[Abandoned] Research & Conquer

[natty dread]

then it says in the legend you can only get research bonuses once. what's that? if i take the basic mining i'll get the +2 just for one turn?

No, it means that if you have 2 labs and you take 2 of the same research, you don't get 2 bonuses from the researches, only 1.

except for the laboratories none of the research terits have names on the map. i assume they'll be called something like Standing Army 1, Standing Army 2 etc. or something like that. but i really do think having names on the map is a must. at least some shortened names like SA1 SA2 and so on. in fact i'm pretty sure i've seen some CAs requesting that all names be placed on the map. not sure how this slipped through.

Having names on all territories is less of a concern these days, since we have clickable maps now.

[DiM]

then it says in the legend you can only get research bonuses once. what's that? if i take the basic mining i'll get the +2 just for one turn?

No, it means that if you have 2 labs and you take 2 of the same research, you don't get 2 bonuses from the researches, only 1.

aha. maybe a little rewording would help make it clearer.

except for the laboratories none of the research terits have names on the map. i assume they'll be called something like Standing Army 1, Standing Army 2 etc. or something like that. but i really do think having names on the map is a must. at least some shortened names like SA1 SA2 and so on. in fact i'm pretty sure i've seen some CAs requesting that all names be placed on the map. not sure how this slipped through.

Having names on all territories is less of a concern these days, since we have clickable maps now.

this was a joke, right?

we had clickable maps in 2008 when i left but names on maps were still a requirement. also does that mean i can simply make a map with no terit names just because clickable maps exist? i didn't even bother installing clickable maps and i probably never will and i'm sure there are thousands of people that still use the old drop-down menu to do attacks. for those people names on maps are a must.

we also have bob. should we just ignore making connections visible since bob shows you all the connections?

[TaCktiX]

All of your questions would be quickly answered by a game in play. Each laboratory will only have one set of researches available to it. Likewise, all basic researches will only be able to attack their advanced research of the same homeland. There are 6 labs, and 6 sets of research in a specific order for that reason. When in play, attack options will be limited to the researches you can gain, not other people's.

As for the "Only once," natty is correct. It's a note for 2-3 player games where 2 homelands will be at one person's disposal. Due to our losing condition, the research portion of the map does not assault (literal assault, Doomsday bombards) the conquer portion at all and vice versa. If you don't own the lab to start, you won't ever have the lab.

[natty dread]

this was a joke, right?

we had clickable maps in 2008 when i left but names on maps were still a requirement. also does that mean i can simply make a map with no terit names just because clickable maps exist? i didn't even bother installing clickable maps and i probably never will and i'm sure there are thousands of people that still use the old drop-down menu to do attacks. for those people names on maps are a must.

we also have bob. should we just ignore making connections visible since bob shows you all the connections?

I didn't mean the add-on. We have clickable maps on the site now, no add-ons needed. Haven't you noticed?

Also no, you can't make a map with no territory names. However, it is seemingly becoming more accepted to have maps where territory names are not strictly all on the territories, instead they are explained by the legend.

[DiM]

this was a joke, right?

we had clickable maps in 2008 when i left but names on maps were still a requirement. also does that mean i can simply make a map with no terit names just because clickable maps exist? i didn't even bother installing clickable maps and i probably never will and i'm sure there are thousands of people that still use the old drop-down menu to do attacks. for those people names on maps are a must.

we also have bob. should we just ignore making connections visible since bob shows you all the connections?

I didn't mean the add-on. We have clickable maps on the site now, no add-ons needed. Haven't you noticed?

Also no, you can't make a map with no territory names. However, it is seemingly becoming more accepted to have maps where territory names are not strictly all on the territories, instead they are explained by the legend.

hmm for the life of me i can't find the clickable maps that you mention. i went all over the control panel and the game settings and i can't see the damn clickable maps.
anyway, i don't use this feature and i'm probably not the only one. so names on maps are a must imho.

