Conquer Club

The labeled landing beaches are kinda odd. Why do some people have to land in a territory that has -1 killer reducers but some there are normal territories.
What is a convoy landing ship, it says not L# or MS#?

Impassables are good
The map now is no more an happy place to land.

All territories with numbers are starting positions?
I think that start in F3 or F7 could be give a little advantage, battleship aren't abel to bambard these territories.
Saying that , i'm with oak about this:

oaktown wrote:reducing the number of land territories that can be hit by the battleships, since you don't want the end of the game to be drawn out forever because the leader keeps getting one territory after another picked off from a ship.

I also think you have to leave the road as it is now (no one way)...i like the idea to have a quick way to move troops

As other pointed out, you have to update the legend

So, i'll get around to answering those commentors above, but this map will now become an objective map....the objective will be to hold all land territories for one round.

It is always good to have more maps.

JJM wrote:It is always good to have more maps.

Only from Jim.

Cairns, don't you think that objective won't really come into play until after the game is really, really decided?

.44

the.killing.44 wrote:

JJM wrote:It is always good to have more maps.

Only from Jim.

Cairns, don't you think that objective won't really come into play until after the game is really, really decided?

.44

Perhaps, yes that is true, but remember this is a way around not having the xml ability at present to prevent the map from going into development vacation. It does give players something to aim for.

If you have more expanded thoughts on this, i be pleased to hear them.

Hmm, well of course it does give people to aim for, the thing is I believe that the only two times it will be even thought of as an option are: when one's opponent only has battleships remaining, and someone wants an easy win (like the castles on Feudal … in fact this is what I'd really compare it to); secondly when someone is in a casual freestyle someone wishes to double turn (in this case like the City Mogul objective). I guess it isn't that bad to have the option, as long as there is the ability to eliminate the opponent(s), but I just don't see it being executed.

On another note, I'm just going to go down the legend:
BATTLESHIPS

show: current

I suggest:

Battleships
- lose two
troops per round
- can bombard
any position
marked by: Ø

Changes * to -, puts the first two lines into one and the last line with "can" and the symbol immediately following a colon.

LANDING BEACHES

show: current

I suggest:

Landing Beaches
(A,B,C,S,V,W,X,Y,Z
& others marked by yellow*)
- lose 1 troop
per round
- can bombard
respectively named
landing craft

* you should make "yellow" have the same effect on it as the title/territories themselves
Changes list to alphabetical, gets rid of spaces in between letters, adds parentheses, * to -, condenses first two lines, adds "named" to craft note.

FORTS

show: current

I suggest:

Forts: normal
land attack
and can bombard
sea terts in
the Dardanelles
and the Narrows*

*have to specify what the Narrows are?
Changes "sea bombard". also note I'm not sure what we can or cannot use as the word for terts

SEAMINES

show: current

I suggest:

Seamines:
turn neutral
per turn

CROSSING PTS are good

~ for those above I think you need some way to separate the blocks of text, whether by a line or just extra spacing ~

All land territories for each position held (per turn autodeploy)

Not quite sure what each position is in the first place, and where is the auto-deploy put?

All convoy landing ships (not L#
or MS#) for each ship held (per
turn autodeploy)

Once again, where is the auto-deploy placed? If it's on each individual convoy landing ship, I'd think:

Auto-deploy on each convoy landing ship
(ships not shown as L# or MS#) per each ship held

Another graphical note, maybe you could give the impassables some depth?

Looks sweet,
.44

the.killing.44 wrote:

JJM wrote:It is always good to have more maps.

Only from Jim.

Cairns, don't you think that objective won't really come into play until after the game is really, really decided?

.44

look about half the people in that poll wanted it. So why not have it.

JJM wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:

JJM wrote:It is always good to have more maps.

Only from Jim.

Cairns, don't you think that objective won't really come into play until after the game is really, really decided?

.44

look about half the people in that poll wanted it. So why not have it.

Sorry for spamming cairns

the.killing.44 wrote:

JJM wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:

JJM wrote:It is always good to have more maps.

Only from Jim.

Cairns, don't you think that objective won't really come into play until after the game is really, really decided?

.44

look about half the people in that poll wanted it. So why not have it.

Sorry for spamming cairns

.44. you are not spaming. there is nothing to be sorry for. I didn't quite understand what the "only for Jim" comment was about, so let's move on from this eh?...
you have provided excellent feedback above and i am in the process of respsonding to that with the next version of the map.

