**Old discussion**

[killsdazombies]

OK, anyway plastiqe offered to help out so.... Well now im off to find a picture editor program!

[Kael Hate]

I have a program to turn player card selections into Territory cards so that maps aren't confined to 2 dimensions.

PS. I'm happy to help with War duties. Think I'd rather Curate than be on the battlefield this time around.

[Scaredgirl]

I have a program to turn player card selections into Territory cards so that maps aren't confined to 2 dimensions.

I don't know what that means.

[Kael Hate]

I have a program to turn player card selections into Territory cards so that maps aren't confined to 2 dimensions.

I don't know what that means.

You want to make a map that is balanced between all the teams and gives benefits for claiming territory? I can take a players 60 cards and turn it into a series of 12 (or other division of 60) territories. Each of those teritories links to another by direct relation to the content of the cards assigned to that territory. When the territory is lost to an opponent the cards attached to that Territory go with it. An odd advantage to this style of mapping is that the world isn't flat and territories are evenly linked between all opposition. In a flat map some seats are biased due to there spacial relation to the opposition that is closest to them.

[bojengles77]

I have a program to turn player card selections into Territory cards so that maps aren't confined to 2 dimensions.

I don't know what that means.

You want to make a map that is balanced between all the teams and gives benefits for claiming territory? I can take a players 60 cards and turn it into a series of 12 (or other division of 60) territories. Each of those teritories links to another by direct relation to the content of the cards assigned to that territory. When the territory is lost to an opponent the cards attached to that Territory go with it. An odd advantage to this style of mapping is that the world isn't flat and territories are evenly linked between all opposition. In a flat map some seats are biased due to there spacial relation to the opposition that is closest to them.

wouldn't being near other elements spaciall be part of the fun? It could feed some elements rivalries and make alliances a little more meaningful  plus it keeps the game like a real world where geography matters

[Scaredgirl]

I have a program to turn player card selections into Territory cards so that maps aren't confined to 2 dimensions.

I don't know what that means.

You want to make a map that is balanced between all the teams and gives benefits for claiming territory? I can take a players 60 cards and turn it into a series of 12 (or other division of 60) territories. Each of those teritories links to another by direct relation to the content of the cards assigned to that territory. When the territory is lost to an opponent the cards attached to that Territory go with it. An odd advantage to this style of mapping is that the world isn't flat and territories are evenly linked between all opposition. In a flat map some seats are biased due to there spacial relation to the opposition that is closest to them.

wouldn't being near other elements spaciall be part of the fun? It could feed some elements rivalries and make alliances a little more meaningful  plus it keeps the game like a real world where geography matters

Yep, this is exactly how I feel.

War should be an epic battle, not some e-sport event where everything is mirror image like in chess.

One of my favorite board games is Twilight Struggle. It's about Cold War and US vs. Soviet Union, and both sides which play differently. What makes it epic is the fact that although they are different, it's a pretty balanced game.

What I'm trying to say is that everything doesn't have to be identical. Some elements could have a better starting position, while weakening towards the end, and vice-versa.

[Kael Hate]

I have a program to turn player card selections into Territory cards so that maps aren't confined to 2 dimensions.

I don't know what that means.

You want to make a map that is balanced between all the teams and gives benefits for claiming territory? I can take a players 60 cards and turn it into a series of 12 (or other division of 60) territories. Each of those teritories links to another by direct relation to the content of the cards assigned to that territory. When the territory is lost to an opponent the cards attached to that Territory go with it. An odd advantage to this style of mapping is that the world isn't flat and territories are evenly linked between all opposition. In a flat map some seats are biased due to there spacial relation to the opposition that is closest to them.

wouldn't being near other elements spaciall be part of the fun? It could feed some elements rivalries and make alliances a little more meaningful  plus it keeps the game like a real world where geography matters

Yep, this is exactly how I feel.

War should be an epic battle, not some e-sport event where everything is mirror image like in chess.

One of my favorite board games is Twilight Struggle. It's about Cold War and US vs. Soviet Union, and both sides which play differently. What makes it epic is the fact that although they are different, it's a pretty balanced game.

