Conquer Club

BETA !!!


WOOHOO !!


Congrats Bison

The Bison King wrote:

Boss Tokugawa wrote:As a Native Californian I love the map. However I must point out the Napa Valley/County is mislabeled. What you have there is Sonoma county. Napa Valley/county is the east of Sonoma County.
Hope that before this leaves this point someone take a look at. I live in Sonoma valley and The Napa valley does not extend to the ocean or hit Mendocino county. Here is a link to an appropriate map. http://geology.com/state-map/maps/calif ... ty-map.gif
Thanks for all the hard work!

Well I wasn't really going off of counties when I did this. More just cities and geographical zones. I was aware that Napa isn't doesn't extend as far west as pictured, that was just a fib that some other Cali native said would be fine just to fit Nappa in somewhere.

However if that really does mess things up I suppose we could scrap Richmond rename in Napa and move mendicino down. I'm not sure what I'd call what was Mendicino then, but I'm sure I could find something. What do you think of that Tokugawa?

Just had a thought... What about labeling Napa valley...The Wine country? I see that you did that with the gold country. Could be cool instead of getting into adding Sonoma Valley.

Just starting to play this, so no real comment on the play. However, its rather strange to see both Santa Barbara and then Ventura as completely separate areas. You really need something like maybe cabrillo..or, instead, to move Santa Barbara up and put something else.. maybe Pismo Beach, maybe San Louis Obispo closer to Monterey.

Boss Tokugawa wrote:

The Bison King wrote:

Boss Tokugawa wrote:As a Native Californian I love the map. However I must point out the Napa Valley/County is mislabeled. What you have there is Sonoma county. Napa Valley/county is the east of Sonoma County.
Hope that before this leaves this point someone take a look at. I live in Sonoma valley and The Napa valley does not extend to the ocean or hit Mendocino county. Here is a link to an appropriate map. http://geology.com/state-map/maps/calif ... ty-map.gif
Thanks for all the hard work!

Well I wasn't really going off of counties when I did this. More just cities and geographical zones. I was aware that Napa isn't doesn't extend as far west as pictured, that was just a fib that some other Cali native said would be fine just to fit Nappa in somewhere.

However if that really does mess things up I suppose we could scrap Richmond rename in Napa and move mendicino down. I'm not sure what I'd call what was Mendicino then, but I'm sure I could find something. What do you think of that Tokugawa?

Just had a thought... What about labeling Napa valley...The Wine country? I see that you did that with the gold country. Could be cool instead of getting into adding Sonoma Valley.

judging by how things are going I feel that that is liable to offend Californians from other parts of the state who would insist that the best wine comes from their region.

I wished it didn't say Cali. Nothing says "not from California" than "Cali".

darwin68 wrote:I wished it didn't say Cali. Nothing says "not from California" than "Cali".

What about "Fornia"?

darwin68 wrote:I wished it didn't say Cali. Nothing says "not from California" than "Cali".

So true...

What I'm wondering is why the Hollywood Sign font was used for the entire LA Metro area breakout. You could hit the Hollywood Sign with a nuke and the people in Santa Ana wouldn't even get a suntan.

And some of the text, especially the breakout labels, look a bit jagged.

Some comments:
1) Simple solution to the "Cali" issue: Just change that region/bonus label to "Northern Calif."

2) I agree with the Sacramento/El Dorado corrections as mentioned earlier.

3) "Pismo Beach" (instead of "Morro Bay") would be a good name for that Central Coast territory.

4) I grew up in beautiful San Diego, with its year-round mild Mediterranean climate -- so I hate to see it included as part of the "Mojave Desert"...but I guess I'll have to get used to it.

5) I would still like to see Santa Catalina Island added toward the southeast as part of the "Channel Islands" territory on the map, with a sea route to Santa Ana in the LA region. Catalina is the only Channel island with a substantial population and a town (Avalon) and it's a major tourist attraction.

Strategically speaking, LA region has a big bonus of 5 and only three bordering territories in two regions, so a sea connection to Channel Islands might balance it out. I'm in a game where one player seized LA early on, and retaliated easily against attempts to "break" his "continent" -- and now he's looking nearly invulnerable. Granted, the SF "Bay Area" region has a higher bonus of 6, but it also has four bordering territories from three regions.

Incandenza wrote:And some of the text, especially the breakout labels, look a bit jagged.

