Conquer Club

USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Care to peruse completed maps? Take a stroll through the Atlas.

Moderator: Cartographers

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby Gilligan on Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:22 pm

RedBaron0 wrote:Think I found a quirk in the XML connections. Albert Lea (MN) is connected to Sioux City (IA) instead of Des Moines (IA) should be the other way around.


Yeah, this is a small map/large map discrepancy. Albert Lea connects to Sioux City on the small, but not the large.
Image
User avatar
Captain Gilligan
 
Posts: 12478
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: Providence, RI

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby isaiah40 on Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:31 pm

A lot of changes to make things a tad more clear as to what is where on the small only.

- Made the state borders in the Southeast Region darker

Ovals moved:
- Waterloo IA --> Right
- Philadelphia PA --> Left
- Waterbury CT --> Down & Right
- Bennington VT --> Left & Up
- Burlington VT --> Left
- Manchester NH --> Left
- Berlin NH --> Left
- Baltimore MD --> Left
- Augusta GA --> Down
- Sioux Falls SD --> Left & Up
- Sioux City IA --> Left
- Beckley WV --> Left & Up
- Minneapolis MN --> Left
- Cambridge OH (#13) --> Left & Up
- Cleveland OH --> left
- Memphis TN --> Up
- Monroe LA --> Left

Interstates moved:
- I35 to go around Sioux City IA
- I5 to go around San Fransisco
Click image to enlarge.
image
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby koontz1973 on Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:55 am

Click image to enlarge.
image
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant koontz1973
 
Posts: 6960
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby Gilligan on Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:31 am

huh?
Image
User avatar
Captain Gilligan
 
Posts: 12478
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: Providence, RI

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby waauw on Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:46 pm

koontz1973 wrote:
Click image to enlarge.
image


muahahahah, why did you use your camera on the computerscreen? :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Lieutenant waauw
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby angola on Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:31 am

One thing I noticed that seems strange is that No. 37 is in Michigan, while 35, 36 and 38 are all in Mississippi or Alabama.

I think Battle Creek, Michigan should get a different number to reflect the other numbers around it. If you don't know your US geography, than finding No. 37 would be very, very difficult.
Highest rank: 48th. Highest score: 3,384. Feb. 9, 2014.
Captain angola
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Washington state

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby Jdsizzleslice on Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:02 pm

Game 12690012

2013-04-28 13:01:12 - Jdsizzleslice assaulted Sioux City from Albert Lea and conquered it from jonah03
User avatar
Brigadier Jdsizzleslice
 
Posts: 3576
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:55 pm
32

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby Gilligan on Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:32 pm

Gilligan wrote:
RedBaron0 wrote:Think I found a quirk in the XML connections. Albert Lea (MN) is connected to Sioux City (IA) instead of Des Moines (IA) should be the other way around.


Yeah, this is a small map/large map discrepancy. Albert Lea connects to Sioux City on the small, but not the large.


Will be fixed in next update
Image
User avatar
Captain Gilligan
 
Posts: 12478
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: Providence, RI

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby DrunkCat on Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:44 pm

What's with the fish?
Cook DrunkCat
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:53 pm

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby isaiah40 on Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:53 pm

I am thinking of changing the reinforcements to +1 for every 5 regions to slow down the acquirement of bonuses too fast. It seems like +1 for every 3 gives way too many. Any thoughts or ideas??
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby koontz1973 on Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:19 am

It is the balance of stopping bonuses happening too early over the ability to not have every game reach 30+ rounds.

Game 12646074 Round 9 and still about 10 rounds left to play in an escalating game. That is a lot of rounds to play for that style of game. Imagine flat, nukes and no spoils. You may end up destroying the map on those settings as no one will want to play it.

Best thoughts as of now is to leave it as is. At most, reduce it to a 1/4 ratio.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant koontz1973
 
Posts: 6960
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby isaiah40 on Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:20 am

I can reduce it to + 1 for every 4 regions no problem.
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby Swifte on Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:29 am

With the capitals at 5 neutrals each, we've really had no incentive in our no spoils game to make a move on any of the state bonuses, playing the territory count game instead. i think if you water down the troops per region, this game would really come to a grind. Game 12647152

with this particular settings, i'm enjoying it pretty well as it is, if anything wishing capitals were somewhat lower as they're pretty big barricades for the time being... but this is my only game/settings tried. maybe the issue lies with other combinations.
User avatar
Colonel Swifte
 
Posts: 2474
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: usually Mahgreb
3

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby nolefan5311 on Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:41 am

isaiah40 wrote:I am thinking of changing the reinforcements to +1 for every 5 regions to slow down the acquirement of bonuses too fast. It seems like +1 for every 3 gives way too many. Any thoughts or ideas??


I think that's a mistake. Bonuses are really the only thing that keeps games moving on this map. With the amount of neutrals to conquer and the fact that its darn near impossible from the drop to have regions which you can fort, it'd be a mistake to make it harder to expand.
User avatar
Captain nolefan5311
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:51 am
Location: Florida

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby Sprocc on Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:27 pm

Love the map.