[DiM]

All of your questions would be quickly answered by a game in play.

probably, but why would i bother to start/join a game on a map that i can't understand just by looking at the image? there are 190+ maps on this site i'll just pick one where just by looking at the image in the browse maps section i can easily see the connections, the names and the rules.
in fact when i came back a couple of months ago i started playing the new maps that had been quenched while i was gone. i had lots and lots of maps to choose from and yet i haven't bothered to try many of them. the selection process is simple. click on the image. if the map looks good stick around and analyse it. does it have all the info i need? can i easily understand the basics of the gameplay? are the terits names and army numbers properly arranged so that they don't impede gameplay? if all the answers are yes, then i start a game. if no, then i move on to the next map and repeat the process.
right now R&C unfortunately fails on several of those questions

When in play, attack options will be limited to the researches you can gain, not other people's.

this is simply wrong. the map must be very clear on what can be attacked and what can't. i don't want to find myself in the position where i take a new terit only to realise i can't attack from there as i expected.
right now if i take tsf6 i expect to be able to attack deep mining 6 and open conscription 1 or if i take deep mining 1 i expect it to be connected to deep mining 2 and basic mining (1-6) because that's what the legend tells me. if i'm on a game and discover those connections aren't like that then my whole strategy will probably go down the drain and i'll never come back to this map.

[natty dread]

hmm for the life of me i can't find the clickable maps that you mention. i went all over the control panel and the game settings and i can't see the damn clickable maps.
anyway, i don't use this feature and i'm probably not the only one. so names on maps are a must imho.

They're not in control panel because they can't be turned on/off. Go to any of your games and play a turn... you can click the numbers to attack, reinforce etc. You can still play the old way too, though.

[DiM]

hmm for the life of me i can't find the clickable maps that you mention. i went all over the control panel and the game settings and i can't see the damn clickable maps.
anyway, i don't use this feature and i'm probably not the only one. so names on maps are a must imho.

They're not in control panel because they can't be turned on/off. Go to any of your games and play a turn... you can click the numbers to attack, reinforce etc. You can still play the old way too, though.

i don't have any available turns at the moment. it's weird this clickable maps thing isn't mentioned anywhere.
i guess it's a good thing i didn't accidentally click on my maps to deploy in the wrong spot. or maybe they have a confirmation of some sort. )
anyway, clickable maps or not, names must be present on any map and any terit. even if in shortened form like waterloo has them.

[natty dread]

anyway, clickable maps or not, names must be present on any map and any terit. even if in shortened form like waterloo has them.

No, it's not a strict requirement. For example, if you have a grid of territories, you don't have to have the name on every territory, if the territory names are on the sides.

Also, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=139717

[TaCktiX]

While you would be making good points in most circumstances, your devil's advocacy doesn't follow logic. Why would someone be able to attack someone else's research? And why on earth would anyone want to make it EASIER for the other player to win? So the "one lab can attack multiple researches of the same type" argument doesn't make sense, and thus won't be thought of by most people on CC who require logic to render strategy.

Also, the legend is explicit on what can be attacked in regards to researches. As already illustrated by the "connected" basic researches, advanced researches are also connected for graphical continuity. So a lab can attack every basic research of its row (which is headered and separated off from the also-headered advanced section), the TSF of its row (which is acronym-explained on the research itself), and the Doomsday Device of its row. So says the legend. Then a TSF can bombard each of its homelands' researches. Since there is only one lab per homeland (as initial deploy will state for anyone), it follows that the TSF's homeland is the same as the lab that attacked it in the first place. And each basic/advanced pair is stated via color (red, orange, brown), and two of the three pairs have similar names (and the third has a similar bonus). So since each lab is bound to its row ("its own"), why would the basic researches suddenly not be bound by the same ("its advanced one")? That logic doesn't follow.

So while these would normally be valid concerns on another map, they're not in this one, because the objections don't make sense in comparison to what the map explicitly states. Are they 100% idiot-proof clear? No, but there aren't many true idiots on CC. This was a topic of discussion when the map was moving toward a gameplay stamp, and all edits have been vetted by many as being acceptably clear. It's not crystal, but we're taking the approach of not assuming our players are morons.

[DiM]

anyway, clickable maps or not, names must be present on any map and any terit. even if in shortened form like waterloo has them.

No, it's not a strict requirement. For example, if you have a grid of territories, you don't have to have the name on every territory, if the territory names are on the sides.

Also, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=139717

well if you have a chess-like grid with names on the side then it's obvious you don't need to rename all of them. but here you have nothing.
tell me please what's the name of the third open conscription just by looking at the map. i have no idea. obviously when i'm in a game i'll have the drop down menu and i'll deduce it but as i said before i won't be joining a game where i have no idea what is what and what connects to what.

[DiM]

While you would be making good points in most circumstances, your devil's advocacy doesn't follow logic. Why would someone be able to attack someone else's research? And why on earth would anyone want to make it EASIER for the other player to win? So the "one lab can attack multiple researches of the same type" argument doesn't make sense, and thus won't be thought of by most people on CC who require logic to render strategy.

