Conquer Club

cairnswk wrote:Is there any further discussion on this...i wonder why this map doesn't attract a lot of attention...

maybe everybody who saw it likes it

cairnswk wrote:perhaps it's the country i.e. not USA.

try rename the map to "51 new USA state"...

cairnswk wrote:

Oneyed wrote:hm, airport gameplay looks fine now. but could you a little play with airports deployment? or they are done by reality?

each region (continent) have one or none airport, except Cantenbury and Otago. they have two airports.
Cantenbury is the largest region so two airports here are fine. by I can not see any reason why Otago could has two airports (and neither why two whitesones). what about to take white airport from Queenstown to west coast? maybe add it to Milford Sound (Southland is the second largest region, so would has also two airports).

the north island has 33 regions and 5 black airports, the south island has 39 regions and 4 black airports. maybe add one black airport to Karamia?

Oneyed

I can remove the white airport from Dunedin for Otago, but definitely not Queenstown, and west coast can only have black plane.
And Milford is also out of the question since it is surrounded by very steep mountains.

I can ads a black plane to Nelson, but not Karamia.

I like it and cant see any problems. just what about this?

Oneyed

Could you, maybe, try having an objective to also win the game? Spice up the game play a little. Everything else looks good.

Nola_Lifer wrote:Could you, maybe, try having an objective to also win the game? Spice up the game play a little. Everything else looks good.

Nola_Lifer, thanks for your suggestion...but i'd prefer to keep this one simple gameplay.
I think the tikis and the planes would be enough.
What do others think?

Oneyed wrote:

I can ads a black plane to Nelson, but not Karamia.

I like it and cant see any problems. just what about this?

Oneyed

It's coming next version.

cairnswk wrote:

Nola_Lifer wrote:Could you, maybe, try having an objective to also win the game? Spice up the game play a little. Everything else looks good.

Nola_Lifer, thanks for your suggestion...but i'd prefer to keep this one simple gameplay.
I think the tikis and the planes would be enough.
What do others think?

I agree with you -- an objective would be gilding the lily.

ender516 wrote:...
I agree with you -- an objective would be gilding the lily.

Version 9.

1. Plane sorted on Nelson.
2. changes to the border - i wanted to create that famous NZ tattoo look for the border...so i incorporated the silver fern and the existing border into my own design - subtle and the corners are yet to be done.

I'm not particularly fond of the borders you've had so far, but I don't have any better suggestions so I'll just remain mostly indifferent since it is a non-gameplay or gameplay-graphic issue, though I will mention that I think any border can probably be made softer or more transparent, so it looks less like a hard border.

Keep up the good work.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I'm not particularly fond of the borders you've had so far, but I don't have any better suggestions so I'll just remain mostly indifferent since it is a non-gameplay or gameplay-graphic issue, though I will mention that I think any border can probably be made softer or more transparent, so it looks less like a hard border.

Keep up the good work.


--Andy

First time I saw it I didn't like it. Looked at it the next day and though it was a good addition.

I like it! You haven't added impassables to the legend yet though, I assume mountains and rivers are impassable but it needs to be squeezed in somewhere. Don't think I've ever seen a map with as many mountains as this one, gives it a nice look if you ask me!

Gillipig wrote:I like it! You haven't added impassables to the legend yet though, I assume mountains and rivers are impassable but it needs to be squeezed in somewhere. Don't think I've ever seen a map with as many mountains as this one, gives it a nice look if you ask me!

Thank-you.
OK, i can add the impassables bit if you think it is necessary.

cairnswk wrote:

Gillipig wrote:I like it! You haven't added impassables to the legend yet though, I assume mountains and rivers are impassable but it needs to be squeezed in somewhere. Don't think I've ever seen a map with as many mountains as this one, gives it a nice look if you ask me!

Thank-you.
OK, i can add the impassables bit if you think it is necessary.

No need to add them. Only Frodo will try to cross them

koontz1973 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

Gillipig wrote:I like it! You haven't added impassables to the legend yet though, I assume mountains and rivers are impassable but it needs to be squeezed in somewhere. Don't think I've ever seen a map with as many mountains as this one, gives it a nice look if you ask me!

Thank-you.
OK, i can add the impassables bit if you think it is necessary.

No need to add them. Only Frodo will try to cross them

Too late, already added in next version.

Frodo or impassable legend?

Gonna sticky this for now, and get second, third, fourth ... opinions

koontz1973 wrote:Frodo or impassable legend?

Impassable legend of course.

isaiah40 wrote:Gonna sticky this for now, and get second, third, fourth ... opinions

Much appreciated isaiah40...yes we need some more opinions on the gameplay

For now, Version 10 with starting neutrals, and impassables notated - on front page also.

Victor Sullivan wrote:I wonder if perhaps Wellington and Taranaki would do better as +1s? Even with ian's hike in neutral size, both bonuses would still be desirable.

+1 is certainly possible, since it becomes +2 with the tiki. we'll have to change them back if it's clear during beta that no-one's interested in these bonuses.

ian.

iancanton wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:I wonder if perhaps Wellington and Taranaki would do better as +1s? Even with ian's hike in neutral size, both bonuses would still be desirable.

