I will, invite me if you still want to.

The cannon above the Charlestown island seems to be able to attack -> transfer to the two cannons on the island, which in turn can take over forts etc.

Also used washington battery to take over Back Bay 3

Summit Battery can't attack Breed Hills Battery, and Breed Hills Battery doesn't get the +3 when attacking Summit Battery.

I didn't see this thread, here are some of my thoughts on this map.

First, let me say, this is a very nice and cool looking map. Really like the map and the icons.

Now just my personal opinion...I don't think though a 1 on 1 map works. I assume that the designer has compensated for one side going first, but I just don't think 1 on 1 maps are much fun. Luck also plays a big factor in a 1 on 1 game.

I would recommend adding a French army and/or a Hessian army.

With regrads to cannons...I am designing/play testing a map that uses cannons too. Its a cool idea, but the game does become all about the cannons. IE, you have all this neat terrian but the cannon rules all.

Thats not a bad thing per se, it means he who uses his cannons the best will do better, but it does make control and use of the cannons paramount. This also means if I go first I get to shoot my cannons first which means I can kill many of your guys before they have a chance to do anything...with some good rolls I can do a lot of damage.

One idea to limit the cannon is to have the cannons only target forts...the theory being the cannons would be sighted on strategic targets, not on normal terrian.

Great map though!!

Thanks for all the error checks folks. I'll set aside some time next week to making fixes on borders and unit maxes.

DavidNY, I would really like this map to be a 2v2 team game, or even 3v2 where each of the American flanks and the center are commanded by a different player, and then one each on a team for Bunker Hill and Boston. Alas, I can't set teams in the scenario builder. I don't think a 1v1v1 free-for-all would have much basis in history, would be difficult to balance, and would probably just end up in a 2v1 gangbang most of the time.

The idea of focusing battle around the cannons is intentional because, frankly, that battle and many of that time were all about the cannons. A single cannon loaded up with grapeshot could eliminate a whole charging company at close range. A single cannon with a heavy shell could bring down the wall of a fort. Also, a game like this needs something to fight over as the game progresses. Just lining up and smashing armies against each other in a straight line is not fun. If the objectives are more bonuses, then 1v1 games tend to swing very quickly as soon as one player starts to outproduce the other. At that point, only a string of luck can influence the impending avalanche.

The cannons give a huge tactical advantage, and so they create something for 2 people to go back and forth on without ending the game on one turn. Also, they're useless at cutting down your opponents troop production without a ground force to go take the targets they soften. I've seen that it usually takes a couple turns to bring a sizable army across the river that can capitalize on the damage a cannon is doing. I could make it so that cannons can only attack forts, but then it becomes very difficult for me to make it intuitive what they can attack.

Most of what the cannons can see on the first turn is empty dirt, so a first turn assault isn't a huge concern. It's also easily countered by setting the game up with additional armies on the 2nd players start.

My comments aren't intended to shoot down what you're saying. You have some valid points in there, but at the same time, the value of the cannons is not at all an accident.

==

Someone else mentioned that they think the cannons should have artillery borders for the adjacent territories, too. I'm not sure if it was in this thread or elsewhere. My response is that most of the cannons are set up in such a way that if they're next to anything valuable, they are in a flanking position that someone had to go out of their way to get to, and are then attacking a flank. The advantage is on purpose. Plus, I don't want spots all over the map where troops can go in but can't get out. It seems within the scope of realism that I have created for this map that a cannon operator could take one step away from his post to occupy something on foot.

Cramchakle wrote:

Someone else mentioned that they think the cannons should have artillery borders for the adjacent territories, too. I'm not sure if it was in this thread or elsewhere. My response is that most of the cannons are set up in such a way that if they're next to anything valuable, they are in a flanking position that someone had to go out of their way to get to, and are then attacking a flank. The advantage is on purpose. Plus, I don't want spots all over the map where troops can go in but can't get out. It seems within the scope of realism that I have created for this map that a cannon operator could take one step away from his post to occupy something on foot.

Yeah, that was me.  There are instances when it would be nice to keep bombarding an adjacent territory until it has 1 unit and then capture it from a different territory, but you're right, giving the adjacent territories only artillery borders does add some complications.  I think what I really want is the ability to choose between an artillery attack or a normal attack on adjacent territories, but I realize the flash player doesn't have that capability.

Norseman wrote:

Cramchakle wrote:

Someone else mentioned that they think the cannons should have artillery borders for the adjacent territories, too. I'm not sure if it was in this thread or elsewhere. My response is that most of the cannons are set up in such a way that if they're next to anything valuable, they are in a flanking position that someone had to go out of their way to get to, and are then attacking a flank. The advantage is on purpose. Plus, I don't want spots all over the map where troops can go in but can't get out. It seems within the scope of realism that I have created for this map that a cannon operator could take one step away from his post to occupy something on foot.

Yeah, that was me.  There are instances when it would be nice to keep bombarding an adjacent territory until it has 1 unit and then capture it from a different territory, but you're right, giving the adjacent territories only artillery borders does add some complications.  I think what I really want is the ability to choose between an artillery attack or a normal attack on adjacent territories, but I realize the flash player doesn't have that capability.

Well, you could always get near the end and then either stop attacking or attack with 2 or 1. It's not quite what you want, but it can be done...

Interesting...

You have the exact same shape for your fort icon that I came up with for my game "Armada Bay" last summer. Since I was never able to release that game due to technical difficulties, I know you didn't copy it from me. Armada Bay uses a hexagonal grid, too.

Parallel thinking, I guess.

Mentioned this in one of the games I did, but I think the octagonal grid could be bolder without detracting from the aesthetic of the map.

Is there any way to actually see this map without starting a game on it?

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/468

Norseman wrote: Summit Battery can't attack Breed Hills Battery, and Breed Hills Battery doesn't get the +3 when attacking Summit Battery.

Fixed.

Yertle wrote: Mill Pond should have a unit cap of 5

Fixed.

Rasputin wrote: Charleston appears as a fort but has a unit cap of 10

Fixed.

Thanks folks.

Started implementation of Grid Co-ordinate based territory naming system for Non-special territories.

Changed Charles Redoubt to a normal Field territory, adjusted modifiers and bonus, attributed to neutral in scenario. Renamed Front Lines L3. This makes a southerly flank maneuver by the British a bit more viable. Landing from the Muck/Stream in this area had been unintentionally difficult.

Changed Bird Island from Muck to Stream, adjusted modifiers. It just felt right.

Changed Middle Banks from Muck to Stream, adjusted modifiers. It just felt right.

Added scenario territories "American Reinforcements" and "British Reinforcements" to the upper right and lower right corners respectively. This should encourage better utilization of Castle Island and the Summit forts/battery, as well as those areas of the board, generally.

Changed Brookline Fort from redoubt to fort type territory; adjusted bonus, capital status, and modifiers. This will add additional incentive to utilize this region of the map, and make its utilization less transient.

Anyone up for a game?

I'll play one if you're still looking for an opponent.