Map design contest winner: krotop's Elensefar Courtyard 2p

[FAAB]

I split the project, the 1st version as a revision of the map, adressing Doc’s point and modified according to my experience, and the 2nd version as an alternative trying to answer jb’s concerns. Each of these versions must not be seen as an end-of-all of the map, but as directions they would like the map to go to and to be honest I’m counting on the judges to tell which of the 2 concepts has to be dropped.

I am no "cartographer" nor judge of any kind but I can tell you I like your map.
I prefer the project 1 version though.

Courtyard.png

I think the most interesting part in your map is the (26,16) area [around archer in the screenshot]. It gives a lot of opportunity to the players to balance the attack/defence as the defender (south) can use the neutral ToD terrain (right to the grunt) for counter even if his right ToD wasn't come yet. As illustration I hit the grunt with both mages on second night putting a cavalry on grunt's north to cover.
However I must say I find the corresponding area north less promising. This is due for once to the fact that the two castle squares (that helps attacker deployment) are replaced by a chunk of bad movement terrain around mountain (25,11).
The fact that the columns (27,17) and (27,20) are changed into a long 4-square wall in the north also reduces options for the defender.
Thirdly the fact that the attacker can have three spots to attack the village in the north (24,8), makes holding the corresponding hill less attractive.

Finally I think that the second keep, is quite a failure. It takes 4 turns for a leader to move from one to the other which for a map generating much income (8 villages/player), could be too long to spend without recruiting. On the other hand, recruiting during 2 turns (on your arrival and the turn after for a potential 4 units) on the small keep seems like a bad idea to me as the area doesn't have as much tension as the right side.

The second project is not as good as it removes the area I like best and makes the center part larger, making it a bit out of place and similar to existing maps (CotB for example)
HTH!

[dartboy]

I also like this map, but wouldn't the south player have a tougher time guarding their left-flank? They have two villages there vs. the one from the north, and the north-village is tucked further back, with good hills next to it to do a counter-attack into. Since most of the focus will be on the right, it would be good if neither player had more to loose/gain from using the west-side-front than the other, since any slight unit advantage on a lighter front will usually mean a lot more than a unit advantage in a tighter-packed front.

In other words: since most units will be in the east, if one player has one more unit than the other in the west, they could threaten 2 villages in the south, but only one in the north --

[krotop]

Edit : This is the message FreeAsABeer and dartboy were answering to :

I’d felt this message was more appropriate for a pm, but as some people expressed the will that contesters share their thought process for the sake of information, I’ll have them written down there instead. Note that although I have experience as a player, I’m a novice as a map designer, so please rely on the reasons I give with care if by any chance you use this thread for map making info.

Because jb and Wintermute rose up a worrying problem, I split the project, the 1st version as a revision of the map, adressing Doc’s point and modified according to my experience, and the 2nd version as an alternative trying to answer jb’s concerns. Each of these versions must not be seen as an end-of-all of the map, but as directions they would like the map to go to and to be honest I’m counting on the judges to tell which of the 2 concepts has to be dropped.



For this revision, I focused mainly on 2 points, in consideration to the games I experienced on the map and Doc’s point about Knalgans:
- every game I had went very agressive early on, most of the time putting the defender at stake, although the victory often eluded the agressor sometimes because of the difference of level, sometimes due to bad rolls in risky moments. So I tried to ease the defence of each side.
- The judges unanimely mentioned a lack of mountains, leading to some weakness for dwarves. So I tried to insert some mountains and make the map more dwarf friendly.

About the 7,8 area : I felt that rushes on this village was powerful, plus p2 couldn’t put with certainty a tank early on it as knalgan, so I moved closer the village, now 4 hexes away from the recruit point.
I put middle-path mountains on 12,11 and 6,13 for dwarves to hop on and help a push/pull oriented dynamic for knalga.
About the 9,16 area : rough terrains and villages were put more together for an easier defense, with some hill/mountain addition again.
26,8 area : a quick scout could take the corridor village, to correct that firstly I opened the road a bit so that p2 could send a scout there 1st, and I got the villages a bit closer to each other for core troops to be able to punish the stealing scout if p2 doesn’t want to spend money on a scout himself on the right.
Again a few middle path mountains were put around 23,13.
19,14 coastal reef got removed to ease ground movements.
A few villages have been morphed to hill/village. I wanted to have a few non-standards villages to ease stealing with the bats and saurians. Hill was chosen over swamp either because of the map theme, or to power up dwarves.



For the 2nd project, this is a reaction to the game jb and Wintermute had, each of the player accumulated troops in the center waiting for the other to choose a side. Also it is a synthesis of what jb suggested : to reduce the empty space between each front of villages, to widen the water area, and to make the outposts further from the frontline. What follows is an interpretation among others.

What worried me in moving up p2's outpost is that the way it was located before, p2 had the opportunity to early push for the 1st night, while it is certainly a lot harder now. And changing the starting ToD wouldn't help because it could make p1 position too advantageous. In my opinion a strong part of the problem lies in the very existence of that outpost and quite possibly the only real solution would be to redo the map entirely into a shrinked version with no outpost, but that 2nd project took some time already and I don't think I could make a 3rd version before the deadline.

Deit : the 2nd project with more water got dropped.

[thespaceinvader]

Split out the review posts from the winter map contest thread into a new thread at krotop's request.

