Conquer Club

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.

iancanton wrote:

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.

OK. that's agreed. +4 for Southland.

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.

OK, i'll do that and see what the bonuses are.

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

yes, that will be fixed in graphics one i discover how to do it in Illustrator easily with the gradient tool

btw ian, i am asking you to re-examine the sea link Whanganui to Coromandel...
previously Gillipig proposed this link

For gameplay reasons Northland and Auckland held together needs to have 3 borders! Otherwise in 1v1 games it'll only be about who can hold those bonuses. I suggest making a dotted connection between Whangerei and Coromandel.


so my question is...should this link still be removed on the above...?

iancanton wrote:...
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.

Done

auckland: raise from +2 to +3 because of the one-way assaults.

Done

waikato: drop from +6 to +4 because of lack of airport, but remove the ferry route to discount northland as an enemy zone.

Done

bay of plenty: no change at +3.

Done

gisborne: no change at +2.

Done

taranaki: drop from +2 to +1 because it's in the nearest thing on this map to a corner location.

I re-thought this one ian...i think it could be a +2 due to the fact it's got a +4 and +6 either side of it, and is assaultable from 4 other airports?

manawatu: no change at +6.

Done

hawke's bay: drop from +4 to +3 because of having only 4 regions.

Done

wellington: raise from +2 to +3 because of the one-way assaults, which more than compensates for having only 3 regions.

Done

nelson: drop from +3 to +2 because of the near-corner location.

Done

marlborough: drop from +3 to +2 because of having only 3 regions.

Done

west coast: perhaps raise from +3 to +4 unless u block off either nelson lakes or karamia (a marginal case).

Left at +4

canterbury: raise from +6 to +8 because of the one-way assaults, two airports and large number of regions.

N and S Canterbury have been given +4 each, half of what was suggested, but also because i thought that was entriely reasonable for each region

otago: no change at +5, since the removal of dunedin airport is cancelled out by one-way assaults to queenstown.

Done

southland: drop from +4 to +3 because of the end-of-map location.
ian.

As per discussion above with Andy, Southland raised to +4

Adjusted V 10 plus my bonus calculator for interest

The rivers are now fixed in V10 above.

cairnswk wrote:The rivers are now fixed in V10 above.

that's much better!

cairnswk wrote:

iancanton wrote:

taranaki: drop from +2 to +1 because it's in the nearest thing on this map to a corner location.

I re-thought this one ian...i think it could be a +2 due to the fact it's got a +4 and +6 either side of it, and is assaultable from 4 other airports?

although i still think +1 is more suitable (compared with gisborne, for example), i can see ur reasoning if u want a +2 for taranaki.

cairnswk wrote:

iancanton wrote:canterbury: raise from +6 to +8 because of the one-way assaults, two airports and large number of regions.

N and S Canterbury have been given +4 each, half of what was suggested, but also because i thought that was entriely reasonable for each region

not sure why u've reduced north canterbury so much. i'm fully in agreement with ur spreadsheet: 5 borders plus one-way attacks against the white airport means +5 (excluding the tiki).

other than this, i'm completely happy with what u have.

ian.

iancanton wrote:...
not sure why u've reduced north canterbury so much. i'm fully in agreement with ur spreadsheet: 5 borders plus one-way attacks against the white airport means +5 (excluding the tiki).

other than this, i'm completely happy with what u have.

ian.

Ian, sorry, do you mean S canterbury? S canterbury is +5 on the spreadsheet...N canterbury is +7, so i'm a little confused as to which region you're talking about. Could you clarify please.

Also i looked at N Canterbury and it already has 1 tiki bonus and only needs 4 other forts to covers its borders.
It has 6 terrs while S Canterbury has 7 terrs. I thought it would be easier to holder this than the S Canterbury.

This is the deuteranope CB test for these colours on this map using ImageJ from the Visicheck site...V10 CB test addded to Page 1

cairnswk wrote:Ian, sorry, do you mean S canterbury? S canterbury is +5 on the spreadsheet...N canterbury is +7, so i'm a little confused as to which region you're talking about. Could you clarify please.

Also i looked at N Canterbury and it already has 1 tiki bonus and only needs 4 other forts to covers its borders.
It has 6 terrs while S Canterbury has 7 terrs. I thought it would be easier to holder this than the S Canterbury.

i'm agreeing with north canterbury's +6.5 on the spreadsheet: +5.5 normal and +1 tiki. given the 5 borders, including one-way attacks to christchurch, we need at least +5 normal and +1 tiki, which matches the spreadsheet's +6.5 rounded downward.

south canterbury is fine at +3 normal and +1 tiki. the spreadsheet gives +4.58, which can go either way and u've chosen downward. compared with north canterbury, downward is correct because there are only 3 borders, no one-way attacks into timaru and one of the smallest numbers of adjacent enemy bonus zones on the map.

to help those whose vision isn't so good, may i suggest using the auckland colour in hawke's bay and vice versa? hawke's bay and bay of plenty are very similar in shade. having the bright yellow auckland colour in hawke's bay provides much-needed contrast.

ian.

iancanton wrote:...
i'm agreeing with north canterbury's +6.5 on the spreadsheet: +5.5 normal and +1 tiki. given the 5 borders, including one-way attacks to christchurch, we need at least +5 normal and +1 tiki, which matches the spreadsheet's +6.5 rounded downward.

south canterbury is fine at +3 normal and +1 tiki. the spreadsheet gives +4.58, which can go either way and u've chosen downward. compared with north canterbury, downward is correct because there are only 3 borders, no one-way attacks into timaru and one of the smallest numbers of adjacent enemy bonus zones on the map.

to help those whose vision isn't so good, may i suggest using the auckland colour in hawke's bay and vice versa? hawke's bay and bay of plenty are very similar in shade. having the bright yellow auckland colour in hawke's bay provides much-needed contrast.

ian.

ian, thanks for the clarification on those. Will attend to next version in the next few days.

Version 11

1. Ian bonuses implemented for N S Canterbury
2. Auckaland colour to Wellington; Manawatu colour to Auckland: Wellington colour to Manawatu to overcome the closeness of colur issue ian had - but not pur a big section of bright yellow in Manawatu as it would have been too dominant on the map.

Hmmm ... I think that Otago and S Canterbury's colors could be switched. Otago is too close to West Coast, and S Canterbury is too close to N Canterbury in the CB test.

isaiah40 wrote:Hmmm ... I think that Otago and S Canterbury's colors could be switched. Otago is too close to West Coast, and S Canterbury is too close to N Canterbury in the CB test.

Wouldn't that still make the S Caterbury and West Coast CB colours too close.
I'll keep searching for a solution that makes good aesthetics on the map also.

cairnswk wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:Hmmm ... I think that Otago and S Canterbury's colors could be switched. Otago is too close to West Coast, and S Canterbury is too close to N Canterbury in the CB test.

Wouldn't that still make the S Caterbury and West Coast CB colours too close.
I'll keep searching for a solution that makes good aesthetics on the map also.

On my monitor, I they wouldn't be close at all.

isaiah40 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:Hmmm ... I think that Otago and S Canterbury's colors could be switched. Otago is too close to West Coast, and S Canterbury is too close to N Canterbury in the CB test.

Wouldn't that still make the S Caterbury and West Coast CB colours too close.
I'll keep searching for a solution that makes good aesthetics on the map also.

On my monitor, I they wouldn't be close at all.

Oh, well on mine it tells a different story.

Guys, you need to calibrate your monitors.

natty dread wrote:Guys, you need to calibrate your monitors.

OK, please tell us how to do that, i haven't changed my monitor or adjusted any controls on it since i got over fours years ago.