Conquer Club

Here are my thoughts on the copyright issue, which unfortunately isn't about what's actually legal rather what could lead to trouble...

If we designate this map as Classic (e.g. Classic Cities), I'd consider it borderline. The fact that the territs are pinpoints rather than areas and the map is split over the Atlantic are plusses. However the fact is you're still playing for continents on an obvious world map. I don't think it's worth the risk to install something like this, but it's on the right track for a Classic REVAMP solution! Can you now find a way to make the continents as different as cities are from countries???

If we call the map World Cities and don't link it to Classic, then maybe the copyright issue would be okay. However, I don't think it's good to quench multiple maps with exact gameplay (with the exception of the Classic Shapes and Art which I hope we can merge someday ) and this has much more potential than just another map, if you guys can continue thinking outside the box

Well that all seems to be great news.

I'm glad the use of cities, and the different layout of the map has differentiated this from existing maps. Also, I prefer the "World Cities" designation as opposed to "Classic: Cities" so that is fine with me. I would also like to point out that the latest renditions do not have the exact same game play as any existing maps (though I understand the bonuses and borders that matter are similar to some preexisting maps).

It seems like the biggest current problem is the designation of continents as bonus regions. The first solution I thought of is to use Cardinal directions, but to me that naming convention is rather sloppy. Something to the effect of Northwest, Southwest, North Central, South Central, Northeast, and Southeast. It's boring and it would probably be best if the lines were the same as they are now so I don't know if that helps.

Other ideas for bonus regions (this would change the current borders and therefore the city distribution):
South Pacific
Sub-sahara
Eurasia
Far East
Latin America
Anglo America

Sully

If you included Mexico City and moved it in with the current South America you could designate that region Latin America easily enough.
Oceania is already different so you're good there.
I suppose you could combine Euasia as Ed did in his land and sea map but I'm thinking you'd need less terts there if you did that
Taking away Mexico means that N Am becomes US and Canada
Not quite sure what to do with Africa though

lackattack wrote:Can you now find a way to make the continents as different as cities are from countries???

That's my humble suggestion:

Replace continents by some other supranational entities which are not real continents, but cover an area which is mostly equivalent. The obvious sample is Europe --> European Union.

Other possible examples could be North América --> NAFTA, South América --> MERCOSUR, Africa --> Africa Union, Oceania --> CER, Asia --> APEC. They are just examples about how the suggestion could be implemented. The actual suggestion is: Replace continents by supranational entities and/or organizations that cover similar areas.

Can you connect WeLlington and Buenos Aires, and Perth and Capetown?
I think that would be good for gameplay.

OliverFA wrote:

lackattack wrote:Can you now find a way to make the continents as different as cities are from countries???

That's my humble suggestion:

Replace continents by some other supranational entities which are not real continents, but cover an area which is mostly equivalent. The obvious sample is Europe --> European Union.

Other possible examples could be North América --> NAFTA, South América --> MERCOSUR, Africa --> Africa Union, Oceania --> CER, Asia --> APEC. They are just examples about how the suggestion could be implemented. The actual suggestion is: Replace continents by supranational entities and/or organizations that cover similar areas.

Nice suggestion Oliver! Trade organizations seems to be a great way to group the cities, because that is how they are most closely interconnected (not by land designations but by the other cities they trade goods with).

cairnswk wrote:Can you connect WeLlington and Buenos Aires, and Perth and Capetown?
I think that would be good for gameplay.

I think that would make the map too interconnected. Africa would then have 4 cities, 3 of which border other trade organizations. And SA would have 4 cities with 2 borders. In that scenario the small groups are not easy enough to defend and the large groups become more powerful.

sully800 wrote:....
I think that would make the map too interconnected. Africa would then have 4 cities, 3 of which border other trade organizations. And SA would have 4 cities with 2 borders. In that scenario the small groups are not easy enough to defend and the large groups become more powerful.

Yes it makes the map more interconnected but it also gives an attack opportunity to Oceania from both sides, meaning you have to hold SA and SAm more strongly if you want to keep them.
And let's face it, you can fly between these cities nowdays.
At present all the attack opportunity is in the north.

i agree with sully regarding what he wants to do about connectivity on the map. don't add any more cities to africa or make it have more borders!

anyway, can passengers actually fly non-stop between perth and cape town? i didn't think the traffic volume would be there.

ian.

sully800 wrote:

OliverFA wrote:

lackattack wrote:Can you now find a way to make the continents as different as cities are from countries???

That's my humble suggestion:

Replace continents by some other supranational entities which are not real continents, but cover an area which is mostly equivalent. The obvious sample is Europe --> European Union.

Other possible examples could be North América --> NAFTA, South América --> MERCOSUR, Africa --> Africa Union, Oceania --> CER, Asia --> APEC. They are just examples about how the suggestion could be implemented. The actual suggestion is: Replace continents by supranational entities and/or organizations that cover similar areas.

