Conquer Club

I 100% believe the capitals should be neutral 2. I am actually quite impressed that they are used so much in games and I think it works really well (I would say the same about California's cities). Adjusting them to neutral 3's risk their being ignored for the most part.

-Sully

isaiah40 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:I'd suggest you make the capitals 3 neutrals instead of 2. As it is now it's all about capitals and very little about the other bonuses.

I'm not opposed to changing them, but let's wait and see if anyone has complaints about them.

To be honest i like it the way it is now...! I don't see a problem with it being about the capitals...

Good job Isaiah!

A++++

This is one of my new favorites. This get's the Bison King Seal of approval.

This gets my seal of approval, too:



His name is Jeffrey.

-Sully

I like the capitals as they are. Small games they are not ignored but taken as opportunity arises and in large games, they are the easier bonus to grab. Leave them as they are.


This would be my seal of choice

His name is Sully

Likes fish and his mum.
Hates hunters and big bears.

Though if I had one suggestion at this point it would be to lower the value of the Russian Federation bonus

The Bison King wrote:Though if I had one suggestion at this point it would be to lower the value of the Russian Federation bonus

Yes, I think the Russian Federation could be lowered 1, and the Han bonus increased 1.

-Sully

Anybody else think this way? Speak now or forever hold your peace!

isaiah40 wrote:Anybody else think this way? Speak now or forever hold your peace!

Scratch the Han thing. I decided against it.

-Sully

isaiah40 wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:The legend is hard to read. Maybe a slight font change would make it much easier to read? Otherwise nice map.

Well everyone was happy with the font. I did try a whole bunch of other oriental fonts, but this one is much clearer and easier to read. I'll have to wait and see if anyone else has the same problem with it.

Gillipig wrote:I'd suggest you make the capitals 3 neutrals instead of 2. As it is now it's all about capitals and very little about the other bonuses.

I'm not opposed to changing them, but let's wait and see if anyone has complaints about them.

Maybe it is only me about the legend... or maybe others are just not posting?

Bruceswar wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:The legend is hard to read. Maybe a slight font change would make it much easier to read? Otherwise nice map.

Well everyone was happy with the font. I did try a whole bunch of other oriental fonts, but this one is much clearer and easier to read. I'll have to wait and see if anyone else has the same problem with it.

Gillipig wrote:I'd suggest you make the capitals 3 neutrals instead of 2. As it is now it's all about capitals and very little about the other bonuses.

I'm not opposed to changing them, but let's wait and see if anyone has complaints about them.

Maybe it is only me about the legend... or maybe others are just not posting?

It might be harder to read than some maps, but it is readable. I see no reason to change it and lose some of the maps flavour.

isaiah40 wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:The legend is hard to read. Maybe a slight font change would make it much easier to read? Otherwise nice map.

Well everyone was happy with the font. I did try a whole bunch of other oriental fonts, but this one is much clearer and easier to read. I'll have to wait and see if anyone else has the same problem with it.

Gillipig wrote:I'd suggest you make the capitals 3 neutrals instead of 2. As it is now it's all about capitals and very little about the other bonuses.

I'm not opposed to changing them, but let's wait and see if anyone has complaints about them.

I've played it a few times and I think it's a lot about the bonuses, I think cities are a little Seconda, but not that they should not be there, if they were removed there would definitely be missing something. 3 neutrals instead of 2. will also make it harder to conquer bonuses, and when it will be the same for everyone there will probably not happen so much about it, other than difficulty level increases a little bit

Overall a good functioning game, a pleasure to play it

koontz1973 wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:The legend is hard to read. Maybe a slight font change would make it much easier to read? Otherwise nice map.

Well everyone was happy with the font. I did try a whole bunch of other oriental fonts, but this one is much clearer and easier to read. I'll have to wait and see if anyone else has the same problem with it.

Gillipig wrote:I'd suggest you make the capitals 3 neutrals instead of 2. As it is now it's all about capitals and very little about the other bonuses.

I'm not opposed to changing them, but let's wait and see if anyone has complaints about them.

Maybe it is only me about the legend... or maybe others are just not posting?

It might be harder to read than some maps, but it is readable. I see no reason to change it and lose some of the maps flavour.

same with me

So this is the only thing to fix?

Victor Sullivan wrote:

The Bison King wrote:Though if I had one suggestion at this point it would be to lower the value of the Russian Federation bonus

Yes, I think the Russian Federation could be lowered 1, and the Han bonus increased 1.

If this is the case, go with it mate. It seems a reasonable request to me.

