Conquer Club

If it doesn't work out with software, or I can't convince you, that's fine. Great map anyway! I'm now 20 of 21 on it. If the map gets quenched as is, it's still my favorite right now!
Thanks for considering and responding to my observations, even though I'm the only one voicing these concerns at the moment.

No offense intended, but it appears to me that you have confused balance in the historical scenario with balance in gameplay.
The Spanish and English fleets are ONLY facing off in the historical scenario - in the game it's individual ships facing off regardless of nationality based on drop.
The Spanish and English fleets don't balance each other out because the drops aren't set to give one side all Spanish and the other all English.

I think you have to look at this map as 12 starting spots, not two nations.
You have to look at how possible drops affect the balance between players.
2 of the starting spots have an advantage no other spots have. Those 2 don't balance each other out because there is no guarantee of how they will drop. (1 player could have both, 1 could be neutral, etc.)

cairnswk wrote:NO the beacons didn't carry troops, but they did provide a warning, which in those days was instant messaging and as good as having extra troops avialble.

Again, the metaphor breaks down for me because the whole point of the beacon chain is to warn and give an advantage to London or the English fleet.
But the gameplay on the map isn't about English fleet vs Spanish. It's about 12 starting spots. The player who drops Penzance gets an advantage. (Ironically the chain gives an advantage to troops attacking London - opposite of the historical function).
Yes, other starting spots along the beacon chain can grab a piece of it. I've cut the chain and had it cut on me, but you have to fight through neutrals to get to it from other starting spots, while Penzance can take three n1s for +1, etc.
If someone uses the chain to attack you across the map, you have to fight through a lot of neutrals to get to Penzance and stop it - rather than counterattacking along the attack route and fighting your enemy all the way, which would be the ideal strategy.
If the beacons were 2-way a player would have to weigh the opportunity of attacking against the possibility of a counter-attack.

cairnswk wrote:I don't agree about land armies not being part of the ships bonus, the spanish carried their supplies aboard in the SS vessel, the English have to get theirs from somewhere.

I don't understand. In the same nation bonus the only "land army" included is LB Army Brussel. Do you mean the bonus should include the English LBs?
I think you mentioned adding the de Parma army territs to the bonus? Of course it could be a "same nation territ" bonus and you could include the English land territs since they provide supplies, but it just seems simplest to me to make it ships only. This part of the discussion is just about clarity in the legend as far as I'm concerned. Maybe I'm all alone in being dense or detailed enough to have gotten confused trying to figure out a +1 bonus.

All this is fairly minor as you have pointed out. The bonuses in question are small and don't always come into play.
However, since I love this map so much, I would love to see a couple tweaks to "perfect it" in my opinion.

I also agree the beacons have advantage to those starting from the left, specifically triumph and starting with penzance LB. You can take a +1 bonus for only taking three neutral 1s.

I think the either way attack from the beacons is a good solution for the issue.


I would consider the sao martino bonus another possible problem too. Why should two spots have a strong advantage on the map compared to the rest. IE sao martino and the bonus in the bottom right corner and penzance LB getting to hit the beacons.

jonofperu, i'm going to ask you to give it a rest please. my displeasure is that you - like many others on this site - didn't bother too much to look at this while it was in devlopment. And therein lies the frustration of both sides.
I am tired of going round in circles with you, and i have other issues on my plate right now with software and backing up files.
The real problem is that yes the map is made for potentailly 12 players, but the game engine doesn't allow side v side play...

SO UNTIL THAT CHANGE OCCURS to adjust the xml, then the map stays as is.
Either that or we close the map entirely.

Version 45.

Changes:
1. Moncada fixed.
2. "max positions" placed in xml = 4
3. Fixed - Santa Cruz incorrect mutual bombardment with Santa Ana Stern (as well as San Buenaventura
4. de Parma armies listed in xml as part of Spanish Nation bonus, and notated on map.
5. Capitania Bow no longer bombards EYS(D)

I agree with jonofperu and Jippd that there is a big advantage to whoever starts at Triumph. With all the 1s along the beacons, it makes it easy to attack to the right, and it's much more difficult for those starting on the right side of the map to respond. 2 way attacks on the beacons would be an ideal solution. Alternatively, it may be sufficient to change the starting neutrals on the beacons, either to 2 for all of them or to 3 on Penzance, Plymouth, Portsmouth, and Hastings beacons.

Also, one minor bug: Currently Capitania Bow and EYS(D) can mutually bombard. A visual analysis of the map suggests that they should not be able to do so. I think this should be a minor XML tweak to fix it.