Also, the legend is explicit on what can be attacked in regards to researches. As already illustrated by the "connected" basic researches, advanced researches are also connected for graphical continuity. So a lab can attack every basic research of its row (which is headered and separated off from the also-headered advanced section), the TSF of its row (which is acronym-explained on the research itself), and the Doomsday Device of its row. So says the legend. Then a TSF can bombard each of its homelands' researches. Since there is only one lab per homeland (as initial deploy will state for anyone), it follows that the TSF's homeland is the same as the lab that attacked it in the first place. And each basic/advanced pair is stated via color (red, orange, brown), and two of the three pairs have similar names (and the third has a similar bonus). So since each lab is bound to its row ("its own"), why would the basic researches suddenly not be bound by the same ("its advanced one")? That logic doesn't follow.

So while these would normally be valid concerns on another map, they're not in this one, because the objections don't make sense in comparison to what the map explicitly states. Are they 100% idiot-proof clear? No, but there aren't many true idiots on CC. This was a topic of discussion when the map was moving toward a gameplay stamp, and all edits have been vetted by many as being acceptably clear. It's not crystal, but we're taking the approach of not assuming our players are morons.

as expected yet another bunch of BS to avoid actually putting some effort into making the map better.
just because you participated in the creation of the map and know it inside out doesn't mean that everybody will understand it. the map is pretty complicated and even with very clear connections and extensive explanations at least half of the players around here won't even touch it.
add to that a poorly designe legend with insufficient explanations all plastered on a sub-par graphic presentation and you have all the right ingredients for "success".

i don't know why most people allow this to go forward. maybe they are afraid of your blue name, or maybe they simply don't care about it enough to be bothered to post here.

i have expressed my concerns and you have come up with nothing but artistic stylistic and all kinds of BS reasons to refuse making any kind of work.
i have done my part. if the CAs won't dare to step in and put a stop to this farce just because you're colleagues and all, then i can't do anything about it. with this being said i give up. i'll leave you to do whatever you want and unless significant improvements are done i probably won't even bother looking at a game let alone join one.

cheers,
(disappointed) DiM

[OliverFA]

i don't know why most people allow this to go forward. maybe they are afraid of your blue name, or maybe they simply don't care about it enough to be bothered to post here.

I don't know why you even think that this statement is right. Say everything you want about the map. Judge the quality of the techniques used and the skill of the mapmaker. Even say that you will never play it because it's ugly (which I think is exageration, but if you want to say it, that's ok).

But never use his colour as an argument. Never go personal.

[TaCktiX]

As a word of note, that would be N Open Conscription or something similar. It's the third position over, which is the same as the third position over for the labs, which is clearly labeled "N". To be fair, it's called Nar Open Conscription, but the cardinal directions are emboldened for the six fictitious countries.

And while your feedback is useful (there are several nitpicks I put in Version 14 to address things I hadn't considered that you brought up), I am getting very tired of what you imply in every post you've made: "My opinion is more important than everyone else's who has shown up in this thread in the 2, nearly 3 years it has been in existence." Every opinion has equal value, and to imply that every other person who has ever posted on this topic is "scared of me," and "unwilling to call for changes" is ludicrous and I would daresay insulting to them.

At no point have I been unaccommodating to changes that have improved the map WHILE MAINTAINING THE LOOK I AM HAPPY WITH. It's been said many times before at least in CA circles, but if the community and the mapmaker like a particular look of a map, far be it from a CA to just say "I don't like it" and rail about it endlessly. You already know I don't particularly care for SteamWorks. Instead of just saying "I don't like it, scrap it," I put forth my two cents, put down things that I and several others agreed would be gameplay improvements, and let it on by. To essentially say that my artistic vision is absolute crap is like me turning around and saying your artistic vision is absolute crap. That's an unfair double standard that has nothing to do with my position in the Foundry.

And furthermore, at no point have you been trying to find a happy middle between the two of us. It's a hardcore level of "my way or the highway," which is why I'm getting such a major implication that you think you're better than everyone else. Mapmaking is a collaborative process, and always has been. I love bragging to my friends not on CC about how the Foundry is one of the best peer review processes I've been around. To collaborate, both sides must agree. You've been essentially dictating, the opposite of how improvements get made around here.

