Conquer Club

Well, 33 territories (not including Antarctica)...in an 8p game I'd hate to have 1/4 of my territories me decay and potentially 5 people that don't have a single one. Not to mention games with 9+.

To have Antarctica start normal is the way to go. It would not be a bad thing to have 2 of the 3 start (code Enderby as neutral 2) in any game size depending on the drops. Getzs and Wilkes will provide a small fun zone to the games and not make the map sterile. You also have 34 regions, one coded neutral leaves 33, that still means in 8 player games you get 4 regions each. So a limit of 8 players max should be added to the map.

There are 36 territories in total:
N America 5
S America 4
Antarctica 3
Europe 5
Africa 6
Asia 8
Oceania 5

If they all start, that's a good number for most games...

MrBenn wrote:There are 36 territories in total:
N America 5
S America 4
Antarctica 3
Europe 5
Africa 6
Asia 8
Oceania 5

If they all start, that's a good number for most games...

It is a good number but Antarctica needs a neutral added to it. So make it 35 start and the neutral.

Some thoughts:
- you missed the R in northern africa on the large version.
- i would call european russian what you labelled as komi. I see it is the lergest territory there, but what you represented with that name is exactly european russian, so why not label it in that way.
- kamchatka looks more Sacha-jacuzia
- kazakstan could be more CSI (Commonwealth of Independent States) of russia
- siam doesn't exist anymore, if you are searching for an alternative thailand would be better.
- i like that oceania is no 1 border, but it looks to me that what you did with antarctica will create the same problem. An easy bonus to grab and keep as starting point to have a good victory. I see what you are trying to do with the decay, but since it grants to you the bonus anyway i do not think it would stop to give a huge advantage to anyone who is able to grab it.
- asia will be no man land, 5 troops for soemthing we know it's almost impossible to defend...or in the opposite way it would be too strong due the absence of a connection on the right side of the map. If you take ocaenia, you can expand to asia and grab it and have to defend a 12 region area from just 4 points for 11 troops (7+4)
- africa is a nightmare imo, it is a place where everyone try to pass to move around, specially without side connections. I suspect it would be too hard to keep with the key position it has for just 3 troops.
- if you're going to add a neutral on enderby, please consider that it is an important crossing point, so when it is neutral it would be a protection to easily expand in america, which looks to me good place where fight and expand. Same thing for oceania. So don't make it so hard to take, to allow player to break other people bonus before they can create a unbreakable stronghold.

Thank you

> I've relabelled Northern Africa.
> Komi is now E.E.Russia / EER / East European Russia
> Kamchatka is now Sakha (the English name of the region I think you were referring to?)
> Kazakhstan is now Central Asia
> Siam is now Thailand

In terms of Gameplay, the following image shows a slightly different layout - the path between W Africa and Brazil has been removed, and replaced with a link from Iberia to Colombia. This makes Africa less of a thoroughfare, and provides more starting options. I've adjusted the N America bonus to 2 as in this version it has the same configuration as Oceania.

Amended Layout


I think I slightly prefer this layout. Thoughts?

Previous Layout (for Comparison)

Not sure I like the removing the Iberia to Canada route. Sort of brings this back to being to close to classic. Why not Iberia to USA and North Africa to Columbia?

koontz1973 wrote:Not sure I like the removing the Iberia to Canada route. Sort of brings this back to being to close to classic. Why not Iberia to USA and North Africa to Columbia?

Agreed. or perhaps Siberia to Canada.
Enderby being a choke point? perhaps Wilkes to Austalia
and where is the connection between Celebes and Bornea, and does that connect to Indonesia...without the 88s i am not sure what is going on there?
Is Philippines a dead-end?

How about having routes from Iberia/Canada and Iberia/Colombia, and changing Greenland/Scandinavia to Greenland/Siberia? The Europe bonus could then be dropped to a 3, making most of the bonus regions (except perhaps Asia) attractive places to start (depending on the drop, of course)

MrBenn wrote:How about having routes from Iberia/Canada and Iberia/Colombia, and changing Greenland/Scandinavia to Greenland/Siberia? The Europe bonus could then be dropped to a 3, making most of the bonus regions (except perhaps Asia) attractive places to start (depending on the drop, of course)

How does the double route look? Greenland to Siberia I would be wary of. It does not seem natural to have that.

A double-route looked a bit odd, so after much fiddling about, I opted for an Iberia/USA link and a North Africa/Colombia link.
I added in an Alaska/USA link which felt like it should be there and makes N America less linear.
I'm still undecided what to do at the top of the map. I've toyed with a Greenland/Siberia path (which looks OK), a Greenland/Euro-Russia path (which looks strange).
In this latest version I've squeezed in an extra territory (Svalbard) into Europe and linked it to Greenland and Scandinavia, although I'm not happy with the way it looks - especially on the small map.
The small map is shown here with 888 digits just to show that they'll fit.

MrBenn wrote:I opted for an Iberia/USA link and a North Africa/Colombia link.

This works really well. Best to leave this now as it is.

MrBenn wrote:I added in an Alaska/USA link which felt like it should be there and makes N America less linear.

In two minds on this one. Whilst it makes USA less linear, it is such a small continent it does not really matter. Also, you now have no trap point (holding someone hostage to grab there cards when the sweep fails ). Either way is OK but I prefer it without.