However

There is an ERROR in this map - when in Des Moines it would not allow me to attack Albert Lea which according to the map should be linked. But when I we was in Sioux city it did let me attack Albert Lea which according to the map should not be linked
Colonel Sprocc
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: Ballarat

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby Gilligan on Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:32 pm

Okay, uh...here's an update. I fixed the coordinates on small and large, but can't upload it to fileden at the moment...

I also removed DC from the Maryland bonus.
Attachments
USA21.xml
(116.78 KiB) Downloaded 517 times
Image
User avatar
Captain Gilligan
 
Posts: 12478
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: Providence, RI

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby Sprocc on Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:05 pm

I would also agree with the earlier suggestion of a bonus for 5 territories rather than three. Early on when one starts to get ahead they get a lot of bonuses and can then easily eliminate people. So currently it is favoring those that get a good start.
Colonel Sprocc
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: Ballarat

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby isaiah40 on Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:56 pm

Sprocc wrote:I would also agree with the earlier suggestion of a bonus for 5 territories rather than three. Early on when one starts to get ahead they get a lot of bonuses and can then easily eliminate people. So currently it is favoring those that get a good start.

Which is exactly one of the reasons I was thinking of changing the reinforcements. Right now I think a compromise would be +1 for every 4 regions. That would mean that on your first turn you would get 5 men instead of 7. Still enough to take a region or 2, but enough that you can still defend those regions you just took. I believe that it will only take an extra couple of rounds before you start getting the hefty bonuses. Not enough to drag the game out indefinitely, but enough to make it interesting.
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby Teflon Kris on Wed May 01, 2013 8:27 pm

Well, seems pretty easy to get bonuses when, if you have ANY 2 cities, you get the bonus for them being on the same road, even if they aren't. Thanks :D
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Teflon Kris
 
Posts: 4236
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:39 pm
Location: Lancashire, United Kingdom

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby iancanton on Thu May 02, 2013 2:09 am

i have to agree with koontz and nole that the current 1 for every 3 cities, when combined with the bonuses for state capitals and road capitals, keeps the game fluid by rewarding aggression, while punishing those who try to sit back and let their opponents waste their troops on attacking neutrals. i've yet to see any convincing evidence in sequential 1v1 that the player who starts wins more often than in either classic or the original usa.

DJ Teflon wrote:Well, seems pretty easy to get bonuses when, if you have ANY 2 cities, you get the bonus for them being on the same road, even if they aren't. Thanks :D

is there something wrong with the xml regarding the bonuses for the road capitals, dj? which two roads do u mean?

ian. :)
Image
User avatar
Colonel iancanton
Foundry Foreman
Foundry Foreman
 
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:40 am
Location: europe

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby teach42 on Fri May 03, 2013 1:25 pm

Still playing my first few games on it, but I really think it would beneft from shading the states more. Especially on the east coast it's really hard to see where one state begins and the next ends. Is there a compelling reason to keep the full regions one solid color? Gotta be some way to make those divisions more clear.
Lieutenant teach42
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:08 pm

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby isaiah40 on Fri May 03, 2013 3:34 pm

teach42 wrote:Still playing my first few games on it, but I really think it would beneft from shading the states more. Especially on the east coast it's really hard to see where one state begins and the next ends. Is there a compelling reason to keep the full regions one solid color? Gotta be some way to make those divisions more clear.

Which regions are you having trouble seeing?

In talking with iancanton, in order to bring the capitals into play more, how about if we lower the starting neutral to 4 instead of 5??? Anyone opposed to the idea? Or should we leave it at 5?
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby Buffaloed on Fri May 03, 2013 4:17 pm

Loving this map - playing it dubs, trips and quads and it's excellent for team play. Most maps are too small for a good quads game - this one is perfect.

Regarding the comments on bonuses - I wouldn't change anything for now, as the bonuses seem to work well. Keep it at 1 for 3, as there is a LOT of territory to cover. Keep the capitols at 5 as you really have to want one to take it. There are definitely two approaches - some players ignore them and just try to acquire territory. I prefer to take them and get the state & capitol bonuses, so I've taken every one I can. That's the beauty of this map, as it supports multiple strategies at the same time, as opposed to some of the smaller maps that only have one way to win.

Currently playing it with fog, trench, flat or no spoils. I think I like no spoils best.
User avatar
Lieutenant Buffaloed
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:54 pm
Location: Way down, on the lone prairie, where the coyotes howl, and the wind blows free. . .

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby AlbroShlo on Fri May 03, 2013 8:46 pm

Albert Lee can attack Sioux City and I don't think it should be able to.
Major AlbroShlo
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:18 pm
Location: Everywhere your men used to be

Re: USA 2.1 [10 Mar 2013] Beta Baby!!

Postby isaiah40 on Fri May 03, 2013 9:09 pm

AlbroShlo wrote:Albert Lee can attack Sioux City and I don't think it should be able to.

It's included in the next update.
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Atlas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users