Updated XML with Russian Federation knocked down to 4:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/14 ... China8.xml
Small image with Russian Federation changed to +4
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/8857 ... vsmall.png
Large image
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/4882 ... inav3v.png

Wait as long as you can to upload it. I'm holding that bonus in a game!

Jk

-Sully

Gilligan wrote:Updated XML with Russian Federation knocked down to 4:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/14 ... China8.xml
Small image with Russian Federation changed to +4
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/8857 ... vsmall.png
Large image
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/4882 ... inav3v.png

Sent to the Turtle.

Ive read through some of the prior pages comments on changing the stars to 3 neutrals instead of 2. I disagree. I find obtaining bonuses make maps more fun, and making bonuses more difficult makes a map less fun. I would rather see the neutral stars left to 2 units and the bonus structure changed to +1 for 2 capitals, +2 for 3 capitals or something or even +2 for 2 capitals, but +3 for defending 2 somewhat easy to obtain spots seems high. Alternatively increase the number of capitals to get for a bonus to 3 capitals instead of 2 capitals. I like that they are easy enough to take, but feel the benefit of taking them in correlation with continent bonuses makes them a little overpowered.

Mongolia bonus @ +4 is too high. Considering the dynamics of the bonus, all 4 components are touching making it easy enough to defend by stacking solely on one territory and retaliating anyone who brakes it anywhere. Bonuses structured like this usually should be a +3 unless they are surrounded by multiple +2 bonuses which is not the case here.

EDIT: I dont see a point in having the east china sea? Why not get rid of that location and go straight to yellow sea. (this isnt really an issue though, just a thought)

JustCallMeStupid wrote:Ive read through some of the prior pages comments on changing the stars to 3 neutrals instead of 2. I disagree. I find obtaining bonuses make maps more fun, and making bonuses more difficult makes a map less fun. I would rather see the neutral stars left to 2 units and the bonus structure changed to +1 for 2 capitals, +2 for 3 capitals or something. I believe that a +3 is an extremely high bonus especially considering u need to take a capital for a region bonus anyways.

Mongolia bonus @ +4 is too high. Considering the dynamics of the bonus, all 4 components are touching making it easy enough to defend by stacking solely on one territory and retaliating anyone who brakes it anywhere. Bonuses structured like this usually should be a +3 unless they are surrounded by multiple +2 bonuses which is not the case here.

EDIT: I dont see a point in having the east china sea? Why not get rid of that location and go straight to yellow sea. (this isnt really an issue though, just a thought)

The neutrals are staying as they are. As for the capitals, I think they will stay as they are as they give an added attraction to take them early on. Compare the capital structure to Fractured America where they don't really come into play a whole lot to here where they do. In the games I've played, the player who goes for the capitals first has ended up the last to get a bonus region, thereby making him the weakest on the board. So really you are forced to make a choice, go for the capital bonus, or go for the larger bonuses? What I am seeing is a very balanced map.

Does anyone else think Mongolia is too high? We'll wait and see if anybody else comments on it before I make any changes.

East China Sea is there to come out with one of the golden numbers after you take the total # of territories and subtract the territories that start neutral. Which in this case is 52, If I take out East China Sea then the next golden number is 44 so I would have to add in some more starting neutral territories = not good.

I think Mongolia could be knocked down to 3. In fact, sometimes I think Manchuria is undervalued, since Beijing, which is an auto-deploy, often has an ability to pick away at Manchuria.

Hm, you could always nudge the one-way assault to Mongolia--which would make it more like Uygurstan having to defend a one-way assault for 4 troops, instead of Manchuria defending a one-way assault for 3.

Random thoughts.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I think Mongolia could be knocked down to 3. In fact, sometimes I think Manchuria is undervalued, since Beijing, which is an auto-deploy, often has an ability to pick away at Manchuria.

Hm, you could always nudge the one-way assault to Mongolia--which would make it more like Uygurstan having to defend a one-way assault for 4 troops, instead of Manchuria defending a one-way assault for 3.

Random thoughts.


--Andy

Ok that's two for Mongolia.

Anyone for moving the one way attack to Mongolia? Then maybe we can keep Mongolia at 4? Just my $0.02 worth of random thoughts.

I agree that manchuria is more difficult to defend than mongolia. Jilin alone can attack all 4 of Manchurias borders, Manchurias has a one way attacked border and Manchurias territories are not all connected where the bonus can technically be defended by stacking one spot like mongolia. Being that it is in the corner of the map, it is a common starting point, so I am mixed as to whether the bonus should be increased or not. From a balance point of view Mongolia, is easier to take, and hold and pays a larger bonus. Lets see if we can get some more people to feedback on the map though so it isnt merely two opinions.

Thumbs up.


--Andy

Two thumbs up.

-Sully

Anybody else?