Hi all, been playing for a wee while but this is my first time in the forums, and first time submitting a map for public testing, so apologies if I get anything wrong here.

I've made a small/medium sized (104 territories) map of the Scottish capital, Edinburgh, and I wondered if anyone would like to offer any thoughts or perhaps play test it?

I've played it through with AIs a few times and I'm pretty sure I've caught the few missing connections that there were initially. Needs real people to really see if it's worth making public though.

Preview link is http://WarLight.net/SinglePlayer.aspx?PreviewMap=14498 - thanks in advance for any feedback :-)

I think you should place the normal bonuslinks next to their bonuses, it's easier to understand that way. The abnormal bonuses can remain where they are.

Hi Moros, thanks very much :-)

I agree, that would be better, and indeed that was how I did it at first.

Problem I had though, was that the bonus areas which don't touch the outside of the map weren't suited to that as I couldn't get the box near them, so I tried this as a solution.

Not sure it works though, maybe the best best would be to have as many bonus boxes close to their bonuses as possible and then just have the rest at the point on the outer edge of the map closest to that bonus area?

Will see if anyone else has any view on it then maybe rework it a bit.

Just overlay the bonus boxes on top of the territories Noone will care. But two points about that:
1) Make sure they are in the same spot in all of the bonuses (ex: top left corner of the top left territory in each bonus.
2) make sure they don't cover up the territory army number (may need to violate rule 1 or shift centerpoint.


Also, You have train stations, perhaps make them connect? Maybe a small penalty (-1) for each station, but a +8 if you control them all? At least add a bonuslink for the stations, but leave default to 0 so other players can edit.

agree with moros never encountered your problem before good for first try and am willing to test

Count me in for testing!

I'll take the map for a spin!

I am willing to test.

Hi all, thanks very much for the replies and kind words :-)

Thank you to the willing testers, that's much appreciated. Will add all of you to my invite list - what's the best thing to do next, start a custom game and invite all those interested? Should I try to arrange a time when most people are available or just start it and hope for the best?

@[REGL] John - thanks, good ideas, especially the stations thing. Will implement that before starting a test game, and will have a go with the bonuses thing too.

Ok, thanks all, will try to have this ready for testing either this evening (it's 7.30pm here in Edinburgh) or tomorrow evening.

You should make testing multi day;) if you want a realtime test do this:
1 crate a open (practice) game and have a title somethin like: test a new map, Join and I`ll tell how.
2 when you get enoughf ,people who really want to test, in that practice game, invite them to a test game which could be real time
3 Test and have fun:D

Ha, of course, I didn't think of using multi day, thanks very much for that!

I really only play realtime normally, but will do exactly as you suggest and get test game(s) up asap.

One other thing to ask for advice on - in implementing @[REGL] John's great suggestion (of -1 for each station, but +8 for holding all four), it means that the bonus link square says the bonus is worth +8, while in fact it's only worth +4 (net).

I've tried to mitigate this with some explanatory text but if anyone has a better suggestion I'd be grateful.

Here's the map as it stands just now:

http://WarLight.net/SinglePlayer.aspx?PreviewMap=14539

Ok, test game launched - http://WarLight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=2878797

Have invited Ironheart, BearsBeetsBattlestarGalactica, PKThunda and i-like-swords.

Cheers all :-)

One note about the stations:

WarLight automatically changes the number in a bonus square if the game creator changes the bonus value. However, your explanatory text will always claim the stations are worth +4.

Counterproposal:

• Use the word "Stations" as a subsection
  
• Include the note "Stations connect to each other directly"
  
• Include four bonus links (one for each station), to clearly show they are worth -1 a piece
  
• Change the text for the "Stations" bonus into "All Stations"
  

This makes it clear there is a -1 penalty for each station separately (unless the game creator chosen to remove (or increase!) those penalties), your map doesn't have explanatory text which might be plain wrong and I took the opportunity to mention the extra connections, which people might not expect.

Those are very good points, hadn't considered what'd happen if others were changing the settings.

I'll need to think how to word it, as the stations do not all connect to each other - instead, just like in real life, Waverley connects to Haymarket, which connects to South Gyle and Slateford (although those two don't connect to each other). Perhaps the following?

"All outer stations connect to Haymarket"

(Either that, or I could change it so the stations do all connect to each other after all, but I quite like having the connections the same as the real life train lines)

That, plus the individual bonus links and the change of name for the All Stations Bonus link, should hopefully do the trick.

Will probably wait until the first test game is over to implement these, plus any ideas that come out of the test, but thank you, I appreciate the solution :-)

Hi again - I see that the test game has ended, congrats to BearsBeetsBattlestarGalactica :-)

If anyone has any thoughts on how the map played please do let me know, cheers!

Actually, have implemented RvW's suggestions (thanks again) for now, but definitely open to any further feedback.

Here's the revised map with the improved station bonus details:

http://WarLight.net/SinglePlayer.aspx?PreviewMap=14732

Would like to run a second test game on this map, now using the revised version as mentioned in my previous post - any takers? :-)

http://WarLight.net/SinglePlayer.aspx?PreviewMap=14732


Also, as a side issue, I see from the Wiki that when a map goes public it should be called version 1.0 - however I've been using the 1.x system on each version of this since I started. This may have been the wrong way to do it, but either way the version linked above is currently called version 1.6.

I see that I can change the version numbers in the Map Designer, but before I do that, are there any implications from doing so - eg if I make the current version 1.0 into (say) Version 0.1, make 1.1 into 0.2, etc, etc, and then make whatever ends up being the final one into 1.0, will that mess anything up anywhere?

Probably not but thought it was worth checking.

Cheers!

if there is no issue no need for a second multiday test.

Not heard of any issues so far - oh well, maybe I'll just go public with it :-)

Will wait for a wee bit and see if any other comments but you're probably right, thanks.