Conquer Club

are you looking for exact gameplay from classic or something really close? because the territories in asia are a little wrong i believe

laddida wrote:if this is revamping the classic shapes isnt the game play suppose to be about the same? Looks like spots are pretty much moved all over the place

The spots may have moved, but the connections are equivalent. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the cities here and the classic regions, and all connections here match up with connections on the Classic Shapes map or with borders on the Classic Art or Hasbro map, so all your strategies will work just as well here as on the old maps.

Why not Mecca instead of Dubai? It has more cultural importance, even if it is not as important in the business world.

No, something is not right.
If you look at classic shapes, A5 has 6 border connections
Chengdu and Delhi have 5 connections respectively (the most connections in Asia on this map), but NOT 6
There are border connections that need to be addressed.

ender516 wrote:The spots may have moved, but the connections are equivalent. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the cities here and the classic regions, and all connections here match up with connections on the Classic Shapes map or with borders on the Classic Art or Hasbro map, so all your strategies will work just as well here as on the old maps.

The board game is different than Old Classic (Kamchatka and Mongolia were connected) which is different than this map (Hong Kong and Mumbai should be connected). I think other than Asia all three are the exact same, but changes need to be made.



EDIT: And what maasman said. And maybe more.

I think if you are going for complete identical-ness then you need to delete the current borders in Asia and redraw them

I can rearrange the Asia borders quite easily. The gameplay is intended (and required) to be identical to Shapes/Art so I must have made a mistake when arranging the cities. But as I said, that's a pretty easy fix.

I didn't think it would be a problem, just wanted to let you know

MrBenn wrote: The version of the map that is laid out here is the one that has been authorised by lackattack to replace Classic Shapes.

WHY?

Why not just ADD this map?

Some of us actually do enjoy "Classic Shapes." So what if the attack pattern is the same? Some like C Arts which I can't stand. Some can't stand the Classic Shapes that a few others have wisely mentioned (other threads) is very easy for teaching purposes (same reason i like it: it's SO simple to find what you want.)

I'm not downing the map, it's wonderful to have a map-looking map.

But really, WHY does it have to replace the others that ppl are used to?

john9blue wrote:

ender516 wrote:The spots may have moved, but the connections are equivalent. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the cities here and the classic regions, and all connections here match up with connections on the Classic Shapes map or with borders on the Classic Art or Hasbro map, so all your strategies will work just as well here as on the old maps.

The board game is different than Old Classic (Kamchatka and Mongolia were connected) which is different than this map (Hong Kong and Mumbai should be connected). I think other than Asia all three are the exact same, but changes need to be made.



EDIT: And what maasman said. And maybe more.

You know, to be honest, I never checked all of Asia's connections (and at this time of night, I'm not going to.) It's just that these same questions about gameplay have come up time and again in the development of the World Cities map, and I thought I would pitch in to give sully800 a rest.

stahrgazer wrote:

MrBenn wrote: The version of the map that is laid out here is the one that has been authorised by lackattack to replace Classic Shapes.

WHY?

Why not just ADD this map?

Some of us actually do enjoy "Classic Shapes." So what if the attack pattern is the same? Some like C Arts which I can't stand. Some can't stand the Classic Shapes that a few others have wisely mentioned (other threads) is very easy for teaching purposes (same reason i like it: it's SO simple to find what you want.)

I'm not downing the map, it's wonderful to have a map-looking map.

But really, WHY does it have to replace the others that ppl are used to?

I agree completely.

lackattack wrote:

sully800 wrote:[*]Adjust the red in the title. I initially liked the light red because it fits well with the pastels of the city line, but a brighter color will go better with the CC logo. Shooting for a middle ground in the next draft.[/list]

Yes, please do what you can to portray that this is the official map of Conquer Club. As well as using something more similiar to the CC logo you can also use our "official" flag icons (I'm sending you a an email now with hi-res flag icons attached) instead of the current flags.

It seems you already are doing this but I'd try to choose cities from the continents of our old Classic whenever possible, to help keep this revamp recognizeable.

Also, I think jiminski has a point about the city line being a bit on the juvenile side. Do you think you can do something more sophisticated? Sorry to be critical, but this is our flagship map and all!

I agree. Africa needs to be shifted as the old Madagascar is now in South Africa. Then the Rest can move around

I have 2 issues with the map as it stands at the moment one of which I'm sure has been pointed out before

1. there is a very large empty space of land above novosibirsk (grr thats gotta be spelled wrong) which makes all the circles below it seem squashed in (IMO)

2. maybe it's my eyesight or sceren res i'm using but africa looks out of proportion some how, it looks about the right length but seems vey thin, kinda like its slowly melting and slipping towards the bottom of the map

Nem

This map is way too cluttered. The maps are a real distraction -- and the floating city -- what is that, OZ? That a look at the original classic -- the one we cannot use -- no clutter.

NemesisChild wrote:1. there is a very large empty space of land above novosibirsk (grr thats gotta be spelled wrong) which makes all the circles below it seem squashed in (IMO)

Northern russia is really just waste land. Sully could reposition the circles, but it wouldn't be realistic then. I imagine more people would complain if the cities were not in the correct spots.

