Conquer Club

Not that I care but division of Serbia into these regions shows lack of knowledge. Even if you go to Ottoman times or WWI or WWII regions like Kraljevo on the map never existed. I mean geometrically it shouldn't have been one territory but if it was to be named it should have been named Raska although it is not quite that.

Pomoravlje regions is completely wrong. Nobody from Serbia would call region going that far to the west Pomoravlje, nor Belgrade would go that far to the east. My guess is that the creator of the map had an idea of how many regions and what kind of connectivity he/she wanted to have in Serbia and then picked the names but that division is utterly wrong regardless of which period in history you go back to.

BZZZZZZZZZ 2 thumbs down

natty_dread wrote:If Qwert has a problem with the map, he can come right in here and post in the map thread like everyone else. If that's above him, tough.

I told him the same thing. He PM'd me back when this was in the Drafting Room, too.

*Sigh*

-Sully

cutebastard71 wrote:Not that I care but division of Serbia into these regions shows lack of knowledge.

I used this map for Serbia. I had to merge some regions for gameplay reasons, but that is something that is done on every map.

cutebastard71 wrote:Not that I care but division of Serbia into these regions shows lack of knowledge. Even if you go to Ottoman times or WWI or WWII regions like Kraljevo on the map never existed. I mean geometrically it shouldn't have been one territory but if it was to be named it should have been named Raska although it is not quite that.

Pomoravlje regions is completely wrong. Nobody from Serbia would call region going that far to the west Pomoravlje, nor Belgrade would go that far to the east. My guess is that the creator of the map had an idea of how many regions and what kind of connectivity he/she wanted to have in Serbia and then picked the names but that division is utterly wrong regardless of which period in history you go back to.

natty_dread wrote:I used this map for Serbia. I had to merge some regions for gameplay reasons, but that is something that is done on every map.

Natty is right, sometimes gameplay reasons force us to use different names.
Said that, I don't see how could be a problem to change Kraljevo into Raska if the name fits better with the current borders...someone else could confirm that Raska is better?
About Pomoravlje or Belgrade...if they are wrong....what do you suggest? (even if I think Belgrade should stand as it is now considering that is a well know place)

Nobodies, look at the map I posted. It clearly says "Kraljevo" in that area. The source for this map is apparently: Republic Institute for Statistics of the Republic of Serbia and the Statistical Yearbook of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, 1983. issued by the Federal Institute for Statistics of the SFRY.

Are you guys telling me that the Institute of Statistics of Serbia doesn't know about the historical political divisions of Serbia?

Wow, chill down....no need to give a so " I know the things, not you" answer.

I saw the name, but i don't see the source so how in the hell I was able to understand your map is 100% right? there're tons of shit on the web, who or what tell me that the image you posted isn't part of this shit? ...and in any case I asked if anyone was able to confirm the previous suggestion "if you look at my post".
Remember: "All sound advice must be followed unless a logical rebuttal by the mapmaker or another member of the community is provided."
So please don't complain if I do just my job. It's up to you give clear info, it's not up to me search on the web if you're saying the truth!

Just my 2 cents as a player, Montenegro to much like Australia in classic ,once u hold hard to crack then eazy to move to macedonina . Not bagging it i never tried making map ,good work but be great if the was say a mountain pass that link to a northern state.
cheers init

thenobodies80 wrote:Wow, chill down....no need to give a so " I know the things, not you" answer.

I saw the name, but i don't see the source so how in the hell I was able to understand your map is 100% right? there're tons of shit on the web, who or what tell me that the image you posted isn't part of this shit? ...and in any case I asked if anyone was able to confirm the previous suggestion "if you look at my post".
Remember: "All sound advice must be followed unless a logical rebuttal by the mapmaker or another member of the community is provided."
So please don't complain if I do just my job. It's up to you give clear info, it's not up to me search on the web if you're saying the truth!

Come on nobodies, nobody is complaining here. You're reading too much into my post. All I was saying was that I have no reason to doubt the validity of the map I used, and asked if anyone can provide such a reason.

I think +2 for 2 capitals is too much. Since you start with one. I think that should either be reduced to +1 or changed so that you need to hold 3.

Why do you think so?

I just played my first turn on this map. I was the first player to take a turn (#9746524), a 4-player game with Fog, but I could still see three other owned Capitals besides one that I own.

NOWHERE on the map does it state that each Capital "autodeploys" +1 army per turn -- but it happened on my turn -- for ALL the players, not just me!