Let me conclude by saying I do respect your opinion even if I disagree with it. But to bash me (and everyone who has commented on this map by extension) and call down doom-and-gloom about the future of this map is uncalled for.

[DiM]

i don't know why most people allow this to go forward. maybe they are afraid of your blue name, or maybe they simply don't care about it enough to be bothered to post here.

I don't know why you even think that this statement is right. Say everything you want about the map. Judge the quality of the techniques used and the skill of the mapmaker. Even say that you will never play it because it's ugly (which I think is exageration, but if you want to say it, that's ok).

But never use his colour as an argument.

Never go personal.

i haven't joined the foundry 2 days ago. i did it a long time ago and i pretty much know how many people think. i've talked to many mapmakers and foundry regulars to know that sometimes people are reluctant to post bad comments in other map threads simply because they're afraid the other map makers will retaliate and come to their thread and give bad comments back. and yes this has happened many times. i've had other map makers come in my threads for the first time and posted comments only after i went to theirs and pointed out whatever flaws i saw. and i'm not the only one that noticed this.
also having a blue name gets you leniency from many map makers. i'm not saying that the CAs would act out of spite but some people won't risk it and simply prefer not to comment if there's a chance that CA will stall your map just because you made some negative comments on his.
willing or not many people simply want to stay on the good side of a mod and often they don't even realise they're biased by this desire.

as for making this personal i simply am not. i never am. when i post something about a map i don't give a rat's ass if i'm talking to a buddy a mod or somebody i've never heard of in my life, i'll do my comments the same way i always do.

[DiM]

And furthermore, at no point have you been trying to find a happy middle between the two of us. It's a hardcore level of "my way or the highway," which is why I'm getting such a major implication that you think you're better than everyone else. Mapmaking is a collaborative process, and always has been. I love bragging to my friends not on CC about how the Foundry is one of the best peer review processes I've been around. To collaborate, both sides must agree. You've been essentially dictating, the opposite of how improvements get made around here.

and yet your general idea of collaboration and meeting half way is:

I'm just going to have to say a flat "no"

anyway, as i previously said, i'm done.
i won't bother you anymore. do whatever you want with the map.

[zimmah]

i just realised one problem of the map. there's limited description (graphic/text) on how the attacks are made.

let me explain.
1. in the legend it says a lab assaults its own basic research, tsf and the doomsday device. i assume it means that the first lab from the left can attack the first basic mining from the left, but it can't attack any other basic mining because those belong to other labs. i think this is the right answer because that's how i would design it but i have no idea if that's what you did.

2. then it says in the legend you can only get research bonuses once. what's that? if i take the basic mining i'll get the +2 just for one turn?

3. tsf can bombard all it's homeland's researches. what does this mean? how do i know which tsf belongs to what homeland?

4. a basic research assaults its advanced one. what? can i go from the first basic mining square and attack the 4th deep mining square?

5. in the lower left portion of the legend you have a line that connects the 6th tsf with the first open conscription. is that an attack route? is it both ways? shouldn't the other tsfs and conscriptions be connected too?

6. the sixth deep mining has a line that connects to the line from #5. does that mean that it connects to the 6th tsf and the 1st conscription? is that an attack route? is it both ways? shouldn't the other deep minings be connected too?

7. except for the laboratories none of the research terits have names on the map. i assume they'll be called something like Standing Army 1, Standing Army 2 etc. or something like that. but i really do think having names on the map is a must. at least some shortened names like SA1 SA2 and so on. in fact i'm pretty sure i've seen some CAs requesting that all names be placed on the map. not sure how this slipped through.

1. i asumed that too.

2. that's impossable, i asume he means that you won't get +4 if you take basic mining a second time (if you hold 2 research labs, and use both labs to get 2 different basic minings, you won't get basic mining again, this is possible in multiple ways).

3. the first one is SW, the second one is W, then N, NE, E and SE. just like all researches and labs.

4. Mining -> Deep mining. Secret Conscription -> Open Conscription, Standing army -> mobalized army.

5. no idea.i think it's part of the graphics, and it just looks odd.

6. see 5.

7. I'd guess the anming would be like NW Mining, SW Mining etc. but t's not for me to decide. I'd think it's clear enough too.

[zimmah]

btw, in an earlier post i noticed you said something about that you colour coded the researches. however, i didn't notice that at first glance, and a second lok noticed it but only because i was looking for it. all of those colors used are pretty dark and it's hard to tell them apart. i'd use colors that are less alike, so that you can actually see it's a color-code.

