Conquer Club

Either way is fine with me, though I may lean towards the splitting of Banat.

Ok, so then, I will have a Banatna split, and South Kosovo starts with neutral 2.

Any other gameplay conserns?

Looking at the hold all ports and Adriatic Sea for only +2, it seems a little low IMO. It's not worth enough for anyone to go after. I think I would like to see it at either +4 or +5 for the 6 territories. I'm leaning towards +4, as I feel that it just enough for someone to want to take and hold it, and yet not so high that it could make the game lopsided.

The +2 ports bonus is not meant to be a stand-alone bonus. I don't want to make it too strong, as it's a side dish, not the main course.

Picture this: you hold Slovenia & Primorje-Gorski, you get +2 troops for an area with 2 borders. With territory bonus, that's 5 troops a turn for defending 2 territories. So far so good. Then you take the rest of the ports + the Sea, and you now get +6 - as Titograd is a capital and you now have 2 capitals. Counting territory bonus, you now get 9 troops for defending 5 borders.

Well, I could increase it to +3. I think that's high enough for it, with Slovenia it would be 10 troops for 5 borders - that's 2 per territory, or 1 per territory and 5 to spare - which is quite adequate in my opinion.

natty_dread wrote:The +2 ports bonus is not meant to be a stand-alone bonus. I don't want to make it too strong, as it's a side dish, not the main course.

Picture this: you hold Slovenia & Primorje-Gorski, you get +2 troops for an area with 2 borders. With territory bonus, that's 5 troops a turn for defending 2 territories. So far so good. Then you take the rest of the ports + the Sea, and you now get +6 - as Titograd is a capital and you now have 2 capitals. Counting territory bonus, you now get 9 troops for defending 5 borders.

Well, I could increase it to +3. I think that's high enough for it, with Slovenia it would be 10 troops for 5 borders - that's 2 per territory, or 1 per territory and 5 to spare - which is quite adequate in my opinion.

Fair enough. Go with +3 and we'll see how it works out in beta.

Maybe I should cut off the mountain between Pristina / Pljevlja? Macedonia is still a bit hard to reach, and if you manage to hold Serbia + Kosovo + Macedonia, you get +10 for only 3 borders - that's a bit too much, seeing as on the west side, all you have is Slovenia + Ports + Montenegro - which is 6 borders at least for that same +10.

So removing the impassable between Pristina/Pljevlja means you need to defend 4 borders on the east side...

Ok I decided to do this instead

Maybe I should remove the bridge from Dubrovnik after all...

Bridge removed.

Are there any gameplay concerns that I should address?

Natty...do the ports and Adriatic sea link. i see there is a bonus, but i'm not sure if they link as there is no lines for linking and nothing mentioned in the legend.

cairnswk wrote:Natty...do the ports and Adriatic sea link. i see there is a bonus, but i'm not sure if they link as there is no lines for linking and nothing mentioned in the legend.

Yes all ports connect to Adriatic Sea but not to each other.

isaiah40 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Natty...do the ports and Adriatic sea link. i see there is a bonus, but i'm not sure if they link as there is no lines for linking and nothing mentioned in the legend.

Yes all ports connect to Adriatic Sea but not to each other.

Duh! Me.
It would help if i read the legend properly. Sorry guys.

Nah, we all do it at times.

That said... do you guys think it would be more clear if I would draw the sea routes as lines between the ports / sea? I kinda like the clean look without lines though...

This is how it would look with sea routes drawn:

Since you have the description mentioned in the legend area, and it is very much to the point and self explanatory, I say leave them out. If enough people complain about it then go ahead and put them in.

Ok, will do.

Is there anything else about the gameplay that should be addressed?

natty_dread wrote:This is how it would look with sea routes drawn:

i like the sea routes. they aren't cluttering the map at all and at the same time they make the connections visible at a glance.
even with the clear explanation in the legend many people would still not see those connections and then be pissed they lost the game.

I will be fine with it either way.

I guess I'll keep the sea routes then. I'll just have to make them look nice...

Anyone got any gameplay input? I think the current gameplay is pretty much good to go.

Thinking of taking the legend more to this direction... I'd like to make it sort of like a poster on the wall, somewhat worn etc.



Alternate style for the capital icons, inspired by the SFRY flag:




Does anyone have an opinion on the territory borders? I kinda like the dashed lines and I feel they fit the style, but I could also go for more conventional solid ones.

I like the dashed lines - they do fit the rocky, raggedy theme. Also like the visual ease of sea routes.

I prefer the red and yellow stars, since they are more with the theme and the new minimap. The anchors may have to become similarly flat, since the star is no longer 3D.

There's something funny about how the flag sits on the new 'paper' minimap, tucked under the land like that. Yet shrinking it so it isn't tucked would look too funny. Maybe expanding it to fill the sea on that side with the motif? But that would make it less flaggy, and we want a flag. Or include the rest of the land and fill the Adriatic Sea with it? That might be even odder though. It's almost like it needs to either be more a part of the paper or less a part of it (as in, tacked on top, an aged embroidered patch or paper flag with a chip in one edge or something). Maybe it's just too perfect to be on the same sheet as an edge aged to yellow and faded like that. Rambling. If you can put your finger on it and improve it, awesome, if not, fine too

I notice in earlier versions the rivers tapered off as they left the map, perhaps that would be more flowing than the blunt ending.