Conquer Club

Posted: **Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:05 pm**

cairnswk wrote:So, at present....here is a summary of who does and does not want gameplay change in relation to Bonus M (and maybe other bonuses)
If there is to be any change there will have to be a much bigger majority on the side of wanting change than against it.

Against:
codierose
JBlombier
koontz1973
Industrial Helix
chiefsfan4ever

For:
BENJIKAT IS DEAD
fumandomuerte
nikola_milicki
benga
abel
chapcrap
IcePack
Gilligan

Posted: **Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:05 pm**

DoomYoshi wrote:I would like to point out that Vilnius, not only is a good route, but it's also in a tough to get area. It is extra powerful. I think if only Vilnius was changed, the balance would be great on this map.

So Doom, are you for or against any changes being made to the bonuses??

Posted: **Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:19 pm**

Mainly, I want it open to discussion.

I think if P Warsaw connected directly to N Warsaw, that would probably balance it out. Also, N SPG is a deadend. It shouldn't be. I realize this will make the Ukraine bonus less attractive, but its not like anyone is ever going to fight for that bonus anyways.

I like uneven drops. I am a huge fan of Pearl Harbour. However, if there is an uneven drop, I want to at least have a chance to get to the area and try and take it. Because there is so little access, you don't have that on this map.

EDIT: To put it more specifically what I mean. If you start on P, you have to go all the way to Moscow and then back down along the O. If you start on I, you have to go to Berlin and then down the O. Only if you start on the O do you have any chance of hitting the Vilnius. Some continents are protected by a single deadlock zone (Australia is protected by Bangkok). Vilnius has 3 territories in a linear pattern. This means in trench, you have to deal with each one at a time. Then it has O Warsaw as a deadlock zone. Depending on how neutrals etc. it has a potential of 7 deadlock zones. In other words, this bonus is 7 times as defensible as Australia. The place is a fucking inpenetrable fortress.

Actually, the whole map is kind of like that though.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2012 2:28 pm**

OK, I'm leaning against the change, but it's based on some assumptions. If these assumptions are wrong, then I would change my vote.

1) The map is based on some sort of RL rail system.
2) The bonuses were not decided randomly, but based on some sort of RL importance.
3) In RL some places are just better/more advantageous than others.

Therefore, it is OK to have the strategic positions available in our CC "make believe" wars.

If (1) is not correct, then I suppose I don't mind changing the connections. If it is correct, then I am strongly opposed.
If (2) is not correct, then I suppose I would consider it OK to change the bonus structure (but see last paragraph). If it is correct, then I would strongly oppose changing the weight of bonuses.
If (3) is not correct, then I need to get my head checked out or I'm living in an alternate reality.

BUT overall, even if I'm incorrect on some of these things, I still don't think we need to make every damned detail of these maps "balanced" and "fair." Maybe the mapmaker thinks that these territs are more important for some reason. Maybe the mapmaker just wanted to put in a little "imbalance" to concentrate fighting in one region. Who knows? In a real war, there are positions of advantage. There are people who learn, know and exploit these facts. One of the cool things about learning a new map is figuring out which spots provide tactical and strategic advantages. And not only that, you have to learn when those advantages are outweighed by other considerations. If you want to play perfectly balanced, simple maps, there are plenty of options available to you.

[Afterthought: Could "Balance Issues" be a tag in the Foundry stuff? I think it would be interesting to note these things. They would clue you in that you should check the strategy guide or map description. Those documents would make note of and describe the issues. For this map, it would say something like "Some users have said that such-and-such bonuses are overvalued and such-and-such bonuses are undervalued. Therefore, it might be a could idea to watch and possibly go for the former." For other maps you might note that a player who drops territs in a certain position may be more likely to win because of whatever other factors. E.g. in the old Dust Bowl (instead of changing the map!) you could note that more decaying territs can make it very difficult to win.]

Posted: **Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:17 pm**

The problem with saying RL things are an ok reason to make a map unbalanced is that RL is not followed very often in mapmaking. Borders are made up or done away with, geography is altered, etc. and that is considered ok when making maps because the first priority is a good map. Making sure that things align with RL is secondary.