EDIT: with such a comment drought on at the present that i have never seen the likes of, i am appreciative of any positive/questioning comments such as yours.

the.killing.44 wrote:Hmm, well of course it does give people to aim for, the thing is I believe that the only two times it will be even thought of as an option are: when one's opponent only has battleships remaining, and someone wants an easy win (like the castles on Feudal … in fact this is what I'd really compare it to); secondly when someone is in a casual freestyle someone wishes to double turn (in this case like the City Mogul objective). I guess it isn't that bad to have the option, as long as there is the ability to eliminate the opponent(s), but I just don't see it being executed.

I don't think there is the ability to eliminate the opponents with this objective option. So in that respect it could turn out like another SchloSS. Heaven forbid, Mergatroid!

On another note, I'm just going to go down the legend:
BATTLESHIPS

show: current

I suggest:

Battleships
- lose two
troops per round
- can bombard
any position
marked by: Ø

Changes * to -, puts the first two lines into one and the last line with "can" and the symbol immediately following a colon.

LANDING BEACHES

show: current

I suggest:

Landing Beaches
(A,B,C,S,V,W,X,Y,Z
& others marked by yellow*)
- lose 1 troop
per round
- can bombard
respectively named
landing craft

* you should make "yellow" have the same effect on it as the title/territories themselves
Changes list to alphabetical, gets rid of spaces in between letters, adds parentheses, * to -, condenses first two lines, adds "named" to craft note.

FORTS

show: current

I suggest:

Forts: normal
land attack
and can bombard
sea terts in
the Dardanelles
and the Narrows*

*have to specify what the Narrows are?
Changes "sea bombard". also note I'm not sure what we can or cannot use as the word for terts

SEAMINES

show: current

I suggest:

Seamines:
turn neutral
per turn

CROSSING PTS are good

~ for those above I think you need some way to separate the blocks of text, whether by a line or just extra spacing ~

All land territories for each position held (per turn autodeploy)

Not quite sure what each position is in the first place, and where is the auto-deploy put?

All convoy landing ships (not L#
or MS#) for each ship held (per
turn autodeploy)

Once again, where is the auto-deploy placed? If it's on each individual convoy landing ship, I'd think:

Auto-deploy on each convoy landing ship
(ships not shown as L# or MS#) per each ship held

All of this is attended to, I beleive, although in some places because of space, i have shortened your suggestions.

Another graphical note, maybe you could give the impassables some depth?
Looks sweet,
.44

Yes, the impassables are impassable for my creativity at present. But they'll get there.

Version 13.
1. the sandy coloured continent outline changed to blue outline so as to not clash with the sand colour for the beaches.
2. implementation of almost all of .44's suggestions for the legend.
3. added the Narrows text where needed
4. added objective statement
5. adjusted some mine-sweepers

What are ships not marked L# or MS#?

thenobodies80 wrote:What are ships not marked L# or MS#?

Battleships, I believe. Though cairns should clarify.

I'm not so sure about the squiggly lines, though they are better than nothing

What does the white line going through the center do? I'll wait for the next graphical update to really tear at it

.44

the.killing.44 wrote:
What does the white line going through the center do? I'll wait for the next graphical update to really tear at it

.44

You mean the road? I like the road.

Impassibles still need to be made into something.

thenobodies80 wrote:What are ships not marked L# or MS#?

Landing Craft L1-13
or Mine Sweepers MS1-7
I'm sorry to have to say this, but don't you guys ever read a map?

the.killing.44 wrote:

thenobodies80 wrote:What are ships not marked L# or MS#?

Battleships, I believe. Though cairns should clarify.

Are not the battleships marked BS?

I'm not so sure about the squiggly lines, though they are better than nothing

What squiggly lines are you referring to?

What does the white line going through the center do? I'll wait for the next graphical update to really tear at it
.44

captainwalrus wrote:...Impassibles still need to be made into something.

That is a road, and yes i need to clarify that.
But i would prefer that you tear into it now before i do the next update, because i am still searching for something suitable to use for the imapssables...

Version 13.

cairnswk wrote:

thenobodies80 wrote:What are ships not marked L# or MS#?

Landing Craft L1-13
or Mine Sweepers MS1-7
I'm sorry to have to say this, but don't you guys ever read a map?

Sorry, i'm still confused.
You're saying :

- (per turn autodeploy) each convoy landing ship held (not marked l# or MS#) +2

If i try to search a ship NOT marked L# or MS# there are only BS.(and i don't think you are going to give them a -2 bonus and a +2 bonus in the same time. )
I assure you that i have read the map

thenobodies80 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

thenobodies80 wrote:What are ships not marked L# or MS#?

