Conquer Club

At first I was leening to keep the continents but thinking about it it could be fun to have a change. The only thing that might be a problem it that once someone is only slightly bigger than everyone elce wouldn't they win easily?

yamahafazer wrote:The only thing that might be a problem it that once someone is only slightly bigger than everyone elce wouldn't they win easily?

That's what she asked.

To answer your question, not really. Many more borders.

OK Version 4

version A (Pellet Groups)


version B (no Pellet Groups)


WM

Good but no pellet groups

I vote for version B (no pellet groups).

Can you rename them version A (Pellet Groups) and version B (no Pellet Groups)?

how are you planing to diferencyate between palets for attacking on the no groups verson?

yamahafazer wrote:how are you planing to diferencyate between palets for attacking on the no groups verson?

Look in the top right. EAch pellet has a letter. Either way the pellet will be named based on that letter.

Pellet groups = Red A or Green F
No Pellet Groups = A, B, ..... EE, EF, EG

change the bonouses there shouldn't just be 5 for each one and 4 for holding the cake i think the alians should be in the middle and there should be a color dimond on each different bonous color that's what i think

WidowMakers wrote:

yamahafazer wrote:how are you planing to diferencyate between palets for attacking on the no groups verson?

Look in the top right. EAch pellet has a letter. Either way the pellet will be named based on that letter.

Pellet groups = Red A or Green F
No Pellet Groups = A, B, ..... EE, EF, EG

Ok. Your right that would be fine. Thanks

What do others think about having more than one cake?

yamahafazer wrote:What do others think about having more than one cake?

The cake is a lie.

I haven't payed too close attention, but using double (and triple) letters for territories will get really confusing (not to mention really hard on the eyes). If people want no continents, couldn't you leave in the colors to differentiate territories but not code them as a bonus?

Night Strike wrote:I haven't payed too close attention, but using double (and triple) letters for territories will get really confusing (not to mention really hard on the eyes). If people want no continents, couldn't you leave in the colors to differentiate territories but not code them as a bonus?

I think that this is a good idea as it could get very hard to read.

If people are set on only having one cake don't you think that it's a bit too cloce to the "conquer man"? If their so close one person might easaly be able to get them bouth and hold them.

yamahafazer wrote:If people are set on only having one cake don't you think that it's a bit too cloce to the "conquer man"? If their so close one person might easaly be able to get them both and hold them.

Conquer-Man, The cupcake, the Diamonds and Aliens will all start out with neutral territories on them.

hummm ok

Night Strike wrote:I haven't payed too close attention, but using double (and triple) letters for territories will get really confusing (not to mention really hard on the eyes). If people want no continents, couldn't you leave in the colors to differentiate territories but not code them as a bonus?

I agree with Night Strike, and the colours are easier on the eyes rather than the stand-out white.

Skittles! wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I haven't payed too close attention, but using double (and triple) letters for territories will get really confusing (not to mention really hard on the eyes). If people want no continents, couldn't you leave in the colors to differentiate territories but not code them as a bonus?

I agree with Night Strike, and the colours are easier on the eyes rather than the stand-out white.

I'm in both camps - I prefer the no pellet groups, but perhaps the pellets can be turned down a few degrees to make them easier on the eyes.

you should work with Lack and see if you can't add some "wacka wacka" every time the map opens.

I think I am also leaning towards the no bonus territory idea.

OK here is an idea for the naming. If we use a grid system then the names do not need to be in the way and there is no need to use colors to shorten the name.
1) One color - Grid naming: A1, A2, ..... Q14, Q15
2) Color Naming (See last image) Red A, Red B ..... Blue Q, Blue R
This is confusing because I think people will think the different colors mean something. There will be tons of posts "Why don't i get a bonus for holding all of RED?

3) One color - pellet naming: A, B, C, D.....AA, AB, AC, AD,......EA, EB, EC, ED

I like #1.



But we still need to decide if we want to lower the bonus as the numbers get higher (read lower right of legend)

WM

how about a two letter grid system so you can print the numbers on the pellets but you don't have to mess with a third digit...
first row is AA - AO
second row is BA - BO
third row is CA - CO

When there's a barrier I'd skip over a letter to make sure the, "J"s or "O"s line up vertically. This will make for more clear attack patterns.

I'd vote no bonus regions, but i like that you're trying to be creative with the army distribution. Can you be more clear about the decreasing bonuses? Are we talking regressive in that if you hold ten terits you get the base 3, but if you hold 12 you get a -1 penalty and remain at +3? Or do you keep getting bonuses but the steps aren't so big?

Label each pelet A1, A2, etc.

oaktown wrote:how about a two letter grid system...
first row is AA - AO
second row is BA - BO
third row is CA - CO

When there's a barrier I'd skip over a letter to make sure the, "J"s or "O"s line up vertically. This will make for more clear attack patterns.

Are you saying to put the letters on the pellets?

oaktown wrote:I'd vote no bonus regions, but i like that you're trying to be creative with the army distribution. Can you be more clear about the decreasing bonuses? Are we talking regressive in that if you hold ten terits you get the base 3, but if you hold 12 you get a -1 penalty and remain at +3? Or do you keep getting bonuses but the steps aren't so big?

I had a graph done but I must have lost it. I will try to make up one later but in the mean time here is what I meant.

Basically the blue line is the standard increase by 1 army for every three territories. An the magenta line is the decreaseing value of bonus. There is teh equation where X is the number of pellets

The problem is I don't know how to do this in XML and how to explain it.

I still favor continents so no help from me on the xml issue with your idea. At least, not right now.

I like the no-continent concept. With so many territories, armies won't be hard to come by.

A few things, tho:
1. You might want to think about having the grid coordinates along the side and bottom AND having the pellet # on the actual pellets. I know it's redundant, but I just think you'll have fewer misdrops that way.
2. One thing to consider is that, when it comes to territory-count bonuses, we're not just talking about pellets. The bonus-type territories are territories as well that will add to the count.
3. I may be alone on this, but I think the cupcake bonus is a touch high.

Potential copy for the territory-bonus concept:
There are no continents in Conquer-Man! (alt: Conquer-Man sneers at continent bonuses!)
Territory bonuses are sliding:
(and then you'd have some sort of box, like so:)
territories----# territories per army
1-21 ------------------ 3
22-x ------------------ 4
x+1-y ---------------- 5
y+1-z ---------------- 6

well, you get the idea.

It would be ideal to have the territory names attached to the pellets somehow, but I understand that it may get messy on teh board... one of those moments where you have to weigh practicality vs. look.

Could you keep the bonus structure more simple and just say that in ConquerMan your per turn allotment is one army for every four territories, instead of three? This would be easy to accomplish with the given XML - you create a bonus called "Conquerman recalculation" that has every terit, you only need 12 terits to hold it, and it's a -1. Thus if you have 12, 13, or 14 terits you get 4-1=3. Then another bonus with the same name that gives a -1 at 15, and another with the same name that gives a +1 at 16, and so on... -1 every 3, +1 every four.

A typical turn would look like this:
05:56:21 - oaktown receives -2 armies for holding Conquerman Recalculation
05:56:21 - oaktown receives 7 armies for 22 territories

(22÷4=5 armies; 7-2=5 armies)

You could just as easily do the same thing with the XML but stagger the progression, it would just be harder to explain.

This would be a fun idea for a small map going the other way: +1 army every 2 teritories.