+1 is certainly possible, since it becomes +2 with the tiki. we'll have to change them back if it's clear during beta that no-one's interested in these bonuses.

ian.

ian, i have to ask that if we change the +2s on wellington and taranaki to +1, why not do that for the other territories with +2 bonuses - namely Auckland and Northland and Gisborne?

cairnswk wrote:

iancanton wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:I wonder if perhaps Wellington and Taranaki would do better as +1s? Even with ian's hike in neutral size, both bonuses would still be desirable.

+1 is certainly possible, since it becomes +2 with the tiki. we'll have to change them back if it's clear during beta that no-one's interested in these bonuses.

ian.

ian, i have to ask that if we change the +2s on wellington and taranaki to +1, why not do that for the other territories with +2 bonuses - namely Auckland and Northland and Gisborne?

Ah, I missed Gisborne. I would say yes to that. For Auckland and Northland, it can go either way. I think it may be best to reduce Auckland to +1, but leave Northland at +2. I think that strikes a nice balance between the pros and cons of raising and lowering their bonuses, though like I said, it can go either way.

-Sully

for some reason, i thought that u meant gisborne when u said wellington. while i still believe taranaki is worth only a +1 (all zone bonuses mentioned in this post exclude the tiki bonus), this does not apply for any bonus zone, such as gisborne, that includes a white plane because it must cope with one-way assaults. none of us had taken this important factor into sufficient account previously in discussing bonuses. my recommendations are as below.

northland: drop from +2 to +1 because of the end-of-map location, but remove the ferry route, which is rendered unnecessary by kataia airport.
auckland: raise from +2 to +3 because of the one-way assaults.
waikato: drop from +6 to +4 because of lack of airport, but remove the ferry route to discount northland as an enemy zone.
bay of plenty: no change at +3.
gisborne: no change at +2.
taranaki: drop from +2 to +1 because it's in the nearest thing on this map to a corner location.
manawatu: no change at +6.
hawke's bay: drop from +4 to +3 because of having only 4 regions.
wellington: raise from +2 to +3 because of the one-way assaults, which more than compensates for having only 3 regions.

nelson: drop from +3 to +2 because of the near-corner location.
marlborough: drop from +3 to +2 because of having only 3 regions.
west coast: perhaps raise from +3 to +4 unless u block off either nelson lakes or karamia (a marginal case).
canterbury: raise from +6 to +8 because of the one-way assaults, two airports and large number of regions.
otago: no change at +5, since the removal of dunedin airport is cancelled out by one-way assaults to queenstown.
southland: drop from +4 to +3 because of the end-of-map location.

ian.

ian, excellent analysis. i'll make the changes to the map today and post new version.

iancanton wrote:auckland: raise from +2 to +3 because of the one-way assaults.
wellington: raise from +2 to +3 because of the one-way assaults, which more than compensates for having only 3 regions.
southland: drop from +4 to +3 because of the end-of-map location.

These are the only gameplay changes from Ian's excellent list that I'd think more about. In regards to Southland, even if it is in a corner, it seems hard for me to say it is equally valuable as Auckland and Wellington, it seems worth more. In regards to Auckland and Wellington, +3 seems to be pushing it.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

iancanton wrote:auckland: raise from +2 to +3 because of the one-way assaults.
wellington: raise from +2 to +3 because of the one-way assaults, which more than compensates for having only 3 regions.
southland: drop from +4 to +3 because of the end-of-map location.

These are the only gameplay changes from Ian's excellent list that I'd think more about. In regards to Southland, even if it is in a corner, it seems hard for me to say it is equally valuable as Auckland and Wellington, it seems worth more. In regards to Auckland and Wellington, +3 seems to be pushing it.


--Andy

Andy, i kinda agree about Southland, i think it's worth +4 - it has 8 territories, 3 of which are natural borders, and 1 of those is a black plane being able to be assaulted from 4 other terrs, effectively giving it 7 bordering terrs that can attack it.
I agree with ian about Wellington and Auckland, both are white planes, with them being able to be assaulted from 5 other terrs.

Before i go further, and i appologise to any who has already suggested it, does anyone want to split Canterbury...re-exmaing the regions now it is simply too large.

What about a split Ashburton-Mt Hutt and Selwyn?

cairnswk wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:In regards to Southland, even if it is in a corner, it seems hard for me to say it is equally valuable as Auckland and Wellington, it seems worth more.

Andy, i kinda agree about Southland, i think it's worth +4 - it has 8 territories, 3 of which are natural borders, and 1 of those is a black plane being able to be assaulted from 4 other terrs, effectively giving it 7 bordering terrs that can attack it.

my main point of reference is classic north america, which has one more region, but is attacked by only 3 bonus zones instead of 5. i agree that all 3 borders being connected is not enough advantage to reduce the bonus by 1, so +4 (excluding the tiki) is appropriate.

cairnswk wrote:Before i go further, and i appologise to any who has already suggested it, does anyone want to split Canterbury...re-exmaing the regions now it is simply too large.

What about a split Ashburton-Mt Hutt and Selwyn?

if u want to split canterbury into north and south, then that's the logical place to do it.

by the way, i really dislike the mouths of the rivers being closed off instead of running into the ocean.

ian.