Landing Craft L1-13
or Mine Sweepers MS1-7
I'm sorry to have to say this, but don't you guys ever read a map?

Sorry, i'm still confused.
You're saying :

- (per turn autodeploy) each convoy landing ship held (not marked l# or MS#) +2

If i try to search a ship NOT marked L# or MS# there are only BS.(and i don't think you are going to give them a -2 bonus and a +2 bonus in the same time. )
I assure you that i have read the map

Oh dear
What can i say, but i'm tired after having to reformat and reload the entire C Drive just to get Illustrator to take...24 hours later...
I'm sorry theonebodies yes you have read the map - it is me who doesn't even know what he's got on his map...
I knew as soon as i wrote that comment it would come back to bite me bigtime and it did!! But i was too tired to edit it.
it was a reference to vessels that are no longer there, and it has to be sorted...somehow...another day.
Time for bed i think, and i need someone to cut the barbed wire on my tongue also, and then rinse my mouth out with soap.

cairnswk wrote:...and i need someone to cut the barbed wire on my tongue also, and then rinse my mouth out with soap.

i think it's better...
I apologize for having asked for a clarification or interfered in any way to the development of your map.

thenobodies80 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:...and i need someone to cut the barbed wire on my tongue also, and then rinse my mouth out with soap.

i think it's better...
I apologize for having asked for a clarification or interfered in any way to the development of your map.

Why are you apologising for asking for clarification on the map?
It is i who have apologised to you for being so nasty and bitter of tongue through being tired.
You have not interferred with the development of the map?
It is I who has been tartdy in my response to your questions.

cairnswk wrote:

thenobodies80 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:...and i need someone to cut the barbed wire on my tongue also, and then rinse my mouth out with soap.

i think it's better...
I apologize for having asked for a clarification or interfered in any way to the development of your map.

Why are you apologising for asking for clarification on the map?
It is i who have apologised to you for being so nasty and bitter of tongue through being tired.
You have not interferred with the development of the map?
It is I who has been tartdy in my response to your questions.

okay, maybe i'm a but tired....and i had to go sleep before going on this thread.....
sorry if i misunderstood...i thought you was sarcastic.

Version 14

clarification on the roads and that bonus

Okay then

Legend
The squiggly lines I was referring to are the ones that separate the sections of the legend. Now that I look at it more I think it does fit the rest of the map.

"turn neutral per turn" sounds a bit awkward with the double usage of both kinds of "turn." Perhaps if we used something like "turn back to neutral per round" it would be better? (By the by it's per round not turn, though I know what you were implying.)

As stated in PM, the blur of the battleship at the top is a bit unnerving to the eye…

The rest looks nice, the convoy landing ships are the L# and MS#, correct?

Impassable Borders
Hmm, after looking at the landscape of the area I can only really suggest sand dunes or rocky cliff-type walls…

Road
Pretty good, just a small thought but a black or dark brown stroke would be more apparent and road-like? Also, though it is pretty obvious, it could be better both from a gameplay and graphic perspective to have some sort of "checkpoint" where the villages meet the towns, if it's only something that looks like a bridge? I don't think "checkpoint" is the right word for it but just something to note that there is a connection

Seamine & Fort Icons
Forts look good, they're both subject to the same question — why are the lines dotted? Also, I noticed that the seamines you have on the legend are filled in with a light blue whilst the map's ones are transparent — I think the light blue ones look better. As an added bonus, the fill would cover up the dotted lines that currently run through the circles and under the numbers, looking a bit unpleasing to the eye…

Miscellaneous
Perhaps it's better to scrap "Gulf of Xeros" as it makes some confusion about tert names?

What's the, as thenobodies put it, egg doing in the top right?

Maybe there could be a way to make "Dardanelles" and "The Narrows" stand out a tiny bit more without increasing the opacity (thinking along the lines of darker stroke, dark outer glow, etc.)?

The bottom left arrow seems to have put on a bit of weight…

Speaking of that corner, perhaps if we moved the "V" to the other side of the circle and moved the V-W border to the right it would improve the clarity of the currently cluttered region?

Does N. Point border Lower Suvla Plain? The shaded color of that cove is misleading…

Graphics are pretty good, I'm intrigued by your latest PM (cue suspense…)
Let's get a gameplay guy in here
.44