Conquer Club

This is the new 888s map for the new small size map

Cairns, is the neutrals map on the first post up to date?

Do you want a max amount of starting positions? In a 1v1 game, each player will be dropped 6, which I think is a little overkill. If I max it at 3 it will only affect 2 and 3 player games.

The Supply Ships and Land Bases +1...are those autodeploy, or a droppable bonus?

nolefan5311 wrote:Cairns, is the neutrals map on the first post up to date?

Yes.

Do you want a max amount of starting positions? In a 1v1 game, each player will be dropped 6, which I think is a little overkill. If I max it at 3 it will only affect 2 and 3 player games.

max at 3 please.

The Supply Ships and Land Bases +1...are those autodeploy, or a droppable bonus?

If they do not state autodeploy, then they are deploy on drop.

perhaps select a couple of different ship names if possible? u currently have Girona and La Girona, also Asunción and La Asunción, which will cause unnecessary confusion. SS Paxat La Isabela ought to be SS Paxat la Isabela, with a lower case l.

in the losing condition legend, does commander's ship mean exactly the same as command ship in the bonus legend? make it clearer that it's unnecessary to hold both bow and stern to avoid elimination.

ian.

iancanton wrote:perhaps select a couple of different ship names if possible? u currently have Girona and La Girona, also Asunción and La Asunción, which will cause unnecessary confusion. SS Paxat La Isabela ought to be SS Paxat la Isabela, with a lower case l.

fixed next version 32

in the losing condition legend, does commander's ship mean exactly the same as command ship in the bonus legend? make it clearer that it's unnecessary to hold both bow and stern to avoid elimination.

ian.

since a commander's ship consists of both bow and stern, it is necessary to hold both.
Losing Condition: Players failing to hold any non-treasury region and any Commander's Ship (B & S) will be eliminated

Version 32
1. three new ship names
2. change to losing condition and playing terminolgy

iancanton wrote:in the losing condition legend, does commander's ship mean exactly the same as command ship in the bonus legend?

is there a need to have them called by two different terms in different parts of the legend?

cairnswk wrote:since a commander's ship consists of both bow and stern, it is necessary to hold both.
Losing Condition: Players failing to hold any non-treasury region and any Commander's Ship (B & S) will be eliminated

at the start, each player holds only B or S of any ship, not both. in a 1v1 game, let's suppose that player 1 starts with rainbow S. if he stacks rainbow S and attacks rainbow B but fails to conquer it, then he satisfies the losing condition at the end of his turn, therefore player 2 wins the game without playing a turn. is this what u intended?

just so that i understand the assaults from the treasury: a T region can assault the same player's cs, ss or lb, in other words a T region that green occupies can assault any cs, but only if green already occupies B or S of that cs; however, a green T region can never assault an ss or lb, though he can fort to any ss or lb that is already green. am i right?

we have another duplicate: san lorenzo cs and san lorenzo next to san cristobal. asunción and la concepción are missing the ó.

ian.

iancanton wrote:

cairnswk wrote:since a commander's ship consists of both bow and stern, it is necessary to hold both.
Losing Condition: Players failing to hold any non-treasury region and any Commander's Ship (B & S) will be eliminated

at the start, each player holds only B or S of any ship, not both. in a 1v1 game, let's suppose that player 1 starts with rainbow S. if he stacks rainbow S and attacks rainbow B but fails to conquer it, then he satisfies the losing condition at the end of his turn, therefore player 2 wins the game without playing a turn. is this what u intended?

I've come across the same issue in the code, and was going to seek clarification tonight cairns

iancanton wrote:just so that i understand the assaults from the treasury: a T region can assault the same player's cs, ss or lb, in other words a T region that green occupies can assault any cs, but only if green already occupies B or S of that cs; however, a green T region can never assault an ss or lb, though he can fort to any ss or lb that is already green. am i right?

What I take this to mean is that a player holding Don Diego Medrano can, from his Monarch position and from any Treasury square, attack the like "shield" of that Commander. So, a player occupying Medrano can attack either B or S of Capitania, SS Bazana, or Diana only. I think "players" used in the phrasing is what's causing the confusion. At least that's how I've written (or plan to right) the attacks.

iancanton wrote:

iancanton wrote:in the losing condition legend, does commander's ship mean exactly the same as command ship in the bonus legend?

is there a need to have them called by two different terms in different parts of the legend?

my question to you...does it matter? Surely players can ascertain that the Commander's ship and Command ship can be one in the same thing.
Trying to get all the grammer/vocab to be absolutely perfect is not my intention, but rather so that it is understandable.
You wouldn't happen to be a virgo by any chance ian?

cairnswk wrote:since a commander's ship consists of both bow and stern, it is necessary to hold both.
Losing Condition: Players failing to hold any non-treasury region and any Commander's Ship (B & S) will be eliminated

at the start, each player holds only B or S of any ship, not both. in a 1v1 game, let's suppose that player 1 starts with rainbow S. if he stacks rainbow S and attacks rainbow B but fails to conquer it, then he satisfies the losing condition at the end of his turn, therefore player 2 wins the game without playing a turn. is this what u intended? [/quote]
no, he is in no better position than he was at the start of his turn.

in a 1v1 game, how many "player slots" will each player hold? my cals tell me /3 they will hold 4 each since there are 12 player slots, and..
even if we only have 8 player slots (as per game engine), they still have 2 each. This includes the other "shielded ships" which to my reckoning are non-treasury and non-commander ships...

So since holding one of these is a condition of remaining in the game, would not a player be very stupid if he did not try on his first turn to fortify that "remaining in the game" position by taking one of the "unshielded ships" adjacant to his start position.