Doc_Brown wrote:I agree with jonofperu and Jippd that there is a big advantage to whoever starts at Triumph. With all the 1s along the beacons, it makes it easy to attack to the right, and it's much more difficult for those starting on the right side of the map to respond. 2 way attacks on the beacons would be an ideal solution. Alternatively, it may be sufficient to change the starting neutrals on the beacons, either to 2 for all of them or to 3 on Penzance, Plymouth, Portsmouth, and Hastings beacons.

Also, one minor bug: Currently Capitania Bow and EYS(D) can mutually bombard. A visual analysis of the map suggests that they should not be able to do so. I think this should be a minor XML tweak to fix it.

I agree on the beacons. i think it is a huge advantage to start at triumph with those one way beacons. maybe they should be 2 way or the only strategy will be to stack to go right after triumph

Thanks for the short and sweet style Doc.

Doc_Brown wrote:... 2 way attacks on the beacons would be an ideal solution.

This is already currently possible in the current xml (with the exception of the London Beacon). I just checked Game 13867815 in which jonofperu is a player.

Alternatively, it may be sufficient to change the starting neutrals on the beacons, either to 2 for all of them or to 3 on Penzance, Plymouth, Portsmouth, and Hastings beacons.

No need to go here because of the above.

Also, one minor bug: Currently Capitania Bow and EYS(D) can mutually bombard. A visual analysis of the map suggests that they should not be able to do so. I think this should be a minor XML tweak to fix it.

Fixed in the xml above.

Awaiting upload.

Version 45.

Changes:
1. Moncada fixed.
2. "max positions" placed in xml = 4
3. Fixed - Santa Cruz incorrect mutual bombardment with Santa Ana Stern (as well as San Buenaventura
4. de Parma armies listed in xml as part of Spanish Nation bonus, and notated on map.
5. Capitania Bow no longer bombards EYS(D)

Forwarded for uploading.

I'm confused. The beacons are a one way attack route but you are saying it is a two way attack route already? We are suggesting that you can go right to left on the beacons instead of just left to right.

I also think the neutral values should possibly be increased. For only three neutral 1s you can get a +1 by taking the beacons. It is an extremely low neutral cost to get a +1. so the Neutral expenditure to bonus ratio is fairly low compared to the rest of the map.

Jippd wrote:I'm confused. The beacons are a one way attack route but you are saying it is a two way attack route already? We are suggesting that you can go right to left on the beacons instead of just left to right.

Now that one i am totally against, for historical reasons. Beacons were lit from Penzance > London, not vicky verka.
Decision made: Not going to happen. Please don't bring that one up again.

I also think the neutral values should possibly be increased. For only three neutral 1s you can get a +1 by taking the beacons. It is an extremely low neutral cost to get a +1. so the Neutral expenditure to bonus ratio is fairly low compared to the rest of the map.

I don't think this would balance with the opposite De Parma bonus.

cairnswk wrote:

I also think the neutral values should possibly be increased. For only three neutral 1s you can get a +1 by taking the beacons. It is an extremely low neutral cost to get a +1. so the Neutral expenditure to bonus ratio is fairly low compared to the rest of the map.

I don't think this would balance with the opposite De Parma bonus.

Actually, I think it would be well balanced. For De Parma, you have to go through a neutral 3,1,1 to get a +1. You could also increase LB Army Brussel to a 2. Then just set to the 4 beacons with land access to neutral 3. I think that would balance pretty closely, especially given the strategic advantage of the beacons.

I think the beacon issue may be a bigger problem in quads games because each player only gets one ship and it is possible for one team to start on the left (say Triumph, Revenge, Capitania, and Santa Ana) and one on the right without good beacon access (say Rainbow, Vanguard, San Lorenzo, and San Cristobal). Team 1 stacks on Penzance LB, and the Triumph player rushes through 9 neutral 1s on his first two turns gaining a +3 that will be extremely difficult to break. From there, he goes through Hastings, Margate, and Cure to take out Vanguard. I'm not seeing a good counter for that without having to go through several 6s and 4s.

I am sorry, but am not well at present.

Any further discussion on the bloody beacons and i will have this map pulled down and you can create your bloody own.

I am sick and tired of arguing the point on this.

We are only trying to help make the map better by making sure it is a fair and balanced map. We are trying to assist you in producing the best product possible. I'm not sure why you are getting mad at people for trying to help you create a superior product?

The beta stage is designed to test things out and find out weaknesses so that it can get improved. There are different players coming here to give there input to try to help out. Even if that input is not something you agree with I am sure none of it is meant in malice.

