Conquer Club

Overall, I'm really liking the "big idea" behind the gameplay on this map. There are a few things that I'm wondering about, which I'll post tomorrow as I'm already running (another) late night However I wanted to let everyone know that yes this map is getting looked at, and I apologize for the delay.

-- Marshal Ney

OK let me start by saying Thank You, Thank You for a Detailed First Post. By showing a breakdown of deployable and neutral regions, and the number of regions dropped for different numbers of players, you've saved me a lot of time

The central idea of two parallel 'worlds' is perhaps not new in the ideas forum, but this is one of the best implementations that I've seen (besides Arms Race and the upcoming Research & Conquer perhaps). I especially like the use of the losing condition, as it makes the Heavenly realm more attractive for overall power, but the Earthly realm is essential to hold on to or your Pantheon gets demoted to mythology! I think that it's a key point of the gameplay idea that the Earthly realm cannot assault the Heavenly realm directly in any way.

My concerns for the gameplay revolve around bonus tweaking and the powers of the gods; if you couldn't tell, I'm quite satisfied with all of the elements and the general framework

For the powers of the gods:
(1) I'm worried that the powers look great for games that go up to 4 players, but as the number goes higher, the less meaningful the Trickster and War gods become. Looking at the extreme, it's hard to see how the War god becomes attractive until late in an 8-player game. Because of this, the Trickster is also not attractive in 8-player games, because the only god worth bombarding is the Death god and he's getting a whopping +4 autodeploy compared to the Trickster's zero... not a favorable tactic. It's only when the War god is a viable option that the Trickster is also worthwhile.

(2) The Sky god can bombard the temples of others; since the SKy god is a starting region for each player, this could lead to almost immediate stacking and counter-stacking, as the temples are a cornerstone for several bonuses (the underworld crypts and the Earthly bonus areas/homelands). While some value stacking as a 'strategy' (really just an act of will or patience in some cases) I'd be hesitant to play a map that involved stacking from the word go.

My suggestion would be perhaps to lower the power of the Sky god, as it is a starting position and thus a 'freebie' god whereas the others must justify their worthiness of having a 2 neutral on them. Why not give the Trickster the power to bombard the other pantheons' god and temples? The Trickster is already a purely preventative/disruptive god anyway, with no bonus capability of its own. Those two powers would seem to complement each other. This would still leave the Sky god some importance as a conduit to the Earthly realm; if needed perhaps also give the head god a +1 autodeploy?

For the War god, I think he might need to be buffed up a bit for the games with more players.

For the region bonuses:
(1) While there doesn't seem to be any super-desirable homeland, the Celts do seem to have a slight edge with the double set of bonus areas. Carthage looks worse compared to Rome even though the bonus and number of regions are identical, because of the need to hold Canaan against three neighboring powers.

(2) The +2 bonus for hold an entire homeland... I'm not sure it is necessary. I'm sure the Temple is incentive enough to pursue their Earthly homeland without that bonus. The reason I bring it up is because it gives perhaps a little too much 'umph' to the Earthly realm independent of the gods. I'd like to see the Earthly realm remain relatively low-powered in comparison to the heavens.

As for clarity, there are a few things...
(1) Rome, Carthage and the Slavs regions could use more distinct colors. Rome and Carthage in particular blend together. I like the easy-on-the-eyes pastels, but maybe a little more boldness could help.

(2) The sea connections should be arrows not lines; at the moment they are easily confused at first glance with borders. The Greece sea area in particular looks like a land region.

(3) The impassibles could use a little more definition too, although I'm fairly certain of where the division lay. For instance do the Norse regions and the Slavs regions connect up at the top of the map?


That's about it, hope this map keeps rolling forward.

-- Marshal Ney

Gameplay:
I dig the Trickster bombarding other temples thing. The reason I had it as Sky God is the whole surveying-the-world-from-his-lofty-seat-and-casting-thunderbolts-at-the-heretics thematic aspect, but I suppose the Trickster could do just as well for that. However, just a temple link and autodeploy are a bit little for the sky God, even as a starting god. What if the Sky God gave temple access, and on top of that +1 per whole homeland? He'd not be so useful at the start but would become more so over time. That bonus would replace the +2 for owning one's own homeland, which, as you say, is supported by the temple channels anyway, and thus make Earth's bonuses a bit more dependent on Heaven.
I've considered taking the Sky Gods out of the starting positions, but that may call for some redistricting so that the initial distribution of territories plays well with every number of players. Then again, I could just reduce the starting position limit to 1 instead of 2, which would make 2-and 3- player games territories start at 17 each and 4-player games start at 13 each.
Making War Gods +1 for 3 is acceptable, I think. It would only be worth 5 troops in a fresh 2- or 3- player game, rather than 4.