[TaCktiX]

I could look into raising the saturation of the colors a little bit. Ironically the brown you see is actually blue, a deep navy blue at that. Likely if I switched it to a brighter, more cyan it'd turn into a more visible tan. That's the one I think least obvious of the three. The red and orange stand out fairly clearly from the standard yellow.

[Ace Rimmer]

First time looking thoroughly at this map, some feedback from fresh eyes:

* If the lab assaults TSf and Doomsday, why are they listed under Advanced Research? Shouldn't they be under basic research? The way I see it, Standing Army, Secret Conscription, and Mining are the only ones with actual advanced research. National Pride, Sabotage, and Propaganda do not have a corresponding advanced research. I would suggest moving Tsf/Doomsday out of Advanced Research if this is true.

* Does anything attack the Laboratory? nowhere does it say what attacks them. If nothing does, that's fine - since there are losing conditions for loss of the capital, there's no chance of a stalemate like the original Das Schloss.

* I like the look of the map, but I feel it could use more color. It's very brown right now, and there isn't enough color range for me.

* The provisional neutral values are way too high I think. Look at Mobilized Army for example - take out 60 neutrals to get a +12? You're better off expanding and running for another player's capital. Why bother wasting that many troops going for a bonus when you could run after the opponent's capital, which would eliminate them. Especially if an opponent is going for those bonuses, just stack and go for him on the ground instead. Going from SWC to EC would be 33 neutrals to go through before getting to what the opponent has on EC. Much easier to go through the neutrals and eliminate an opponent that way.

* I would eliminate the lines from left to right between the researches (like between the Standing Army researches) as they don't actually connect. I'd rather see a vertical line behind the text, extending between each of the laboratories (like a line between SW and W), so there is a column and delineation of which ones are in the same grouping, and showing that the Standing Army researches cannot attack each other. I also do not like how the laboratories/ researches/etc are connected to the border, those really look like attack routes. Lines should be attack routes, not just for graphics.

* I would add the word "only" in the legend. ie "A lab only assaults its own..." and "A Basic Research only assaults its...". This helps clarify attack routes.

* I would adjust the wording on the legend to say "Each type of research bonus can only be gained once". I think that helps clarify it better without being too wordy.

* I like the clouds done by DiM, they certainly look a lot more like clouds than just a glow on the territory. With all the mines/etc, there should be some early industrial smog, right?

* I would really like to see a small version of the map with triple digits in place of double digits. I play with color codes on (personal preference) and this map would always have triple digits for the anything with neutral values in double digits. I feel the small version would be unplayable with triple digits, it's so cramped as it is on the provisional value map with just double digits.

* Supersizing this seems to be a no-brainer.

I think that we should go to the beta with the current map. The beta it's needed to balance all the tech values, so the sooner we start the better. I don't have time right now to move all the coordenates for all the territories. I can do it for the definitive version. But right now I have no time.

I know this is your baby Oliver, and a lot of work has already been put into the map and XML, but I think there are still too many outstanding graphic and gameplay issues for it to go Beta. I understand beta will be needed to ensure the neutral values are correct, but this doesn't appear that it should have received a graphics stamp.

[TaCktiX]

I can make a lot of those typographical edits, and the suggestion to go vertical sounds like a good one for the Basics. We'll see if I can manage something similar for the advanced ones (likely having them go straight down from the top).

Each starting position on the map is one capital and its matching laboratory (note that the Provisional Values have these in player colors and not neutral). You hold one (or 2, in 2-3p) from the game start.

As for the Basic vs. Advanced, it's a cost difference for the delimiter. All of the Basics are fairly cheap (except Sabotage). Advanced, the cheapest is 45, escalating right on up to 200 for the Doomsday Device (which is more or less a game-ender a la Arms Race nuke). It's not a perfect analogue, but it's fairly close.

As for the values, they are based on a "5 turn payoff" rubric. Since this map concept is completely different than pretty much everything else, we're going to be relying on beta to adjust values. There are literally PAGES of discussion over the neutral values further back in the topic, but it came down to us really not knowing what will work. We shall see.

Graphically speaking, I'm deliberately going for a tarnished gold look (which brown can be a generalized form of when you think about it). I'm going to spruce up the edge elements a little bit with some lighting effects, but I really like the unified tint of the map. I realize it's not for everyone, but that doesn't make it butt-ugly either. Though I likely will brighten it up a little more.