Nice suggestion Oliver! Trade organizations seems to be a great way to group the cities, because that is how they are most closely interconnected (not by land designations but by the other cities they trade goods with).

I am happy to help I am sure you can find better names than mine. Just wanted to contribute the general idea

Hi¡¡¡
First, I have to say that this is a n awesome idea, since this map can be a trully global map in the site, with the simplicity that we love.

I have some suggestions:

1.Afrika: I think that 4 cities is too few...and the largest city in the continent (and the 15th in the hole world) is out¡¡¡I'm talking about Lagos....that because it's localization can easly added

2.North America. I think that is too many citys here....I know..that is the power of the world but, Atalanta, and even Edmonton....I think that it's too much...we're talking about 11 cities¡¡¡that's South america+Africa+3 cities...plus...I think that Las Vegas..that's is no doubt a World City has so much interconectivity...6....well...I think that it's too much

3. Asia-Oceania....I think that put Jakarta and Manila as oceania cities is confused, I mean, we know that's not true....so,I think in two options:
3.1 Detach the "continents" agrupations...and keep that one
South Pacific
Sub-sahara
Eurasia
Far East
Latin America
Anglo America

In that case...as someone told earlier...put Mexico DF as Latin America and that's it...it would be great really

or 3.2 Keep that continents agrupation, but you can add yakarta and manila to Asia...as they actually are...

btw...isn't Auckland more Important and larger than Wellington?


You are doing great ....


Regards

South America (Mercasaur?) is +2 has 4 territories and 2 points to defend
Africa (OAU) is +2 has 4 territories and 2 points to defend
America (North Americans?) is +7 has 10 territories and 3 points to defend
Oceania is +3 has 7 territories and 3 points to defend
Europe is +5 has 9 territories and 3 points to defend
Asia is +5 has 7 territories and 4 points to defend

Note that Mexico is part of NAFTA so you if you use that the USA/NAFTA might be larger

I'd say America's bonus is too high, Oceania is too low, Europe is OK and Asia is slightly too low.

Also think to get the risk like play style you have to have spots like ukraine and the middle east. Spots that incentize you to advance your border to make it easier to defend.
Not sure where those are on this map.

Merciless Wong wrote:South America (Mercasaur?) is +2 has 4 territories and 2 points to defend
Africa (OAU) is +2 has 4 territories and 2 points to defend
America (North Americans?) is +7 has 10 territories and 3 points to defend
Oceania is +3 has 7 territories and 3 points to defend
Europe is +5 has 9 territories and 3 points to defend
Asia is +5 has 7 territories and 4 points to defend

Note that Mexico is part of NAFTA so you if you use that the USA/NAFTA might be larger

I'd say America's bonus is too high, Oceania is too low, Europe is OK and Asia is slightly too low.

Also think to get the risk like play style you have to have spots like ukraine and the middle east. Spots that incentize you to advance your border to make it easier to defend.
Not sure where those are on this map.

You seem to have a couple of things mixed up. In the latest version NA has 12 cities and 4 borders (Hawaii, Miami, NY and LA). I agree that the bonus would be too high with the numbers your posted. Perhaps there should be 5 border cities?

Asia is quite difficult to defend since 4/7 territories are borders. It is also in the center of the map (borders 3 other regions) which is why the bonus is higher then you might initially guess.

Oceania is the tough one. It's sitting between a +3 bonus and a +4 bonus, but I'm leaning toward the +3. All 3 border cities also border each other, which means if the bonus region is breached by the enemy it can be easily repaired. If the borders were all split up like in Europe then I would lean toward a +4 bonus.

As for spots like Ukraine and Middle East (referring to classic) I think you have a point! I intended to connect Seattle and Tokyo but apparently forgot. That way holding Tokyo will simplify the NA borders. Does that meet your wishes?

I think I got Honolulu in asia and missed NY (visibility is low). Sry.

Hawai and Athens are unclear. is Athens Europe or Asia.

The Tokyo- Seattle would work. I would also consider breaking Manila - Hong Kong (or make it one way Manila to Hong Kong).
Leave incentive to take Hawaii to protect Asia.

Think of a second way to make the city clear. The light colors can be unclear. Perhaps color the text differently, halo the text differently or add a list of cities and what region they belong it below.

Otherwise fantastic. Pls review Prince of the CIty, I'd like your feedback as another fan of simple maps with good gameplay.
You can always add colored lines around your circles but I would freak out if my map doesn't get draft because it looks like yours.

Merciless Wong wrote:I think I got Honolulu in asia and missed NY (visibility is low). Sry.

Hawai and Athens are unclear. is Athens Europe or Asia.

The Tokyo- Seattle would work. I would also consider breaking Manila - Hong Kong (or make it one way Manila to Hong Kong).
Leave incentive to take Hawaii to protect Asia.

Think of a second way to make the city clear. The light colors can be unclear. Perhaps color the text differently, halo the text differently or add a list of cities and what region they belong it below.