[krotop]

The fact that the columns (27,17) and (27,20) are changed into a long 4-square wall in the north also reduces options for the defender.
Thirdly the fact that the attacker can have three spots to attack the village in the north (24,8), makes holding the corresponding hill less attractive.

Right, the 26,8 hill could be removed, have a forested hill on 26,7 and crush the 27,6 wall (something I hesitated to do).
24,8 is purposedly exposed because it is so near to the recruit point that the defender can both quickly reinforce and punish with the leader if he comes back to the right.

Finally I think that the second keep, is quite a failure. It takes 4 turns for a leader to move from one to the other which for a map generating much income (8 villages/player), could be too long to spend without recruiting. On the other hand, recruiting during 2 turns (on your arrival and the turn after for a potential 4 units) on the small keep seems like a bad idea to me as the area doesn't have as much tension as the right side.

Since most of the focus will be on the right

This assumption about the tension on the right isn't so evident to me. I made few games only, so for me like for you I presume, it is a bit early to base our assumptions on our experience, but from what I saw the main tension could quite go on the left side. And the reason is simple, the leaders are both supposed to go on the left flank at 1st to recruit, so for a chaotic faction wanting to put some early pressure, a rush on the far west villages is quite appealing, and such rush could "trap" the players into bringing a constant flux of units there, in order not to lose the flank.

It's a bit like for the classics Basilisks and Freelands : you have a easy side to attack and a strong side, you'd prefer to attack the easy one, obviously, but sometimes your opponent forces you to defend heavy on the side you don't like and when it's your favorable ToD you don't have the time to shift your army to the other flank and decide to push on the strong side nevertheless.

Anyway, FAAB, I don't get how you travel for 4 turns. There are 2 ways to swap recruit points in 2 turns, and one way to make it in 3 turns and take villages. To choose whether to take the villages with the leader or not is let to the player's convenience, though I'd personally suggest to let the village grabbing to your troops.

wouldn't the south player have a tougher time guarding their left-flank?

Yes, it is purposedly harder for p1 to defend west than p2. Similarly it is intended that west is harder for p2. I find these disbalances more interesting for the dynamic of the game, because it opens the possibilities to attack the opponent and defend yourself : you can either stand your ground on the main flank, or let the opponent come and grab your villages but you'll counter strike on the weak flank. The true question is whether this disbalance in flank strength still gives the players equal chances to win, to which I'd love to answer yes, but sufficient experience in map making, or playtesting, only will tell.

[FAAB]

It takes 4 turns for a leader to move from one [keep] to the other

Anyway, FAAB, I don't get how you travel for 4 turns. There are 2 ways to swap recruit points in 2 turns, and one way to make it in 3 turns and take villages.

Sorry for my lack of clarity. I meant moving back and forth.
My idea being that I want my leader back on the right side as soon as possible.

[Jozrael]

There are a number of maps that need 4 turns (or more) for a roundtrip to an outpost keep. I don't think this is a bad thing.

[krotop]

I tend to agree with Jozrael. I could be wrong on that, but I have the feeling that getting the 2 recruit points close to each other would favor defence, and make a stalematish situation more probable to happen, exactly because the defending leader can quickly swap sides and both recruit and punish.

[krotop]

*Update bump*

A bit of graphical polishing, and fixing a few terrains that weren't ToD coded. The name changed to Elensefar East Wing, proposals on a different name or map description are welcomed.

Current description is :
"Fight through corridors and gardens, and dominate the eastern courtyard of what used to be the glorious city of Elensefar.
Still in testing phase."

Edit : removed the attached file (map with the ancient name).

[Doc Paterson]

*Update bump*

A bit of graphical polishing, and fixing a few terrains that weren't ToD coded. The name changed to Elensefar East Wing, proposals on a different name or map description are welcomed.

I would propose Elensefar Courtyard.

[mystic x the unknown]

The name changed to Elensefar East Wing, proposals on a different name or map description are welcomed.

I'd like to take advantage of this and propose a different name: a generic name, or a name of a location not referenced anywhere.

---
I find it nice to leave more room for imagination, enabling various interpretations. I also like how the mp maps are 'hidden'.

If this naming is to attach mp to wesnoth's setting, it actually does the opposite. As having strange match-ups on specific sites often makes much less sense than on an unspecified location. This is reinforced by that a single mp map could actually represent multiple similar locations thorough the world. If it's not to attach mp to wesnoth's setting, then I don't see a reason for it to be at a location from the campaigns.

If you like the idea of the map being a courtyard in Elensefar, you can still imagine it to be so if the name remains generic. However you have to turn to denial if you want it to be something else and it's specified.

[krotop]

Both have advantages and drawbacks mysticX, at the moment all mainline maps are inscribed in a specific location, and that location is now part of their signature. I'm not so up for breaking with the pattern, because no argument would make the generic name so much better to worth that break. So unless you convince Doc to change all of his names I won't go the generic way.

Elensefar Courtyard it is then. Wasn't sure how it would ring, but coming from the keyboard of a native I'm a lot more confident that the name is good, thank you Doc.

No change has been made to the map, only the name.

The 1.8.1 version:

[Jozrael]

Btw, all that has to be changed on the map for it to work on stable are the road villages. I host it on stable with grass villages instead to good effect.