What I'm trying to say is that everything doesn't have to be identical. Some elements could have a better starting position, while weakening towards the end, and vice-versa.

Just think if it is going to be a measure of skill it should be a fair measure, not lopsided to the team that got given the best position in relation to all others on a hex grid.

Also a Hex grid doesn't account for movement that isn't direct, Air and Aether are somehow bound to the dirt for where they can attack and engage?

My map system overcomes differences in movement by allowing associated links of interest, it works great for anything that isn't flat, so I offered it here. If you don't like it, thats fine but its offered.

[Scaredgirl]

Just think if it is going to be a measure of skill it should be a fair measure, not lopsided to the team that got given the best position in relation to all others on a hex grid.

Also a Hex grid doesn't account for movement that isn't direct, Air and Aether are somehow bound to the dirt for where they can attack and engage?

My map system overcomes differences in movement by allowing associated links of interest, it works great for anything that isn't flat, so I offered it here. If you don't like it, thats fine but its offered.

You didn't quite get what I was saying. The idea is not take make it lopsided. If some element for example has a better starting position in terms of resource nodes, it could have a disadvantage in some other area.

So elements would be different, but equally powerful.


I'm not really 100% sure what you mean with your territory system. Post it here, start a thread about it, or PM me more details. But I must warn you, I like regular map system because it's easy to understand visually.

[Demagog]

I'm curious as to what the home bonuses will be. Perhaps your mark is determined by what area you are in? In the no-mans-land, marks would probably be choosable, but as soon as you enter another elemental land, your mark becomes that element. That would take more planning; you'd have to decide what kind of deck you would make in order to successfully invade another territory. If things could be bought with electrum, perhaps buying an increase in deck size or taking x amount of cards that you can switch into your deck (I'm assuming that each player has a certain amount of cards when they leave their capitol, and that they can't add more cards to their personal "vault" unless they buy them or return to their capital) and another possibility is to buy a mark so you aren't affected by elemental lands...

Just some thoughts.

[miniwally]

Nice idea and I like diplomacy in games(not the game, and partly why I enjoy total war so much), the map reminded me of Risk and Campaign straight away mind you I guess anybody who's played a board conquest game will be reminded of it.

[Kael Hate]

This is a visual representation of a small cell map.

ID	Mark	Link 1	Link 2	Link 3	Link 4	Link 5	Link 6
1	Aether	Earth	Life	Air	Entropy	Time	Life
2	Air	Gravity	Earth	Gravity	Death	Water	Aether
3	Darkness	Life	Light	Life	Light	Life	Death
4	Death	Air	Gravity	Darkness	Gravity	Earth	Entropy
5	Earth	Time	Death	Water	Aether	Air	Time
6	Entropy	Aether	Water	Death	Time	Fire	Light
7	Fire	Light	Entropy	Light	Water	Gravity	Gravity
8	Gravity	Death	Fire	Fire	Air	Death	Air
9	Life	Water	Darkness	Aether	Darkness	Aether	Darkness
10	Light	Darkness	Time	Entropy	Fire	Darkness	Fire
11	Time	Entropy	Aether	Earth	Earth	Light	Water
12	Water	Fire	Air	Time	Life	Entropy	Earth

The Visual gets immensly complex to do as the worl gets bigger but the links method always stays the same with portals creating a wrap around effect. You only need to see what territory is linked to yours for what you are allowed to attack so the table is the simplest form. There is no back wall to hide against and no limit for one element to build a wall across the map blocking off the other elements. Since the War must have 50% cards of your element and 50% anything, I was going to use the owners mark and 5 random cards from their list to define the territory. Capturing the territory would claim the 5 cards linked to that territory. Each player has 12 territories because they have 60 cards.

[ramones]

It sounds a pretty good idea.

It will looks like a chess game? I mean, it will be an online war or it will be based on moving your minions over the map? If so, than the player will have to wait until the next one plays and this can consumes much time. 

I wish I have a Time Factory in the real world, because time is something that I never had.