Jippd is exactly right. There's no reason to have an attitude of, "Play my way or I'm taking my ball and going home." I did take time to search through the thread for all discussions about beacons before my most recent comment. I understand your rejection of making the beacon path 2-way (allowing attacks from left to right). I still think that is the simplest solution, but I can understand it doesn't fit your vision for the map. Also, I understand that you're losing access to your graphics tools and can't make graphical changes in the future. Fair enough. That's why my most recent proposal was to balance it out by adjusting the starting neutrals in a couple of the beacons. It's a change that is strictly in the XML and it should still fit your vision of the map.

I think it's a great map and I'm impressed with the work you've put into it already. I just want to have a conversation about what, if any, changes could help make it a better map. Are you honestly of the opinion that you'd rather have a finished map that gets played infrequently because of a perceived imbalance in start locations, as opposed to one that stays in beta a little while longer with minor XML tweaks to turn it into a classic?

U should listen to people who actually play the game and know what they are talking about.Its fine that you like to make mapsonly, and you are good at that.You are clearly not good at playing them so you should listen to people who are good at it.

Capitania logo is deformed, dimension/proportion is incorrect and pixelized

One other thing with the graphics: I think the ship silhouette at the bottom of the Vanguard Command ship should be flipped around to face the other direction. I'm assuming that your intention is for the front of the ship silhouettes to match up with the command ship bow territory. San Lorenzo is currently the only ship facing west. San Lorenzo and Vanguard are the only two to have the bow territory to the west.

Also, would it make sense to add some visual indication to the map about which side of the command ship is the starting point for each one? Some command ships have the bow as the starting point, and some have the stern. Maybe a dot on whichever side is designated would be helpful?

The start point of bow/stern is randomly assigned and not predetermined for the ships.

Jippd wrote:The start point of bow/stern is randomly assigned and not predetermined for the ships.

I may be wrong, but I don't think that's true. The XML has start positions assigned:

... <territory start="2">Capitania Bow</territory> ...
... <territory start="2">Santa Ana Stern</territory> ...
... <territory start="2">San Juan de Portugal Bow</territory> ...
... <territory start="2">San Cristobal Bow</territory> ...
... <territory start="2">São Martinho Bow</territory> ...
... <territory start="2">San Lorenzo Bow</territory> ...
... <territory start="2">Triumph Bow</territory> ...
... <territory start="2">Revenge Stern</territory> ...
... <territory start="2">Ark Royal Stern</territory> ...
... <territory start="2">Victory Stern</territory> ...
... <territory start="2">Rainbow Stern</territory> ...
... <territory start="2">Vanguard Bow</territory> ...

If I am understanding this correctly, then I think it's clear that some indication about the starting points should be made on the map.

Jippd wrote:The start point of bow/stern is randomly assigned and not predetermined for the ships.

Actually, it is. There's no way to do it your way.

Very minor point (just an XML tweak maybe?) but in a game I'm currently playing I own White Bear (next to Ark Royal in the middle top) - BOB and the map rules say I can bombard PTL(A) but I can't see the troops on the tert - it's just returning ?? for me. I havent actually tried to bombard it but maybe check that it should be visible? Thanks.

Edit - correction - BOB says it can bombard me but I cannot bombard it.

crispybits wrote:Very minor point (just an XML tweak maybe?) but in a game I'm currently playing I own White Bear (next to Ark Royal in the middle top) - BOB and the map rules say I can bombard PTL(A) but I can't see the troops on the tert - it's just returning ?? for me. I havent actually tried to bombard it but maybe check that it should be visible? Thanks.

Edit - correction - BOB says it can bombard me but I cannot bombard it.

you are right, PTLA needs to bombard white bear

Gilligan wrote:

crispybits wrote:Very minor point (just an XML tweak maybe?) but in a game I'm currently playing I own White Bear (next to Ark Royal in the middle top) - BOB and the map rules say I can bombard PTL(A) but I can't see the troops on the tert - it's just returning ?? for me. I havent actually tried to bombard it but maybe check that it should be visible? Thanks.

Edit - correction - BOB says it can bombard me but I cannot bombard it.

you are right, PTLA needs to bombard white bear

That is already in the last xml adjustment on previous page, which i don't think has been uploaded yet.

Ah OK thanks - did read back a bit but didn't see that.

Im playing this:http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=13943452

And yesterday tried to attack from Sao Mateus to Army Leper didnt work... so i took Army Kales instead and then the ship... then i tried to attack out of de parma ship in to Army gent it hink it was same problem...

it might be me, or my computer or my internet... or it might be worth looking into for u?

Lovely work on the map!