Posted: **Sat Nov 24, 2012 5:00 pm**

cairnswk wrote:
codierose wrote:NO no no no no no leave alone why mess a map up for some one whos only played it 5 times bloody hell how many years has this map been here. hell whilst your at it lets go and change all the other maps that have been quenched

calm down codierose...for goodness sake
all i have done is updated the image..not the gameplay, the discussion of which is still in progress...thanks though for you input not to change the gameplay.

one thing with the image that i have always found confusing STK G and the route to HEL M.
it looks like you can attack STK G but you cant from HEL M. due to the little dots connecting them both.
caught me out a few times when i first started playing the map any chance moving the dots so it connects G to G either way nice new image

Posted: **Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:09 pm**

I'm against any gameplay changes. That's all.

Posted: **Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:15 pm**

chiefsfan4ever wrote:I'm against any gameplay changes. That's all.

Thanks chiefsfan4ever...name added to list

Posted: **Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:19 pm**

codierose wrote:...
one thing with the image that i have always found confusing STK G and the route to HEL M.
it looks like you can attack STK G but you cant from HEL M. due to the little dots connecting them both.
caught me out a few times when i first started playing the map any chance moving the dots so it connects G to G either way nice new image

codierose. i have already sent the image off for upload...i will keep it in mind if there is a next time for image changes.

in the meantime, a little more vigilance to what you are doing perhaps?

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:50 pm**

text deleted,,,refer below

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:50 pm**

thenobodies80 wrote:The images with the new rails have been sent for the upload.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:59 pm**

I added myself to this list where did my name go?

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:02 pm**

IcePack wrote:I added myself to this list where did my name go?

Fixed

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:06 pm**

I am for this change

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:33 pm**

Gilligan wrote:I am for this change

Added

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:31 pm**

Images updated.

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:32 pm**

thenobodies80 wrote:Images updated.

certainly have been, they look good, thank-you

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:19 pm**

Hard to believe this map could look any better, but it does. Well done cairns.

Posted: **Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:32 pm**

nolefan5311 wrote:Hard to believe this map could look any better, but it does. Well done cairns.

thanks nolefan5311

now it looks like a real spaghetti junction :lol:

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:10 pm**

Hi, I dropped by today to post two things:

1.
The image the site uses is a .jpg file:
http://maps.conquerclub.com/Rail_Europe2.L.jpg
The image cairns has on the first page of this thread is a .png:
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... update.png
The cairns version has lovely crisp colours, which are washed out on the 'official' image, and there's some fuzziness all over the .jpg. Consider re-uploading to the map index?

2.
I came to say that the F line bonus is under-valued. And the M line over-valued. But then, having read through the last few pages of bonus discussion, I think it's best to leave it be. Cairns has put a lot of effort into this map, and I don't want to stir up a huge change now when we can sit back and enjoy it as it is.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:34 pm**

ManBungalow wrote:Hi, I dropped by today to post two things:

1.
The image the site uses is a .jpg file:
http://maps.conquerclub.com/Rail_Europe2.L.jpg
The image cairns has on the first page of this thread is a .png:
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... update.png
The cairns version has lovely crisp colours, which are washed out on the 'official' image, and there's some fuzziness all over the .jpg. Consider re-uploading to the map index?

Change this immediately

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:40 pm**

I think this is part of the "downsizing the bytage" process, is it not?

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:02 pm**

Wow, yes, I'm prepared to take back what I said.

For contrast, Kings Court II (which comes to mind when I think of a big map file) is 402.84 KB.
This is 809.04 KB.

It just seems a shame to not use the pristine image.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:42 pm**

ManBungalow wrote:Wow, yes, I'm prepared to take back what I said.

For contrast, Kings Court II (which comes to mind when I think of a big map file) is 402.84 KB.
This is 809.04 KB.

It just seems a shame to not use the pristine image.

Perhaps the differrence in size comes down to the number of colours used.
I think King's Court uses many of the same colours whereas this one has many differing colour pixels spread wide.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:43 pm**

cairnswk wrote:
ManBungalow wrote:Wow, yes, I'm prepared to take back what I said.

For contrast, Kings Court II (which comes to mind when I think of a big map file) is 402.84 KB.
This is 809.04 KB.

It just seems a shame to not use the pristine image.

Perhaps the differrence in size comes down to the number of colours used.
I think King's Court uses many of the same colours whereas this one has many differing colour pixels spread wide.

The amount of colors makes a file's size increase? Really?

Conquer Club

Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]

Re: Rail Europe [Quenched]