What gives?

They don't autodeploy. They start with 4.

Okay. I see. But shouldn't it say that on the map?

No. 

Problem:

I don't think this is right.

You probably connect through some other route there. The territories are not connected in the XML.


One problem that needs to be corrected though: it seems 1v1 starts with 12 territories. I don't know how I managed to f*ck that up again... damn fucking 1v1 games, I swear they're giving me grey pubic hairs or something.

Ok so 43 territories... 9 neutrals, 43-9 = 34... so that's 11 + 1 capital... argh. What to do, add 2 more neutrals? I don't see any other choice, with the starting positions already being used for the capitals... but where to put them...

On second though, this map doesn't play all that well for 1v1 in the first place... sooo maybe I should just chalk this one up as "not a good 1v1 map"... I mean if the map isn't that great for 1v1 in the first place, why f*ck up the gameplay of the other game types just to make it into a mediocre 1v1 map instead of a bad one?

Thoughts anyone?

No I didn't. It is connected. Green still has Livino and Split-Dalmatia, and red still has Sarajevo. We are in round two now. Game 9751636, read the game log. Also I suggest placing a starting neutral in Montenegro as it gets dropped by a player right from the get go.

Sorry, isaiah, but I just tested the border in a speed game (with the help of chuckbp2 - thanks!) and there is no connection between the Adriatic Sea and Herzegovina.

-Sully

isaiah40 wrote:No I didn't. It is connected. Green still has Livino and Split-Dalmatia, and red still has Sarajevo. We are in round two now. Game 9751636, read the game log. Also I suggest placing a starting neutral in Montenegro as it gets dropped by a player right from the get go.

Titograd?
The xml is ok for what i can see....

natty_dread wrote:On second though, this map doesn't play all that well for 1v1 in the first place... sooo maybe I should just chalk this one up as "not a good 1v1 map"... I mean if the map isn't that great for 1v1 in the first place, why f*ck up the gameplay of the other game types just to make it into a mediocre 1v1 map instead of a bad one?

Thoughts anyone?

Because it comes up on random. Right now, for a 1v1 game, you start with 12 regions. A smart player who goes first uses his 4 deploy to take your capital, and they're deploying 6 and you're deploying 3 before you even start. I don't think you're going to be able to turn this into a good 1v1 map without seriously changing gameplay to the point where you're hurting the other game types, but this would be a terrible deciding game in a 1v1 random tourney or something of the like.

I'm not a mapmaker, but is there any way to code the XML in such a way that it's done differently for 2-player games? I assume there's some sort of switch on Woodboro preventing people from starting with the Pirate Stations in 2-6 player games, but those are starting spots for 7-8 player games... could something similar be done here?

My bad, for some reason, that anchor was actually submerged! LOL

dowian2 wrote:

natty_dread wrote:On second though, this map doesn't play all that well for 1v1 in the first place... sooo maybe I should just chalk this one up as "not a good 1v1 map"... I mean if the map isn't that great for 1v1 in the first place, why f*ck up the gameplay of the other game types just to make it into a mediocre 1v1 map instead of a bad one?

Thoughts anyone?

Because it comes up on random. Right now, for a 1v1 game, you start with 12 regions. A smart player who goes first uses his 4 deploy to take your capital, and they're deploying 6 and you're deploying 3 before you even start. I don't think you're going to be able to turn this into a good 1v1 map without seriously changing gameplay to the point where you're hurting the other game types, but this would be a terrible deciding game in a 1v1 random tourney or something of the like.

I'm not a mapmaker, but is there any way to code the XML in such a way that it's done differently for 2-player games? I assume there's some sort of switch on Woodboro preventing people from starting with the Pirate Stations in 2-6 player games, but those are starting spots for 7-8 player games... could something similar be done here?

Agreed. Note to self stay away! At least on 1 vs 1's

natty_dread wrote:On second though, this map doesn't play all that well for 1v1 in the first place... sooo maybe I should just chalk this one up as "not a good 1v1 map"... I mean if the map isn't that great for 1v1 in the first place, why f*ck up the gameplay of the other game types just to make it into a mediocre 1v1 map instead of a bad one?

Thoughts anyone?

It's maybe a bit too unbalanced in 1v1. I think it could be easily fixed by just making us start with 11 territs instead of 12. I don't see how making 1v1 games start with 11 regions will mess up the gameplay of larger games so there's no harm in making that correction!