There's a version of 888's in this post here. No territories have moved places at all. It isn't pretty, but every border, symbol, and name can be distinguished. Even cases where the 888 crosses borders you can still see the border.

I realize that supersize seems like a no-brainer to folks, and it might be do-able, but only if I never change the size of the large. I am literally editing a map that is either 450MB or 600MB in size while the source is open on a 2GB of RAM netbook (though I do steal a 22" monitor). HOWEVER, I would much prefer not to have to do that if at all possible, as it might limit the appeal of the map, being "bigger." I could be totally wrong in this, but with an untried concept we need as much help on our side as we can get.

[natty dread]

Each starting position on the map is one capital and its matching laboratory (note that the Provisional Values have these in player colors and not neutral). You hold one (or 2, in 2-3p) from the game start.

A thing comes in mind... can't remember if this was discussed before, but how about setting a starting positions cap so that you'd always start with just one?

Also, in 2-player games it would be 3, since starting positions are divided differently than regular territories in 2-player games. So if you want it to be 2 in 2-player games, you at least need to put the cap at 2.

[Gillipig]

A thing comes in mind... can't remember if this was discussed before, but how about setting a starting positions cap so that you'd always start with just one?

Also, in 2-player games it would be 3, since starting positions are divided differently than regular territories in 2-player games. So if you want it to be 2 in 2-player games, you at least need to put the cap at 2.

I think that should've been done on a lot of maps! Clandemonium for example. I finished a 1vs1 game on that map not long ago. It was basically over after 5 turns but it still took ages to complete because both players started with 6 autodeploy regions! Just a waste of time really! So that's a lesson this map can learn from! Clandemonium is probably the map where this problem is most prominent but it could be a problem on this maps as well!

Also I still don't like that thick unstyled yellow line which is all over the place! Are you going to try something different or not? If you're not open to suggestions it feels like a waste of time posting advice here! Maybe that's why it's taken so long to finish!?

[Ace Rimmer]

As for the values, they are based on a "5 turn payoff" rubric. Since this map concept is completely different than pretty much everything else, we're going to be relying on beta to adjust values. There are literally PAGES of discussion over the neutral values further back in the topic, but it came down to us really not knowing what will work. We shall see.

I'll be more than happy to play this game with people focusing on the research portion. I'll gladly drop everything on the conquer portion and win easily. If you stack your troops to take out standing army and mobilized army, that's 75 neutrals for a +15 bonus (although I know you'd have standing army for a bit beforehand). If you stack 75 armies there, I can easily take out at least one of your conquer territories first, with a large amount of armies left over to take out your other. This game is going to be called Conquer, not Research and Conquer. If you want the 5 turn payoff for Research, than the neutral values for Conquer need to be much higher, to make it harder to get to another person's capital.

There's a version of 888's in this post here. No territories have moved places at all. It isn't pretty, but every border, symbol, and name can be distinguished. Even cases where the 888 crosses borders you can still see the border.

That map is really REALLY tough to look at on small. I don't think it matches the standards that should be upheld by the foundry, especially a map being done by two men in blue.

I understand it's a lot of work - but the maps done by the guys in blue should be of the highest caliber imho. That's why you guys have the blue names, you have great skill and your maps should be used as examples of great maps. Not examples of what not to do.

[TaCktiX]

No, that's not why it has taken so long to finish. We've essentially waited for 6 months for the XML to get some new additions so that our game code isn't a whopping 404KB (for comparison, King's Court has 126KB or so). Those additions have been put off for other updates, so we instead changed the XML to only cover our biggest size-creator up to 75% of all the territories (Secret/Open Conscription, the biggest "Any X" bonuses anyone has ever tried). If you own 75% of the map, you've won, and for Beta that's all we need. The reduced size I believe is noted on Page 71 or 72.

And I do want to thank everyone who's starting making comments. Really, this map got very little feedback except for a cabal of 4 people arguing over gameplay possibilities. Graphical notes weren't high on the priority list for most. While I am not going to implement absolutely everything, I'm going to do my best to improve things based on feedback. HOWEVER, this is going to have to wait until I get less busy. (Around the 15th or so).

EDIT: Fastposted. I'll discuss it with Oliver about the neutral values, we might change the research ones to be lower so that they payoff sooner. As for the 888's, I'll do some thinking about whether the large is going to get downscaled to 700x700 (well, 711x700) and become a new small. The large will stay put, and it's only an 11% difference, but it's enough.