendric hills is in west, but kanet and turn bridge and such are riverlands, pink maiden Brent brook and stoney Sept are RL, riverspring and peckledon at in the west. Everything touching the godseye is riverlands as well and dark moor is the start of the vale. Buford and chyttering brook are crown lands mosborough is river lands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 And player number is all up to how many the host feels like dealing with. Around 20 is always a good number Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Syv Aldlark Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Possible ways to limit big alliances: A plot of land can only be gifted and returned once.Limit resource trading to maybe 2/2 to one player a turn? One player can only receive 2/2 once a turn.Limit the number of NAT's a player can have? 2 per player meaning the biggest alliance can be 3 at best?No other player can be given another players troops unless that player has sworn fealty to the other player? Also if I an figure out the map editing((I downloaded gimp)) I will be willing to host. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I think a combo of two measures like that could work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 How do you guys feel about the population density on this map? Less, more? There's space for 18 players right now. Still too dense. Just as a rule of thumb: Each starting set should either not be able to reach any other with more than 500 men in turn one. Or it should be able to be reached by three or more. That way the blitz is either impossible or too risky. And the Bloody Gate and other regions with the defense special shouldn't be part of any starting set. Possible ways to limit big alliances: A plot of land can only be gifted and returned once. Limit resource trading to maybe 2/2 to one player a turn? One player can only receive 2/2 once a turn. Limit the number of NAT's a player can have? 2 per player meaning the biggest alliance can be 3 at best? No other player can be given another players troops unless that player has sworn fealty to the other player? Number two and number four sounds good. Well, ransoms excluded. Number one would be too much of a hassle to keep track of and limiting the number of NATs doesn't work. You could always just order the troops not to engage. We did that during the first three or four turns of the war as a standard measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Syv Aldlark Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 We could go as far to say that you can't order troops not to interact? It will make the NAT a more solid game mechanic in the fact you need an NAT in order not to fight another persons troops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.