Conquer Club

Hi there's a spelling mistake in the larger map, it should be "HMS Intrepid"

Halmir wrote:Hi there's a spelling mistake in the larger map, it should be "HMS Intrepid"

Fixed and was going to post. But after having my butt kicked twice by isaiah, decided to lower all bonuses.

koontz1973 wrote:

Halmir wrote:Hi there's a spelling mistake in the larger map, it should be "HMS Intrepid"

Fixed and was going to post. But after having my butt kicked twice by isaiah, decided to lower all bonuses.

It's not the bonuses, I just had great dice this time around!

Edit: Hold off on changing the bonuses. I just created a 4 player game for us. Let's see how it play with more people.

I also created an 8 player game Game 11328673 password 1982

Will do,

Here is the small maps with the correct spelling for the ship.

Thanks for the updates.
I would suggest to further reword the legend and replace the word "reinforcements" with "region bonus", because that would be more in line with the CC terminology. For example, like on the Arshyusk map: viewtopic.php?f=63&t=173881

That phrase is wrong, and that map is wrong. Phrase is good and will stay.

I really try to be constructive in a foreign language, but you should be also. Despising other maps won't make yours look any better. Even if the map I was referring to was the worst map on the Earth, it could still have parts that are done well.

The phrase "Reinforcements 1 for 4 Minimum of 4" is misleading and confusing. Although it has that meaning outside CC, it is here used in the following context: Jatekos reinforced 12th 6 with 4 troops from 12th 1

You should consider that not every player speaks native English, and when they see something like the above line in the game log, they will try to apply the information from the instructions and from the legend to it.

How would you interpret the above example based on the legend?

Because they are reinforcements, which is why I called them that. The only other map that has this type is First Nations Americas. It line states One troop for every four territories with a minimum of four troops. This would be ideal but I do not have the room for it. But even the Arshyusk map has Region Bonus 2 troops for every 3 regions. Minimum of 2 troops. This again is too long. I only have a limited amount of space to work with here.

I am not being judgemental about that map, and if you read that maps thread, you will see I was not and am trying to help MB to get it sorted and bring it back.

In my opinion, "Region bonus 1 for 4 Minimum of 4" would be better, as "reinfocement" is used differently at CC. It would also fit to the available space.

Is this the right map for someone who wants everyone to play with a quarter of the normal reinforcements and wants everyone to reinforce not less than 4 troops at a time? Maybe in the future, there will be a map where there will be such limitations on reinforcements, but this is not that map.

This is not a big issue, but I just don't think this one word should be used on the legend in this context. I understand that this is your map and so obviously you decide.

Jatekos wrote:In my opinion, "Region bonus 1 for 4 Minimum of 4" would be better, as "reinfocement" is used differently at CC. It would also fit to the available space.

Is this the right map for someone who wants everyone to play with a quarter of the normal reinforcements and wants everyone to reinforce not less than 4 troops at a time? Maybe in the future, there will be a map where there will be such limitations on reinforcements, but this is not that map.

This is not a big issue, but I just don't think this one word should be used on the legend in this context. I understand that this is your map and so obviously you decide.

what about
bonus +1 each 4 territories, minimum +4

Honestly, I think it's fine now because a majority of people understand what it means, but something like,

"+1 for every 4 regions with a minimum of +4" is ideal, and takes up less space then the current sentence. You may even be able to squeeze that under the Rules of Engagement box.

Thanks nolefan5311. Will get it changed today.

"Reinforcements" refers to when you move troops after assaulting.

2012-07-09 12:53:48 - natty dread reinforced Yukon with 2 troops from Nunavut

Territories are referred as "regions" in the game.

2012-07-09 12:52:50 - natty dread received 4 troops for 14 regions

"Region bonus" is more in line with CC terminology. It is strongly encouraged to be used in maps unless there is a thematic reason not to. On my Eurasia map the legend says "Region bonus is 1 for 4 regions, minimum 3 maximum 10".

Some older maps, eg. Hive, refer them as territories, and refer the troop bonus as "territory bonus" instead of region bonus, but the convention wasn't enforced back then and grandfather clause applies here.

So all in all I think it would be preferable to change the wording to "region bonus", as that would be in line with the guidelines mapmakers are asked to follow currently.

natty dread wrote:"Reinforcements" refers to when you move troops after assaulting.

2012-07-09 12:53:48 - natty dread reinforced Yukon with 2 troops from Nunavut

Territories are referred as "regions" in the game.

2012-07-09 12:52:50 - natty dread received 4 troops for 14 regions

"Region bonus" is more in line with CC terminology. It is strongly encouraged to be used in maps unless there is a thematic reason not to. On my Eurasia map the legend says "Region bonus is 1 for 4 regions, minimum 3 maximum 10".

Some older maps, eg. Hive, refer them as territories, and refer the troop bonus as "territory bonus" instead of region bonus, but the convention wasn't enforced back then and grandfather clause applies here.

So all in all I think it would be preferable to change the wording to "region bonus", as that would be in line with the guidelines mapmakers are asked to follow currently.

Is this different from what I posted?

If you refer to this

"+1 for every 4 regions with a minimum of +4"

That works. If there's room it'd be preferable to preface it with "Region bonus:" but it's not absolutely required and can be omitted.

New text inserted, just shortened to make it fit.

Sent to lackattack

It has been pointed out to me that the current xml file allows the helicopters to shoot down the enemy but they are not supposed to. As away for the next three weeks and cannot change the file, will do so as soon as I can.

Seems that the planes are a winning strategy for round limit games.

DoomYoshi wrote:Seems that the planes are a winning strategy for round limit games.

depends on the spoils and the players. Now that the game has been live, more and more people are noticing the planes have a lot and are fighting over them more and more. What does not seem to be made clear and might need reinforcing is that the planes can shoot each other down.

When I get back home, three of the suggestions that need to be thought about is this....

The map has two British aircraft carriers on it (HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible), it might be an idea to open these up to the British planes. What this will entail is that the name of the ship and army number will be encased into a box and the abriviation of BLZ3 & BLZ4 placed next to the names. It makes sense as these where the main British aircraft providers.

Every bonus needs to be dropped down by one.
Plane bonuses to be dropped to +1, +2, +4 but keep them as they are with NO overrides.

If you drop all of the land bonuses by 1, you might have an issue where people immediately race to the planes. I'm not sure if this is what you intended, but I can run the numbers spreadsheet again to give you a better idea what their suggested bonus value should be.

The numbers seem to of stackeed up as they are, but I am worried about the small games, mainly 1v1 where the high bonuses ae giving the first player to get one and keeps it wins. Lowering the plane bonuses should stop players running to them as the neutrals will stay the same. So to go through 27 neutrals for a 7 bonus would be silly and should be used later in the game.

The issue you're talking about in 1v1 games is the case for all 1v1 games on large maps. If reducing the bonuses is only going to assist in fairness in 1v1 games, I don't think you need to do it.

Even in the 4 player game we have going, red had the first bonus and nearly won the game before it started. They do just seem a little high when you take them in comparison with world 2.1. The highest bonus 4 and it has more areas so it prolongs the game. The effect of reducing them for all games should be to allow games to last longer but also to allow players without them a fighting chance to come back.
These are the only ones that I can see as being slightly over.
2Bn +2 -1
40C +2 -1
45C +3 -1
4th +2 -1
3Mi +4 -1
6Mi +2 -1 (also add the connection to the sea)
25th +1 -1
Add these to the reduction to the planes and you have a bonus system that should allow for a more open aggressive playing style.