Conquer Club

RedBaron0 wrote:Think I found a quirk in the XML connections. Albert Lea (MN) is connected to Sioux City (IA) instead of Des Moines (IA) should be the other way around.

Yeah, this is a small map/large map discrepancy. Albert Lea connects to Sioux City on the small, but not the large.

A lot of changes to make things a tad more clear as to what is where on the small only.

- Made the state borders in the Southeast Region darker

Ovals moved:
- Waterloo IA --> Right
- Philadelphia PA --> Left
- Waterbury CT --> Down & Right
- Bennington VT --> Left & Up
- Burlington VT --> Left
- Manchester NH --> Left
- Berlin NH --> Left
- Baltimore MD --> Left
- Augusta GA --> Down
- Sioux Falls SD --> Left & Up
- Sioux City IA --> Left
- Beckley WV --> Left & Up
- Minneapolis MN --> Left
- Cambridge OH (#13) --> Left & Up
- Cleveland OH --> left
- Memphis TN --> Up
- Monroe LA --> Left

Interstates moved:
- I35 to go around Sioux City IA
- I5 to go around San Fransisco

huh?

koontz1973 wrote:

Click image to enlarge.

muahahahah, why did you use your camera on the computerscreen?

One thing I noticed that seems strange is that No. 37 is in Michigan, while 35, 36 and 38 are all in Mississippi or Alabama.

I think Battle Creek, Michigan should get a different number to reflect the other numbers around it. If you don't know your US geography, than finding No. 37 would be very, very difficult.

Game 12690012

2013-04-28 13:01:12 - Jdsizzleslice assaulted Sioux City from Albert Lea and conquered it from jonah03

Gilligan wrote:

RedBaron0 wrote:Think I found a quirk in the XML connections. Albert Lea (MN) is connected to Sioux City (IA) instead of Des Moines (IA) should be the other way around.

Yeah, this is a small map/large map discrepancy. Albert Lea connects to Sioux City on the small, but not the large.

Will be fixed in next update

What's with the fish?

I am thinking of changing the reinforcements to +1 for every 5 regions to slow down the acquirement of bonuses too fast. It seems like +1 for every 3 gives way too many. Any thoughts or ideas??

It is the balance of stopping bonuses happening too early over the ability to not have every game reach 30+ rounds.

Game 12646074 Round 9 and still about 10 rounds left to play in an escalating game. That is a lot of rounds to play for that style of game. Imagine flat, nukes and no spoils. You may end up destroying the map on those settings as no one will want to play it.

Best thoughts as of now is to leave it as is. At most, reduce it to a 1/4 ratio.

I can reduce it to + 1 for every 4 regions no problem.

With the capitals at 5 neutrals each, we've really had no incentive in our no spoils game to make a move on any of the state bonuses, playing the territory count game instead. i think if you water down the troops per region, this game would really come to a grind. Game 12647152

with this particular settings, i'm enjoying it pretty well as it is, if anything wishing capitals were somewhat lower as they're pretty big barricades for the time being... but this is my only game/settings tried. maybe the issue lies with other combinations.

isaiah40 wrote:I am thinking of changing the reinforcements to +1 for every 5 regions to slow down the acquirement of bonuses too fast. It seems like +1 for every 3 gives way too many. Any thoughts or ideas??

I think that's a mistake. Bonuses are really the only thing that keeps games moving on this map. With the amount of neutrals to conquer and the fact that its darn near impossible from the drop to have regions which you can fort, it'd be a mistake to make it harder to expand.

Love the map.

However

There is an ERROR in this map - when in Des Moines it would not allow me to attack Albert Lea which according to the map should be linked. But when I we was in Sioux city it did let me attack Albert Lea which according to the map should not be linked

Okay, uh...here's an update. I fixed the coordinates on small and large, but can't upload it to fileden at the moment...

I also removed DC from the Maryland bonus.

I would also agree with the earlier suggestion of a bonus for 5 territories rather than three. Early on when one starts to get ahead they get a lot of bonuses and can then easily eliminate people. So currently it is favoring those that get a good start.

Sprocc wrote:I would also agree with the earlier suggestion of a bonus for 5 territories rather than three. Early on when one starts to get ahead they get a lot of bonuses and can then easily eliminate people. So currently it is favoring those that get a good start.

Which is exactly one of the reasons I was thinking of changing the reinforcements. Right now I think a compromise would be +1 for every 4 regions. That would mean that on your first turn you would get 5 men instead of 7. Still enough to take a region or 2, but enough that you can still defend those regions you just took. I believe that it will only take an extra couple of rounds before you start getting the hefty bonuses. Not enough to drag the game out indefinitely, but enough to make it interesting.

Well, seems pretty easy to get bonuses when, if you have ANY 2 cities, you get the bonus for them being on the same road, even if they aren't. Thanks

i have to agree with koontz and nole that the current 1 for every 3 cities, when combined with the bonuses for state capitals and road capitals, keeps the game fluid by rewarding aggression, while punishing those who try to sit back and let their opponents waste their troops on attacking neutrals. i've yet to see any convincing evidence in sequential 1v1 that the player who starts wins more often than in either classic or the original usa.

DJ Teflon wrote:Well, seems pretty easy to get bonuses when, if you have ANY 2 cities, you get the bonus for them being on the same road, even if they aren't. Thanks

is there something wrong with the xml regarding the bonuses for the road capitals, dj? which two roads do u mean?

ian.

Still playing my first few games on it, but I really think it would beneft from shading the states more. Especially on the east coast it's really hard to see where one state begins and the next ends. Is there a compelling reason to keep the full regions one solid color? Gotta be some way to make those divisions more clear.

teach42 wrote:Still playing my first few games on it, but I really think it would beneft from shading the states more. Especially on the east coast it's really hard to see where one state begins and the next ends. Is there a compelling reason to keep the full regions one solid color? Gotta be some way to make those divisions more clear.

Which regions are you having trouble seeing?

In talking with iancanton, in order to bring the capitals into play more, how about if we lower the starting neutral to 4 instead of 5??? Anyone opposed to the idea? Or should we leave it at 5?

Loving this map - playing it dubs, trips and quads and it's excellent for team play. Most maps are too small for a good quads game - this one is perfect.

Regarding the comments on bonuses - I wouldn't change anything for now, as the bonuses seem to work well. Keep it at 1 for 3, as there is a LOT of territory to cover. Keep the capitols at 5 as you really have to want one to take it. There are definitely two approaches - some players ignore them and just try to acquire territory. I prefer to take them and get the state & capitol bonuses, so I've taken every one I can. That's the beauty of this map, as it supports multiple strategies at the same time, as opposed to some of the smaller maps that only have one way to win.

Currently playing it with fog, trench, flat or no spoils. I think I like no spoils best.

Albert Lee can attack Sioux City and I don't think it should be able to.

AlbroShlo wrote:Albert Lee can attack Sioux City and I don't think it should be able to.

It's included in the next update.