Conquer Club

DiM wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Just noticed that on the map it says the sully is doing the xml. Do you think he could find the time for it as will as the other one? Happy to do it for you if you want it done faster.

i've already told him to get started on it to avoid the knights and warlocks situation.
he said he got it covered cause this one is apparently very easy compared to the other one.

So we should get to play this one sometime in the year 2046 then.

any chance of a gameplay stamp?
V13:
*added the small map
large:

small:

Dim, i look at the small map here and am reminded about your posts in the map size thread...

Dim wrote:no map maker will make a 2000*2000 px map if he can fit it in 500*500, at most he'll take an extra 5-10% for fitting some nice graphics. when he goes overboard he'll most likely be told by other map makers and he'll have to optimize space usage. and ultimately every map maker will want to make every little bit of space count and avoid unnecessary super-sizing because a huge map with lots of dead space will be unpopular and no mapmaker wants to be the author of an unpopular map.

I think at 800x800 for the small map, there is a lot of wasted space especially at the left side; which with a bit of re-organisation could reduce the size of this map overall considerably.
I will say that Bay Tower cannon have very large firing range also that could help reduce size.

How is the 3rd aartillery going to attack the 5th and /or fort...there are no bridges across either of those rivers. Same with Balloon to 3rd

cairnswk wrote:Dim, i look at the small map here and am reminded about your posts in the map size thread...

Dim wrote:no map maker will make a 2000*2000 px map if he can fit it in 500*500, at most he'll take an extra 5-10% for fitting some nice graphics. when he goes overboard he'll most likely be told by other map makers and he'll have to optimize space usage. and ultimately every map maker will want to make every little bit of space count and avoid unnecessary super-sizing because a huge map with lots of dead space will be unpopular and no mapmaker wants to be the author of an unpopular map.

I think at 800x800 for the small map, there is a lot of wasted space especially at the left side; which with a bit of re-organisation could reduce the size of this map overall considerably.
I will say that Bay Tower cannon have very large firing range also that could help reduce size.

this has already been debated at length. yes i could cram those ships closer yes i could make the attacking army squished to take up less space and i could even cut the town down to a smaller size. but then it won't look like the siege of a mighty fortress. plus i have the legend that takes a lot of space and can't really be reduced any further without losing a lot of the readability.

cairnswk wrote:How is the 3rd aartillery going to attack the 5th and /or fort...there are no bridges across either of those rivers. Same with Balloon to 3rd

what? there are clear arrows going back and forth to indicate connections.

DiM wrote:...
this has already been debated at length. yes i could cram those ships closer yes i could make the attacking army squished to take up less space and i could even cut the town down to a smaller size. but then it won't look like the siege of a mighty fortress. plus i have the legend that takes a lot of space and can't really be reduced any further without losing a lot of the readability.

Mmmm, I wonder how much you have really tried...i am sure there is some space in there somewhere that would still make it look excellent. Nothing seems top have changed much size wise since V5.

cairnswk wrote:How is the 3rd aartillery going to attack the 5th and /or fort...there are no bridges across either of those rivers. Same with Balloon to 3rd

what? there are clear arrows going back and forth to indicate connections.

it's a graphic thing Dim. no bridges...are they deploying pontoons which probably weren't around then?

isaiah40 wrote:it looks like the bonuses are good, things look pretty much balanced. That said, I'll get Ian to look this over.

this was over 2 months ago.
any chance somebody will actually look over it?
and while the gameplay CA is at it can he bring over a graphics CA cause frankly waiting for another 2-3 more months before a graphics CA comes is kinda annoying.

can i get a gameplay badge?

DiM, I will take a look at it tomorrow. A preliminary issue I see is shouldn't the balloon be able to attack both the Yard and the Castle? If both Base Camps can be attacked by the assassin, or did you want to make it slightly different for the Besieger? I will take a much closer look tomorrow and get with ian about it. Sorry for the delay.

nolefan5311 wrote:DiM, I will take a look at it tomorrow. A preliminary issue I see is shouldn't the balloon be able to attack both the Yard and the Castle? If both Base Camps can be attacked by the assassin, or did you want to make it slightly different for the Besieger? I will take a much closer look tomorrow and get with ian about it. Sorry for the delay.

it attacks both the yard and the castle. i just forgot to update the legend when i added the yard.

V14:
*added the bridges that cairnswk requested
*updated the legend to include that the balloon also attacks the yard
*replaced sully with zimmah as the xml writer

Some GP issues I see:

Supply Caravan yields +2 and its conceivable blue doesn't have even have to deploy there to grab that bonus first turn. Use the 5 auto from courtyard to take out 3 neutrals and he already has it. Additionally, Quarter 3 attacks directly to Ammo Depot which then has the ability to attack all three towers. I need to take 8 neutrals total to get a +3 (not including the additional +1 from Bay Tower, which can be assaulted directly from Castle starting position). If I drop all 5 on Quarter 3 to start with 10, and use the 5 auto's from Courtyard and Castle, I could, with below average dice, take +6 after one turn (20 starting troops vs. 13 neutrals).