The celts' divided homeland looks nice, but it's also more difficult to defend. The continental Celts have a lot of border territories, and the island Celts has that one way from Norge. Though perhaps another Viking one-way to Logres might make the Isles appropriately less attractive?

Carthage could go up to 5 bonus and I wouldn't really feel bad. I'd add a territory to Carthage to compensate, but I really would not know what to name it. It was hard enough pulling out this many names for unimportant African regions...

As for the clarity things: Sure, all right, and Varangia does meet with Novgorod.

OK, Memorial Day weekend is over for me, my Seattle friends are back safely on their plane home, so let's see how to get this map on to stickydom and stamping...

Evil DIMwit wrote:Gameplay:
I dig the Trickster bombarding other temples thing. The reason I had it as Sky God is the whole surveying-the-world-from-his-lofty-seat-and-casting-thunderbolts-at-the-heretics thematic aspect, but I suppose the Trickster could do just as well for that. However, just a temple link and autodeploy are a bit little for the sky God, even as a starting god. What if the Sky God gave temple access, and on top of that +1 per whole homeland? He'd not be so useful at the start but would become more so over time. That bonus would replace the +2 for owning one's own homeland, which, as you say, is supported by the temple channels anyway, and thus make Earth's bonuses a bit more dependent on Heaven.

Sounds good all around.

Evil DIMwit wrote:I've considered taking the Sky Gods out of the starting positions, but that may call for some redistricting so that the initial distribution of territories plays well with every number of players. Then again, I could just reduce the starting position limit to 1 instead of 2, which would make 2-and 3- player games territories start at 17 each and 4-player games start at 13 each.

Hmmm, I actually think having the Sky Gods as a starting position is appropriate from a thematic angle, and with the aforementioned change, I don't see any problems in keeping it as such. However, it wouldn't hurt the map balance if you went with this idea.

Evil DIMwit wrote:Making War Gods +1 for 3 is acceptable, I think. It would only be worth 5 troops in a fresh 2- or 3- player game, rather than 4.

Excellent.

Evil DIMwit wrote:The celts' divided homeland looks nice, but it's also more difficult to defend. The continental Celts have a lot of border territories, and the island Celts has that one way from Norge. Though perhaps another Viking one-way to Logres might make the Isles appropriately less attractive?

Hrrr, ok. The 1-way does qualify the bonus a bit, but I guess I never gave a lot of weight to the inconvenience of 1-way attacks as it doesn't fundamentally alter a defensive strategy to hold a bonus; it just negates any offensive strategy to hold an adjoining tert to defend the bonus and at the same time keep a neighboring bonus broken. Which is something, nevertheless... if you want to keep the bonus as it stands I won't object. But a 1-way to Logres would make me feel better, and if it turns out to be too harsh you can always change it in Beta.

Evil DIMwit wrote:Carthage could go up to 5 bonus and I wouldn't really feel bad. I'd add a territory to Carthage to compensate, but I really would not know what to name it. It was hard enough pulling out this many names for unimportant African regions...

As for the clarity things: Sure, all right, and Varangia does meet with Novgorod.

Well, again I don't think it's a vital thing for Carthage, but it might be nice if it added a tert and went to +5, as right now it's sort of a +4.5 bonus in my mind. I certainly won't raise a big fuss if it stands either.

I don't have much more to critique here beyond the clarity nitpicks, so as long as the next update addresses these issues, it should expect a sticky

-- Marshal Ney

I've changed the Sky and Trickster and War gods. The Celts' homeland is now one unit. Carthage will stay +4; without Canaan it's not worth more than +3 and I don't think Canaan is enough to justify +2.

Sea connections and impassables are hopefully clearer now.

Love it. I'll send this around for consideration by the other CAs. Sticky time

-- Marshal Ney

Why is there a sea connection between Tartary and Cumania? Going by what I see on the map those territories are already connected by land. Perhaps the line is meant to go to Urartu? Unless I'm missing something it doesn't make sense for that connection to be there.

Also, and this may just be me but, it's really not clear that the temples don't attack the pantheons. I had to read through the whole thread to find this out. I know it would be a little odd to have to explain that, but it almost seems like they do and without any explanation it's kind of vague.

Well those are my two cents, hope they were helpful.

Mm, the connection across the Caspian seems to be an artifact from when there used to be more territories in that corner of the map. I guess it can go now.

