Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:12 pm
i like it, cool idea... is sacajwea going to be her own bonus territory?-0
Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=358&t=38601
Coleman wrote:I see something, we need to bump Aztecs 1 up by 1.
I think a drop in Aztec 3 to 3 would be fine to compensate.
Reason is a 10v10 situation pops up if Aztecs homeland rushes for Comanche homeland first turn or vice versa.
We could also bump up that dock... Docks maybe should be 4 anyways. Would slow a Mapuches rush for Aztecs or Comanche if we did.
I don't like rushes you know. People should be safe for at least 1 round.
EDIT: Comanche 1 should be 2 not 4.
Lone.prophet wrote:uhhh i didnt even see the names behind the territoria maybe make them more clear
Chirondom wrote:In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?
Not likely. The landing zones are auto deploy, they would each have 3, there is no telling where they would be. They wouldn't have enough territories to place more then 3 on their own. It would be like normal only 2 of the starting zones would be retarded (not getting another 3 to deploy).Chirondom wrote:In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?
gimil wrote:Coleman wrote:First, I'm not gay. There was no kissing.
there was lots of kissing . . .
(im not gay either, although coleman was rather tender)
Coleman wrote:Still not gay
Possibly, It should be more obvious in live play. Are the watermark names not visible for you?oaktown wrote:As you have probably already figured out, I'm a fan of the antique map look!
there's a port on the eastern coast of S. America - can it attack the port in eastern canada? Same ocean, but the way the map cuts off it suggests that there is no route.
In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things.
oaktown wrote:there's a port on the eastern coast of S. America - can it attack the port in eastern canada? Same ocean, but the way the map cuts off it suggests that there is no route.
oaktown wrote:In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things.
Oh, the European territories can't attack each other?Coleman wrote:Not likely. The landing zones are auto deploy, they would each have 3, there is no telling where they would be. They wouldn't have enough territories to place more then 3 on their own. It would be like normal only 2 of the starting zones would be retarded (not getting another 3 to deploy).Chirondom wrote:In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?
Chirondom wrote:Oh, the European territories can't attack each other?Coleman wrote:Not likely. The landing zones are auto deploy, they would each have 3, there is no telling where they would be. They wouldn't have enough territories to place more then 3 on their own. It would be like normal only 2 of the starting zones would be retarded (not getting another 3 to deploy).Chirondom wrote:In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?
Coleman wrote:Possibly, It should be more obvious in live play. Are the watermark names not visible for you?oaktown wrote:In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things.
oaktown wrote:Coleman wrote:Possibly, It should be more obvious in live play. Are the watermark names not visible for you?oaktown wrote:In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things.
My bad, I didn't even put them together. I see there's no Spanish watermark, but that's the easiest color to distinguish.
yeti_c wrote:Hmmm - "Landing Zone" is a bit tricky to work out - perhaps some symbols in the territories might work better?
Also "home town" I dislike too - again perhaps some symbols? Like a temple, a teepee etc?
C.
Kaplowitz wrote:6 pages in one day? wow!
Its a pretty cool concept, i like how you are putting these conquest gameplay ideas into actual history. One thing i see is, the legend is hard to read.
lanyards wrote:The text inside the box with Europe that says "The Home Land's of Europe", isn't that incorrect puncuation? Shouldn't it say "The Homelands of Europe"? I don't see why the ' is need in homelands, and I think homelands is one word.
Also, I don't like the equador line too much. It sorta divides the lower part of the map, but it doesn't really matter because it is real faint.
I like the idea, and it seems this map will move through the stages quickly.
--lanyards
Well, actual history is a stretch as I'm sure Unit_2 or qwert would be quick to point out but thank you.Kaplowitz wrote:6 pages in one day? wow!
Its a pretty cool concept, i like how you are putting these conquest gameplay ideas into actual history. One thing i see is, the legend is hard to read.