Crazy idea: Require full access chain control for deep castle

This is probably too radical, but fun to consider, in terms of brainstorming on the problem of buried castles and meat shield meta. Imagine we had these rules:

  1. To conquer or hold a deep castle, you or your 5ta must control a full access path to it from SZ or NML. Imagine that is food and water supply route.
  2. If your deep castle loses access path (gate conquered), you have 24h to re-establish an access path, or the castle goes to Gustav.

That would probably shake things up a bit :slight_smile:

So, literally no one would have a deep castle. Got it


Yeah maybe this is too radical. I wonder if some softer set of rules along this line could be viable. I like how it emphasizes 5TA, makes deep castles less of a pure win, and has a real world analogy.

And people still conquer T4 access castles for a while, so maybe someone would still be interested. There may be a practical way for a 5TA to settle a region.

1 Like

You clearly can’t handle the radicalness.

Open your mind to radicality.

This is the most radically radical suggestion since kingdom wars, which did exactly this.

You’re right, this is similar, except for the 5ta twist. I have to admit I did not enjoy the Kingdom Wars map mechanics. Not sure if I enjoy the current Atlas map mechanics more or less. Also not sure if being similar automatically makes it as bad. Not a game designer, just thinking aloud.

My biggest problem with Kingdom Wars was, if you spawn next to a much stronger team, you’re toast. Here we have neutral zones, and you can move or start in several places.

The Positional attacking map I’ve suggested takes the kw map and eliminates the random re-set and since your team does not hold and acquire hex’s like on the kw map there’s no stagnation and since it’s positional in nature conflict happens against teams of relative strength!
Yep with out stagnation mega alliances sandbagging or massive lag :man_shrugging:
Or we can keep making changes that solve little and often create others
Which will not supply that defense map with the singular objective we need …

1 Like

Yeah I was half-waiting for you, this is right up your alley.

I kind of like your castleless map idea, it might work better than what we have. The problem is, both PG and the players are by now too heavily invested, emotionally and sometimes financially, in the current design. So I doubt they will throw it all away and implement your idea instead.

Compared to your idea, this is a small change, with more elements of positional tactics than we have. Still probably would not fly as a realistic proposal.

We need to think in small increments to have a chance to convince PG to change something. It is good to have your suggested map as an idea, now can we change something in the current map to make it closer in function? Maybe devalue castle bonuses, and introduce an attacking radius around team’s castles, like Zami suggested?

My little idea here is probably worse, and after some shakeup, would quickly degrade into several strong 5TAs controlling the best areas. May be a slight improvement over the current situation, or not.

sounds like kingdomwars which didn’t have a lot of fans

Brother if there was another way I’d be the first to put forth the necessary changes that would bring this map to some semblance of an offensive map that would support long term play!

Believe me I’d be all over it like a one legged man in a @ss kicking contest! lol

But to be blunt after years of testing balancing and correlating games and maps for a living the suggestion I’ve put forth is a viable long term core mechanic and the only one I can find that works with this games interface being mobile!

But if you can come up with another by all means slap that bad boy on the table and we will make pg rich lmao ….

But unless you supply a singular goal and positional attacking this map having 30k plus players will degrade into stagnation and piracy……

Because positional dominance supported by the secondary mechanics of positional attacking are one of the few mechanic sets that will support long term play with a vast number of players!
I was paid to balance games! :man_shrugging:
And there are not a lot of options here but I can tell you we will never find a balance for this defense map that supports the top players and the new players amicably.

1 Like

Since those teams would all have to have access castles and protect them, why not just make it so players can freely travel to all castles and get rid of “safe” castles? :man_shrugging:

Just make all castles accessible


Well mainly because movement on a tactical map defines the rate of engagement and that equates to our burden of play and the rate at which stagnation will set in!

Just how many castles will your team want to defend and hold when they are all access castles?
And while it would seem like a simple solution to our problem it will also create rampant piracy or mind numbing stagnation yep because the two are in equilibrium and we can play tug a war as long as we want it will only produce massive stagnation as we head towards defense and massive piracy as we move towards offense in our attacking and defense mechanic! :man_shrugging: :balance_scale:

So take tinbrus suggestion and make them all access so pirates will have no hinderance and stagnation will be almost instant and constant…… lol
It will not supply a objective :rofl::rofl::rofl:

1 Like

Which ones? :flushed:

Taslorian games
Various role playing modules and expansion packs with and without map systems
Risk variants
War hammer
And many different tactical maps of varied designs for games that saw production and many that never made the cut for various reasons lol


I don’t think this is the solution. It’s ‘a’ solution and brings with it many other issues.
Unless pg retools the ownership values and addresses the hitting down (using horrible revive rates is my recommendation) then making everyone accessible is just creating anarchy and worsening the 24/7 requirement of all teams at all levels.

I do think that something about strategic ownership and placement and scaled rewards accordingly would help.

In summary even if Tinsir solved this I don’t want all access castles to exist it was a mistake to begin with with the whole dang pirate map, get rid of meatshield castles, just make an additional fort to guard teams that’ll be a crazy idea

Thanks for the aneurism

This topic was automatically closed 2 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.