not only embiggened, but with *sheep*!!!

not very pointful sheep, mind you.

does remind me of the idea of having something like sheep but that could be the target of opp-fire. wandering, zero-point neutral flags. You understand.

there could be a new lgg unit that makes decoys. of course, his problem is that his teammates opp-fire at the decoys, too.

Note that the attackers have a few more points (2) than Allied, so there will still be a card game when the walls fall down.

For those in the castle? Well, we salute thee...

---

has the 8Allies script been updated so that the top walls come down properly?

It will be momentarily, but here's the big question: Do the attackers have too many troops?

I think so. I didn't really get the motivation for raising their strength; the old way it seemed to me the attackers & defenders won about evenly, the attackers a little more often. the defenders now have more to defend against (backdoor incursions) and the geometry has changed a little. I'd go back to the old build point ratios and see if the guys on the inside can feel a little more useful.

I agree. I'm not certain the back doors are such a good idea, either. They sort of make the whole wall-opening gimmick less significant. And in my case, the two middle neighbors destroyed each other practically before I'd even joined the battle.

Back doors might be still interesting if you also put nuke or extra doors, so middle player still need to fight with outside ones before attempting to attack the other middle side.

---

rubrick wrote:

I agree. I'm not certain the back doors are such a good idea, either.

I always try to follow the sage advice of Jim Sting: Well, you'll never get in through the front-line security, but you might look for a back door.

I like the ide aof the back door. had they not both gambled on the other not doing it, they may have lived long enough to both be fighting on two fronts, which is interesting.

I also think making the attackers a little weaker reduces the odds of people trying the back door; if it isn't so hopeless to hold the line, why panic & retreat?

wolff wrote:

Note that the attackers have a few more points (2) than Allied, so there will still be a card game when the walls fall down.

For those in the castle? Well, we salute thee...

Not true. Both maps are 17 (attackers) to 10 (defenders). I think what makes the attackers feel more powerful here is the simplified layout of the castle; it's a much less tactically empowering geography now. I think the main reason for that is the max shot -- note that there is now no place an exec can stand in the castle safe from a Max outside. (in fact, from the five consecutive spaces outside the two middle windows, a max can hit any given spot in the castle by shooting through a window -- thus assuring that he'll take no self-damage.)

Unfortunetely, re-engineering the castles is a lot of work. But I think it's the best avenue for improvement.

Also, there's no seams in the bridges, making it a little harder to count spaces.

From 2181, I can say that HP balance was not a big problem. We can still have a very good fight.

---

To be clear -- i agree with Jambul; the map is great as is (and I'm ready to play it ranked again). I was just saying that *if* you want to improve the defense experience, the geography was the important change.

The guys on the outside have 2 more build points than on AlliedCastleSiege.

I might put more walls on the front of the fort to increase its defensive value.

---

i just looked at both maps. I see 17 for each. which of these do you see differently?