Meanwhile, red has to go through 12 total neutrals for a +3 for the ship bonuses (each with separate attack routes, instead of a centralized attack point like Ammo Depot), and an additional 12 neutrals to get +6 for artillery (with two separate attack routes). Blue then takes advantage of his 11 drop second turn and parks a couple of stacks on red's artillery, or moves further and takes 5th and 6th, sealing off that bonus from red. That's pretty much the game right there. Red is focused on defending his base camps and can't even attempt to go for his own bonuses via the ships.

I think the problem is solved with increasing the neutrals on Ammo Depot to at least a 5, and also increasing the neutral on either Supply Caravan or Market to make it more difficult to grab Supply Caravan too easily first turn, at least make blue think about deploying some troops there.

The ship bonuses all look pretty even.

Also, I would move the Balloon attack route from 3rd to 1st, or even to Camp 1. Red has one more n1 to go thru to get Balloon than blue does to get Assassin Guild. The Balloon is also significantly less protected than Assassin Guild is. You will probably need to make Assassin Guild harder to grab for blue, or make Balloon easier to grab (and defend) for red.

red can deploy 1 on each of his base ships and has 3 chances of 51.2% of getting 3 bonuses of +1.
he can use the 2 other deployment troops he has to advance his camp armies towards the artillery but realistically speaking he won't be able to take any other bonuses.

on the other hand blue has the caravan which is a 5v1,2 and that's a 52.1% chance of winning for a +2 bonus.
he can also deploy 1 troop on quarter 4 to get a dock+ship. that's a 6v2,2 = 51.2% chance for a +1.

he still has 4 troops to deploy which if he puts on quarter 3 means he has a 51.4% chance of getting the ammo depot and 2 towers.
add to this the 5v2 attack from castle to bay tower and we see he has a total of 3 extra troops compared to red.

so i'm thinking this.
increase the market from neutral 1 to neutral 2 and the caravan from 2 to 3.
that means that in order to get the +2 for the caravan blue has to deploy at least 2 troop on the yard and attack 7v2,3 which has a chance of 53.5%
he'll also use a troop on quarter 4 to get a dock and his ship for 51.2% chance for a +1.
so he has just 2 more troops to deploy
the connection from quarter 3 to the ammo depot is a big advantage for blue so i'll take out that connection and make quarter 3 connect to the inn.
this way quarter 4, the yard and the castle become the starting points of the expansion (like the ships) while quarter 1 and 3 become support points (like the camps)
i've also increased the ammo depot from 2 to 5 and changed quarter 4 to quarter 3 and quarter 3 to quarter 2 and connected balloon to 1st infantry instead of 3rd.

alternatively blue can deloy 2 on yard to get the caravan, then take the bay tower, then use his 3 troops that he has to deploy to put on quarter 3 (former quarter4) and take the ammo depot and one wall tower. the chance of doing this 8v5,2 attack is 45.8%.but if he makes it (along with the 5v2 attack for the bay tower) he can get up to +4. but this is a double risk. not only the odds aren't in his favour but he also allows red to strengthen his bay area position.

V15:
*renamed quarter 4 to quarter 3 and quarter 3 to quarter 2
*connected balloon to 1st infantry instead of 3rd
*connected quarter 2 to inn instead of ammo depot
*changed ammo depot from 2 neutral to 5
*changed market from 1 neutral to 2
*changed caravan from 2 neutral to 3.

Am I completely missing a Quarter? I only see 3 (two of which are labeled Quarter 2). Looking back at the previous version I don't see a Quarter 2 either.

I will get with ian about the changes, see if everything is good to go.

DiM, you have 2 blue quarter 2s.

the quarter 2 next to dock 1 used to be quarter 4, while the one on the left was quarter 3.

ian.

fixed:

i like all of the latest changes, which seem to have neutralised blue's previous clear advantage. are u able to do something about the red background for the besieger legend, against which the black text doesn't stand out well?

ian.

iancanton wrote:i like all of the latest changes, which seem to have neutralised blue's previous clear advantage. are u able to do something about the red background for the besieger legend, against which the black text doesn't stand out well?

ian.

what?
you're telling me you can't read this?



it's clear as daylight. there must be something wrong with your monitor's brightness if you can't read it.

Ian I think can read it, but I think he was saying it could be less straining with an adjustment.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Ian I think can read it, but I think he was saying it could be less straining with an adjustment.


--Andy

This. I can read it myself but with a tad bit of straining. Maybe increase the line spacing a tad bit might help.

ah, but the line spacing has nothing to do with the background colour. no problem the spacing can be fixed and i'll also work with the glow on the text. but i'd like to keep the colour.

DiM wrote:ah, but the line spacing has nothing to do with the background colour. no problem the spacing can be fixed and i'll also work with the glow on the text. but i'd like to keep the colour.

I think this sounds like an acceptable plan!


--Andy

DiM wrote:ah, but the line spacing has nothing to do with the background colour. no problem the spacing can be fixed and i'll also work with the glow on the text. but i'd like to keep the colour.

Please don't mess with the color!! It fits well with the rest of the map!

tweaked the shadow and the glow. it should be easier on the eye and thus easier to read.

old..........................................................new

That is a bit better for me.