Just a bit? You are so nice.

Coleman wrote:

Incandenza wrote:And some of the text, especially the breakout labels, look a bit jagged.

Just a bit? You are so nice.

I've mellowed in my old age. I'm just amazed that something like that escaped the notice of the gfx stamper.

Bay area bonus should be changed to "Liberal Coast" bonus area.
On a more serious note, I just joined some games on this map, hoping to get you some good feed back on bonus structure and bonus balance.

I really dislike the amount of nuetrals in a one on one setting, makes the drop LITERALLY decide the game. No dice even effect it.

swimmerdude99 wrote:I really dislike the amount of nuetrals in a one on one setting, makes the drop LITERALLY decide the game. No dice even effect it.

Perhaps I code the cities as starting positions? This would solve the issue. Thoughts, TBK?

-Sully

Maybe... a few, but could you possibly just make the deployment higher to begin? instead of (14? like 17?)

swimmerdude99 wrote:Maybe... a few, but could you possibly just make the deployment higher to begin? instead of (14? like 17?)

starting positions would do that to an extent, but I'm not entirely sure what you suggest is possible. Though, I may be misunderstanding you.

-Sully

The split on the map feels like 1/2 of the territs are nuetral, 1/4 are your opponents, and 1/4 are your territs. To many territories often stand in between you and your opponents bonus that attacking 2 nuetrals to break is rediculous. Maybe its just me and bad drops, but it feels a like a very wierd start nuetral terit count.

swimmerdude99 wrote:The split on the map feels like 1/2 of the territs are nuetral, 1/4 are your opponents, and 1/4 are your territs. To many territories often stand in between you and your opponents bonus that attacking 2 nuetrals to break is rediculous. Maybe its just me and bad drops, but it feels a like a very wierd start nuetral terit count.

Well, starting positions should eliminate 8 of the city neutrals.

-Sully

Neutral territories are required to prevent un-even drops. That would be way worse. I don't see how neutral territories decide who wins the game? Your opposite has to deal with them as well.

The Bison King wrote:Neutral territories are required to prevent un-even drops. That would be way worse. I don't see how neutral territories decide who wins the game? Your opposite has to deal with them as well.

The opposition may need to deal with them as well but when the neutrals make this map even more unbalanced, something needs to be done. I admit that I have only just started my first game but with only one continent with 4 territs, which has a starting neutral with the city, it seems as overkill to programme in more. No one can start a game with a bonus and the odds of someone starting with all 5 territs in Sierra Nevada which does not have a city is so low as to be silly.

How many have you got programmed in?
What reasoning is behind the neutrals as they do spoil the game?

Having neutrals programmed into Golfe Du Saint-Laurent which has a lot of 3 and 4 territ bonuses is OK but not with a map like this. I really would like to see it with less neutral starts and more of a random drop. Just because you can do something, does not mean you have to.

Sometimes neutrals have to be coded in to prevent unfair drops, like players starting with 12 territories in a 4-player game (for example). Those kind of drops give a way too big advantage for the first player (or team) so they are avoided as per the foundry guidelines.

natty, I understand coding them in to stop the first player or team getting an unfair first go but but when only 28 out of the 52 start as normal it really is over the top. There are other ways to start a game like coding reinforcements as in First nations Americas.

How many have you got programmed in?
What reasoning is behind the neutrals as they do spoil the game?

Ask Victor as to the specific number but all of the coded Neutrals are necessary to prevent players dropping a city bonus.

No one can start a game with a bonus and the odds of someone starting with all 5 territs in Sierra Nevada which does not have a city is so low as to be silly.

Please listen. The only "Coded" neutrals are the (2)'s that prevent players from starting with the city bonus. There are no coded neutrals in the Sierra Nevada bonus. Whatever neutral tert. you encountered there was an un-programed random start neutral that the game automatically puts in to keep all the players starting with the same amount of territories. I assure you that these devices that you claim to make the game unfair are actually the tools that prevent it from being as such.

Also I'm going to make a draft with a few of he name changes soon. Probably none of the above mentioned ones though... I'm not entirely opposed to making Central a city star... we'll see though.

I know about the city neutrals, it just seemed a high number when I started my game. One of the reasons I rarely play 1v1. So many damn neutrals. Will get an 8 player game set up to see the overall difference. Did not mean to come across as bad but after wanting to play this map, my first game was a bit frustrating.