As for the temples: I could put "Earth can't assault Heaven or the Underworld" and "The Underworld can't assault Heaven or Earth" somewhere on the map; that wouldn't be too frilly I guess. But really, by default no one should be assuming connections when they don't exist. Is it because pantheons look too much like temples? That can be changed.

A couple of things I see.
1. I see a potential problem with color blindness between Norse and Celts, and between Greeks and Slavs.
2. The colors for Sky and War I think need a little more contrast between them. Right now (at least on my monitor) they are looking very much like the same color.

For now that is what I see. Looking forward to your next update.

Those are graphical issues, no?

Well, on one hand they are graphical, and on the other, they are for gameplay clarity.

isaiah40 wrote:Well, on one hand they are graphical, and on the other, they are for gameplay clarity.

correct me if i'm wrong, but i think the current image is just a crude draft to support gameplay discussion. once gameplay is set i'm sure dimwit will come up with a whole new graphic presentation.

DiM wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:Well, on one hand they are graphical, and on the other, they are for gameplay clarity.

correct me if i'm wrong, but i think the current image is just a crude draft to support gameplay discussion. once gameplay is set i'm sure dimwit will come up with a whole new graphic presentation.

This is true as well.

Gameplay-wise I have no qualms with the map, though I'm going to find your graphical upscale an interesting challenge.

The god of sky and father of all gods in Slavic mythology is Svarog, not Perun. Of course, it would be a shame to lose Perun completely, since he is the most popular Slavic god. So, I don't know, do what you want. Just wanted to tell you.

Obrens wrote:The god of sky and father of all gods in Slavic mythology is Svarog, not Perun. Of course, it would be a shame to lose Perun completely, since he is the most popular Slavic god. So, I don't know, do what you want. Just wanted to tell you.

No, see, that's great input. Is there any better position that Perun could be put in?

very interesting map. I missed it because I thought it is about weather or something with meteorology...

here my little input about Slavs gods:

-Svarog was demiurge of all the world and also of others gods.
-Perun was ruler of gods, close to Jupiter, but also ruler of storm and lightning. he was something as Thor or Donnar. also god of war.
-Morana (sometimes Morena) - maybe better add her to yours Trickster. she was goddess of destiny. also of winter and death.
-for god of underworld would be better Veles (but his disrepute become after christianisation) or Chors - god of night and moon, ruler of werewolfs.

there is no Slavs god of underworld, I do not know about any. no one as Hades.

If Morana's the goddess of death, I'd think that automatically qualifies her for the position of 'death deity'.

Evil DIMwit wrote:If Morana's the goddess of death, I'd think that automatically qualifies her for the position of 'death deity'.

from this view yes.

Hmm, well... Morena is more like connected to dying, and Veles is more connected to the underworld. Also, I see "evil" gods like Set and Loki in the trickster spot, so I think it would be best to switch Morena and Veles. As for Perun, you might follow theBastard's advice and put Svarog as the sky god and Perun as the god of war. That way you lose Vid, but except for Serbs, I don't think he is really that popular among other Slavs.

Obrens wrote:Hmm, well... Morena is more like connected to dying, and Veles is more connected to the underworld. Also, I see "evil" gods like Set and Loki in the trickster spot, so I think it would be best to switch Morena and Veles.

Trickster is more of a personality than a good-evil thing. You've got Set and Loki, but you've also got more heroic figures like Enki and Gwydion.
But if all the Slavs say switch Morena and Veles, I guess I should listen to the Slavs. And I'll definitely make Sky Svarog and War Perun.

At any rate: Right now I'm thinking of replacing the pantheon icons with something that looks less temple-like. To wit, I'm trying to come up with different icons for each civilization. Right now I'm thinking:

Babylon: Dingir, the cuneiform symbol for 'deity'
Carthage: Some Phoenician letters? Not sure what else I could put.
Celts: A Celtic knot, natch
Egypt: Some Hieroglyphic symbol or other
Greeks: A Greek key pattern?
Norse: Perhaps some runes. Or is that too many where I just use the local alphabet?
Roman: So it's temple-like, but the silhouette of the Pantheon itself may suffice here.
Slavic: I might need some help on this one too

For Norse, you could use the ansuz rune:

For Egypt, maybe an Ankh?

Ankh's a good idea, though it's a bit vertical for an army shadow. For the rune, I'm thinking I'll put more than one, for the same reason.

You can make them a bit wider, proportionally. I would use the single rune for Norse - the ansuz rune means "a god of Aesir" so it's a good fit.

what exactly you need for Slavs? symbol of gods or?