Otherwise fantastic. Pls review Prince of the CIty, I'd like your feedback as another fan of simple maps with good gameplay.
You can always add colored lines around your circles but I would freak out if my map doesn't get draft because it looks like yours.

Athens has been removed and replaced by Istanbul. I think the colours of the city might weaken the confusion of what continent it belongs to.
I still strongly recommend adding a route between Asia and Africa...

Yeah maybe connect Cairo to Dubai?

I am torn. Part of me loves the straight forward regular old continent by continent style but part of me want to see it be split further.
Could you try both and compare them?

I think the idea is great, I usually stick to World 2.1 and I would love this map. My only suggestion is: I know USA has alot of cities, but what about Washington D.C. Boston, and Philadelphia, maybe not Philly or Boston, but Washington D.C. is the nation's capital! I strongly recommend trying to put in D.C.
Otherwise, its a great start and I'm suprized someone hasn't thought of it sooner.

Dublanous1 wrote:I think the idea is great, I usually stick to World 2.1 and I would love this map. My only suggestion is: I know USA has alot of cities, but what about Washington D.C. Boston, and Philadelphia, maybe not Philly or Boston, but Washington D.C. is the nation's capital! I strongly recommend trying to put in D.C.
Otherwise, its a great start and I'm suprized someone hasn't thought of it sooner.

Those are all cities that I wanted to include, but the East Coast is too compact. I don't think I can fit them all in while keeping them close to their actual locations (though I could switch Atlanta to DC and just pretend that its in the proper place )

I for see a major advantage for a player starting with a large army count in the Americas because they only need to control three territories to hold both Americas, you might want to change connection routes to avoid such problems

Yes, a connection will be added from Seattle to Tokyo to solve that problem, and to allow simplification of the NA borders by taking Tokyo (which won't be easy since its on a different continent)

Falkomagno wrote:Hi¡¡¡
First, I have to say that this is a n awesome idea, since this map can be a trully global map in the site, with the simplicity that we love.

I have some suggestions:

1.Afrika: I think that 4 cities is too few...and the largest city in the continent (and the 15th in the hole world) is out¡¡¡I'm talking about Lagos....that because it's localization can easly added

2.North America. I think that is too many citys here....I know..that is the power of the world but, Atalanta, and even Edmonton....I think that it's too much...we're talking about 11 cities¡¡¡that's South america+Africa+3 cities...plus...I think that Las Vegas..that's is no doubt a World City has so much interconectivity...6....well...I think that it's too much

3. Asia-Oceania....I think that put Jakarta and Manila as oceania cities is confused, I mean, we know that's not true....so,I think in two options:
3.1 Detach the "continents" agrupations...and keep that one
South Pacific
Sub-sahara
Eurasia
Far East
Latin America
Anglo America

In that case...as someone told earlier...put Mexico DF as Latin America and that's it...it would be great really

or 3.2 Keep that continents agrupation, but you can add yakarta and manila to Asia...as they actually are...

btw...isn't Auckland more Important and larger than Wellington?


You are doing great ....


Regards

....nodoby sais nothing about it

sailorseal wrote:I for see a major advantage for a player starting with a large army count in the Americas because they only need to control three territories to hold both Americas, you might want to change connection routes to avoid such problems

Perhaps add a London to Miami route (as well as the Seattle Japan)... making America harder to defend unless you occupy both Tokyo and London to reduce number of border terits

Falkomagno wrote:

Falkomagno wrote:Hi¡¡¡
First, I have to say that this is a n awesome idea, since this map can be a trully global map in the site, with the simplicity that we love.

I have some suggestions:

1.Afrika: I think that 4 cities is too few...and the largest city in the continent (and the 15th in the hole world) is out¡¡¡I'm talking about Lagos....that because it's localization can easly added

2.North America. I think that is too many citys here....I know..that is the power of the world but, Atalanta, and even Edmonton....I think that it's too much...we're talking about 11 cities¡¡¡that's South america+Africa+3 cities...plus...I think that Las Vegas..that's is no doubt a World City has so much interconectivity...6....well...I think that it's too much

3. Asia-Oceania....I think that put Jakarta and Manila as oceania cities is confused, I mean, we know that's not true....so,I think in two options:
3.1 Detach the "continents" agrupations...and keep that one
South Pacific
Sub-sahara
Eurasia
Far East
Latin America
Anglo America

In that case...as someone told earlier...put Mexico DF as Latin America and that's it...it would be great really

or 3.2 Keep that continents agrupation, but you can add yakarta and manila to Asia...as they actually are...

btw...isn't Auckland more Important and larger than Wellington?


You are doing great ....


Regards

....nodoby sais nothing about it

I suspect the regions are linked to trade groups so Mexico while Latin A is part of Nafta.
Australia is in APEC although not in Asean. Doesn't matter though.. he can't do a 2 territory ANZ group and preserve balance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

List of cities by gdp if u want to use this as an inclusion criteria.

I think the GDP list provides pretty good justification for the majority of cities included. Anybody notice large variances?