Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mongrel]

So, one of the side projects I'm working on is to try and make a campaign map for some of our minigames.

In order to allow me to play (rather than GM-ing all scenarios individually), I'm going to have to premake all the variables, including a play map. I'm looking at a simple Risk/A&A hybrid area-control type map. Regions are identical for the purposes of movement, with any number of connections, from one to six shaping the geography. If that sounds confusing, this graph of a Risk board should make things fairly clear.

I will not be using the Risk mechanic for issuing armies based on numbers of territories. I will instead be using variable values for the territories, with two variables: Population cap and income generation (or, 'food and cash').

Your total 'food' value is the key limiting factor to the total number of forces you can support on the map as a whole. So, if you control 2 territories worth 1 food, and one worth 3, you have a total of 5, which allows you to maintain a maximum of say, 500 points worth of troops on the board as a whole. The cash value is simpler. Each territory generates income which you can use to buy new troops (or mercenaries, which do not require food support but may only be used for one battle, plus probably some other disincentive to simply buying mercs and throwing them under the bus every match... then again, that's expensive, so maybe that's a legitimate strategy!). A rich territory may give you a supply of both resources, pastoral countryside may give you food resources while not generating income, while a mining area may generate good cash flow without offering much support. Blah blah blah.

Like A&A, this gives some territories greater or lesser value, while some other territories may be valued for their strategic importance (key connection, etc.).

I'm not certain what bonus I want yet for holding 'continents', but I do think that mechanic is worthwhile, though I do wish to have some neutral territories.

There's other things, I want to do, such as special events/locations, capitals, a territory-based terrain legend (to govern terrain placement for the actual battles), rules for minimum territorial forces, etc.

I have seven main factions of varying strength, as well as two special factions (one has almost no figures of it's own, another is mercenary, but can be played as it's own faction if so desired, both would have very small territories), and must create home territories (i.e. a 'continent') for each.

I was just wondering if any of you had ever done anything like this before, or had any experience balancing a simple graph-map like this? I don't want to just connect some dots and call it done. Risk is a silly game sometimes, but while the dice are pretty random, the map itself is very artfully balanced* and I'd like to keep that balance in a new map.

*_{unless you're one of those Australia hatas}

[jsnlxndrlv]

Unfortunately, the most effective design technique (rigorous playtesting and iterative designs) is very time- and labor-intensive.

To at least start the process, I'd slap together some sort of short formula or template for scoring individual territories, discrete continents, and starting regions.

To rate an individual territory, I'd add the food score, money score, 6 divided by the number of adjacent territories, and other ratings for miscellaneous factors. To rate a "continent", I'd average the scores of all the territories within that continent, subtract a penalty based on how vulnerable it is (Europe gets a major penalty, Australia gets none), and maybe add a variable bonus if controlling a continent provides an asymmetrical benefit.

Rating starting areas is similar: find a formula you like that increases the score based on proximity of resources and decreases the score for excessive vulnerability.

Now that you have quantitative control of your map, it's time to build the numeric outliers—the strategic maximal and minimal locations on your board. Make the best and worst territories you expect the map to contain, and think about how they'll fit into the map. Make the territory with the most connections, and the territory with the fewest. Start making a few middle-of-road territories configured into continents, and repeat this whole process at the continent level.

If you can afford to do some playtesting, you can usually determine which aspects of of your evaluation formulas are more important than others; that will let you weight those aspects and recalculate the scores for the map, which will give you an indication where the imbalances are and what to do about them.

[Mongrel]

Huh, good advice, even if that much work is not what I had in mind.

I have roughly known quantity of total territories as well as their relationship to one another. I'm fortunately/unfortunately restricted by pre-existing faction relationships, so I know what the relative territory sizes, strategies (including economics), and physical relationships need to be.

I think the first step is to start by creating the web for these, without actually assigning any numeric values and seeing how the initial map looks. What do you think?

[jsnlxndrlv]

It sounds like a good place to start, yeah. If you know what the basic relationships are, who has the most territory and where the major boundaries lie, putting that web together will give you a useful skeleton to build the numbers into.