NemesisChild wrote:2. maybe it's my eyesight or sceren res i'm using but africa looks out of proportion some how, it looks about the right length but seems vey thin, kinda like its slowly melting and slipping towards the bottom of the map

I think your right. Africa could be widened a bit. But it's really no big deal.

mpjh wrote:This map is way too cluttered. The maps are a real distraction -- and the floating city -- what is that, OZ? That a look at the original classic -- the one we cannot use -- no clutter.

Maybe if Sully gets rid of the flags around the borders it will not look so cluttered. It's because of the connecting lines instead of territory borders...



I think the floating city is very cool - just maybe blend it into the map a little better. either so it's obviously part of the title, or it's blended into the map graphics somehow.

I agree that getting rid of the flags would help greatly.

It will be easy to post versions without the flags, especially since I will need to redo them anyway.

I remember when I first created the border there was a lot of initial enthusiasm for it. Then after a couple of days there were some people who felt it cluttered the map too much. I definitely understand the clutter problem, but I also liked the color it added to the map and the sense of unifying countries by having all their flags next to each other. Anyway, I will post versions without the border, which will decrease the height of the map (not increase the space available for play). If there is a large demand to bring the flags back of course that will be considered.

As always, I would like to thank everyone for their input. Constructive criticism will turn this map into something that hopefully everyone can be satisfied with (and dare I say - appreciate?)

You seem to be getting a lot of flak about the decorative parts of the map, sully800. It's a shame some of these people didn't take more of an interest when it was being developed as World Cities.

So, here's a train of thought I just had: if the title no longer mentions cities, then perhaps the skyline should go. If it goes, then perhaps the title "Classic" (and whatever else this map is eventually called, with perhaps a Conquer Club star in circle logo) could be adjusted to the right to cover all that Asian wasteland. Of course then the Canadian Arctic and Greenland would be exposed, but I think they are more visually interesting (sort of crinkly, thanks to Slartibartfast, I suppose).

the title font terribly mismatched with the map.

mpjh wrote:I agree that getting rid of the flags would help greatly.

God I hate to say it.... but maybe the globe legends might be too much also. A very simple legend may work better.

RjBeals wrote:

mpjh wrote:I agree that getting rid of the flags would help greatly.

God I hate to say it.... but maybe the globe legends might be too much also. A very simple legend may work better.

I have to agree; I love them, but I think that's the source of the cluttered feel. If you look at a physical world map, the open-ness of the ocean(s) is something remarkable and clutter-combatting—the thing the globes do is comparable to placing a couple Australia-size islands smack in the middle of the Indian and Pacific oceans.

RjBeals wrote:

mpjh wrote:I agree that getting rid of the flags would help greatly.

God I hate to say it.... but maybe the globe legends might be too much also. A very simple legend may work better.

Perhaps the solution is putting the globes in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Having one in the Atlantic seems to be what really clutters things. I'd rather not see the globes go if they don't have to.

Peter Gibbons wrote:

RjBeals wrote:

mpjh wrote:I agree that getting rid of the flags would help greatly.

God I hate to say it.... but maybe the globe legends might be too much also. A very simple legend may work better.

Perhaps the solution is putting the globes in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Having one in the Atlantic seems to be what really clutters things. I'd rather not see the globes go if they don't have to.

I did that originally, and it feels way off balance. I didn't like it at all with two globes really off center.

The globes have been one of the most well received points of this map (meaning, more people have complimented them than anything else) and this is the first I've heard of any real criticism. Once again, I understand the fear of having a map that is too cluttered, and that is something I would like to avoid. So while I will consider removing them, I don't think that's the way to go at the moment, unless a lot of other people share this opinion.

sully800 wrote:

Peter Gibbons wrote:

RjBeals wrote:

mpjh wrote:I agree that getting rid of the flags would help greatly.

God I hate to say it.... but maybe the globe legends might be too much also. A very simple legend may work better.

Perhaps the solution is putting the globes in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Having one in the Atlantic seems to be what really clutters things. I'd rather not see the globes go if they don't have to.

I did that originally, and it feels way off balance. I didn't like it at all with two globes really off center.

The globes have been one of the most well received points of this map (meaning, more people have complimented them than anything else) and this is the first I've heard of any real criticism. Once again, I understand the fear of having a map that is too cluttered, and that is something I would like to avoid. So while I will consider removing them, I don't think that's the way to go at the moment, unless a lot of other people share this opinion.

Can you post a map with those layers hidden, and just a list of the continents in the Pacific? I do like the globes—and as such was one of those who complimented them—but once RJ pointed out that those could be the source of the clutter, I realized it could be best for the map…

Most certainly can. And I think the globe clutter does stem from the globe in the Atlantic, which has to be very close to connections, labels and land masses. That is one of the unfortunate side effects of the new orientation, and since the globes were designed for the old layout maybe it is true that they no longer fit.

mibi wrote:the title font terribly mismatched with the map.

I agree. If we need to use the word "CLASSIC" pick a better font that is more fitting.

and

I like the globes. I don't think they look bad.