And remember, the losing condition contains an "and" function not an "or" function.

just so that i understand the assaults from the treasury: a T region can assault the same player's cs, ss or lb,

yes...but let's use commander's (sorry for the ambigiuty of using player)...so a T region can assault the same Commander's cs, ss or lb...

...in other words a T region that green occupies can assault any cs, but only if green already occupies B or S of that cs;

...well, let's get away from green and go to commanders names...(i'll change that)

if you occupy sir Martin Frobishers CS or LB, you can fort to them from SMF's M or T positions.

If your opponent occupies SMF's CS or LB, you would want to assault those posistions from SMF's M or T positions.

however, a green T region can never assault an ss or lb, though he can fort to any ss or lb that is already green. am i right?

yes. SMF's M/T region can fort to his own cs, or lb...and the same for the Spanish.

1. at the start of the game, you can fort to any CS or LB from M of the same commmander
2. at the start of the game, you cannot conquer another Commander's (or players) M position or their CS positions to eliminate them.
3. if at some stage during the game your opponent conquers one of your CS positions, and then conquers your M position, your opponent can also assault your other CS position and LB from your previously held M position. your opponent can then conquer your other T positions.
4. In order for you to get back your M position, you must conquer a S or B position of your opponent's Commander ship.

we have another duplicate: san lorenzo cs and san lorenzo next to san cristobal. asunción and la concepción are missing the ó.
ian.

will fix. san lorenzo cs...stet.
san lorenzo next to san cristobal...changed to Santo Andres

nolefan5311 wrote:

iancanton wrote:

cairnswk wrote:since a commander's ship consists of both bow and stern, it is necessary to hold both.
Losing Condition: Players failing to hold any non-treasury region and any Commander's Ship (B & S) will be eliminated

at the start, each player holds only B or S of any ship, not both. in a 1v1 game, let's suppose that player 1 starts with rainbow S. if he stacks rainbow S and attacks rainbow B but fails to conquer it, then he satisfies the losing condition at the end of his turn, therefore player 2 wins the game without playing a turn. is this what u intended?

I've come across the same issue in the code, and was going to seek clarification tonight cairns

nolenfan5311...in the xml...
player's failing to hold any non-treasury region...means must have at least one.
players failing to hold any commander's B & S...means must have at least one Command ship.
therefore command ships have to be coded as continents.
you may have to code non-treasury positions with each Command Ship continent x 12 times but apply a different command ship each time.

iancanton wrote:just so that i understand the assaults from the treasury: a T region can assault the same player's cs, ss or lb, in other words a T region that green occupies can assault any cs, but only if green already occupies B or S of that cs; however, a green T region can never assault an ss or lb, though he can fort to any ss or lb that is already green. am i right?

What I take this to mean is that a player holding Don Diego Medrano can, from his Monarch position and from any Treasury square, attack the like "shield" of that Commander. So, a player occupying Medrano can attack either B or S of Capitania, SS Bazana, or Diana only. I think "players" used in the phrasing is what's causing the confusion. At least that's how I've written (or plan to right) the attacks.

Answered above i beleive.

Version 33.

The legend and the box directly above Elizabeth I, I don't think that the outer glow on the text is needed. There is a nice light background color with black text. I believe that it would be readable without the glow. Can you do just a couple so I can see it please? Other than that, everything is very clear and readable so This can be stickied!

Last Call

If anyone has any other comments on graphics, now is the time to speak up! If there are no other concerns within the next couple of days, this map will be moved to the Final Forge!

isaiah40

isaiah40 wrote:The legend and the box directly above Elizabeth I, I don't think that the outer glow on the text is needed. There is a nice light background color with black text. I believe that it would be readable without the glow. Can you do just a couple so I can see it please? Other than that, everything is very clear and readable so This can be stickied!

Last Call

If anyone has any other comments on graphics, now is the time to speak up! If there are no other concerns within the next couple of days, this map will be moved to the Final Forge!

isaiah40

Isaiah40...here is your image requested...although i prefer the one above with the outer glow, and this was done for the reason to create a link to the top legend text in left corner...this one below looks very weak and it is #000000.

Yea, it is a little harder to read. My apologies, but I looked at this very early this am, but some of the borders are very pixelly. Especially the diagonal ones.

This post is just a figment of your spirit's imagination since the world ended at 11:11am!

isaiah40 wrote:....but some of the borders are very pixelly. Especially the diagonal ones...

you had better tell me each and every one of them (on large and small) if you want them fixed which i am not guaranteeing, since this map is done in Forewworks, and i am not going to to migrate it to some other software like happened with Rail Asia.
I'm sorry, but at normal levels on the large, even i can't see such pixelation you are talking about.
So you must be zooming into the map at least 200% to see them if they are there.

There are only 10 areas that really stick out:

isaiah40 wrote:There are only 10 areas that really stick out:>>>

are these one the small or the large, please.

Sorry, both.

isaiah40 wrote:Sorry, both.

Thank-you. i will have a look at them later today, once i've opened my eyes properly

isaiah40 wrote:There are only 10 areas that really stick out:

Isaiah40.
I've looked at all those.
the borders are 2 pixels wide on soft line vectors...and these somewhat pixelated edges are the result of the angles that the lines run at.
I have been around all the entire lot and checked that they all met where they're supposed to i.e. all lines sit over the top of the bordering line and are not 1/2 pixels off,
and the corners are all grided. i have corrected where necessary, but the jaggered obscure angled lines are not going to go away completely.

Definitely not the longest xml....but this is 4773 lines long...almost finished!

yeeeesh... good luck with that.

RedBaron0 wrote:

yeeeesh... good luck with that.

Wow, thanks RBO. nice post-xmas pressie...
XML, piece of cake...i think.