MrBenn wrote:In this latest version I've squeezed in an extra territory (Svalbard) into Europe and linked it to Greenland and Scandinavia, although I'm not happy with the way it looks - especially on the small map.

This was not a good idea. Best to leave it of. Trying to squeeze it in there makes it almost unplayable on the small map.

MrBenn wrote:I'm still undecided what to do at the top of the map. I've toyed with a Greenland/Siberia path (which looks OK), a Greenland/Euro-Russia path (which looks strange).

In the original classic map, the Americas have3 routes in and out, this one has that already:
USA - Iberia
Colombia - N.Africa
Argentina - Enderby
so why try and squeeze another one in? I would be more than happy to no have a northern route. It would make America a far better place to do battle in. With the northern route, that would become the default route in or out. My honest opinion is to leave this as it is with the 3 routes now.

koontz1973 wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I opted for an Iberia/USA link and a North Africa/Colombia link.

This works really well. Best to leave this now as it is.

MrBenn wrote:I added in an Alaska/USA link which felt like it should be there and makes N America less linear.

In two minds on this one. Whilst it makes USA less linear, it is such a small continent it does not really matter. Also, you now have no trap point (holding someone hostage to grab there cards when the sweep fails ). Either way is OK but I prefer it without.

MrBenn wrote:In this latest version I've squeezed in an extra territory (Svalbard) into Europe and linked it to Greenland and Scandinavia, although I'm not happy with the way it looks - especially on the small map.

This was not a good idea. Best to leave it of. Trying to squeeze it in there makes it almost unplayable on the small map.

I agree with all of this

koontz1973 wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I'm still undecided what to do at the top of the map. I've toyed with a Greenland/Siberia path (which looks OK), a Greenland/Euro-Russia path (which looks strange).

In the original classic map, the Americas have3 routes in and out, this one has that already:
USA - Iberia
Colombia - N.Africa
Argentina - Enderby
so why try and squeeze another one in? I would be more than happy to no have a northern route. It would make America a far better place to do battle in. With the northern route, that would become the default route in or out. My honest opinion is to leave this as it is with the 3 routes now.

That's actually quite a good idea, and would help make the map more different from the other World maps. If this were the case, then would you still want N America to be linear? Or would it better to be slightly more connected? As this would make both N America and Oceania 5 terr regions with 2 defence points, they would both need to be the same - I'd put them both at a +2, and leave Europe and S Africa as +3, leaving Asia at +5.

cairnswk wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Not sure I like the removing the Iberia to Canada route. Sort of brings this back to being to close to classic. Why not Iberia to USA and North Africa to Columbia?

Agreed. or perhaps Siberia to Canada.
Enderby being a choke point? perhaps Wilkes to Austalia
and where is the connection between Celebes and Bornea, and does that connect to Indonesia...without the 88s i am not sure what is going on there?
Is Philippines a dead-end?

MrBenn, i noticed you may have missed this...although i see you have sorted to northern routes !

cairnswk wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Not sure I like the removing the Iberia to Canada route. Sort of brings this back to being to close to classic. Why not Iberia to USA and North Africa to Columbia?

Agreed. or perhaps Siberia to Canada.
Enderby being a choke point? perhaps Wilkes to Austalia
and where is the connection between Celebes and Bornea, and does that connect to Indonesia...without the 88s i am not sure what is going on there?
Is Philippines a dead-end?

MrBenn, i noticed you may have missed this...although i see you have sorted to northern routes !

Sorry cairns

The Northern routes will hopefully be sorted in the next update. The 88 digit for Indonesia will cover the gap between Malaysia and Borneo. Indonesia borders Thailand, Philippines, New Guinea and Australia. As you surmised, Philippines is a dead-end. Hopefully it will be clearer when there are army numbers on the map.

^^ OK, but what about this...

Enderby being a choke point? perhaps Wilkes to Austalia

cairnswk wrote:^^ OK, but what about this...

Enderby being a choke point? perhaps Wilkes to Austalia

Does anybody else have an opinion on this?

MrBenn wrote:

cairnswk wrote:^^ OK, but what about this...

Enderby being a choke point? perhaps Wilkes to Austalia

Does anybody else have an opinion on this?

I'm fine with, and since no one has an opinion, flip a coin to choose.

MrBenn, update time is now.

[Moved]

It would appear that development of this map has stalled. The map is moved to the Recycling Box and put into Vacation status for the next 6 months. If the mapmaker wants to continue with the map, then one of the Cartographer Assistants will be able to help put the thread back into the Foundry system, after an update has been made.

I'll see if I've got these files on the HD from my old laptop - I'm hoping they're there and that this shouldn't take too much work to finish off? I seem to remember being nearly done with it in any case?

koontz1973 wrote:MrBenn, update time is now.

A little bit late, but here:

Large:


Small:

So, should I start writing some XML, or is this heading back to the foundry dustbowl?

MrBenn wrote:So, should I start writing some XML, or is this heading back to the foundry dustbowl?

With an XML we can put this on the beta site. Seems to me like there's not much left to do...

Yeah - this one looks ready to go in my humble estimation - unless DiM can spot anything (no offence - you are good at spotting detail DiM)

Nice work MrB