Conquer Club

koontz1973 wrote:cairns, nice idea to remove the line around the legend, but with the lower opacity, I am finding it hard to read. Can you bring it up some. Maybe half way between what you have now and what was before.

Done! NPs

As for the corners (much better by the way already), should they not go to the top and cover some of TGU station (as long as you can read the line and station name).

Ah, yes i didn't see that and had the corner layers located way down the list. Now fixed!

I've decided the corners now have the fit with the theme and rest of the map, so I think they're set.

I examined the title for degree of tilt...it sits at about 35% to the corner, not 45%...the latter looks quite harsh, whereas the current angle flows naturally with the angle of coastline.

Version 28

cairns, on the small hats, would it be possible to move the bonus number beside them? This small hats are a little hard to see with the numbers on them.

Also the bottom of the card looks as if it has a drastic bevel on it. Any way you can reduce that? The MAO/PVH hat in the legend is hiding there somewhere. LOL! Can you bring it out a bit more please.

isaiah40 wrote:cairns, on the small hats, would it be possible to move the bonus number beside them? This small hats are a little hard to see with the numbers on them.

OK, i'll see what i can do.
I've already explored putting a circle/oval behind the numbers but yes, that only obscured the numbers more.
i'll see if increasing the size of the smaller hats also helps if i keep the numbers where they are.

isaiah40 wrote:cairns, on the small hats, would it be possible to move the bonus number beside them? This small hats are a little hard to see with the numbers on them.

i've increased the small hats by 120%/130% so that the numbers don't hide them
I think to move the numbers off the hats it may cause confusion about what they actually mean, while the legend states the numbers on the hat are the bonus.

Also the bottom of the card looks as if it has a drastic bevel on it. Any way you can reduce that? The MAO/PVH hat in the legend is hiding there somewhere. LOL! Can you bring it out a bit more please.

i have reduced the bevel from 2px to 1px...i would lilke to keep it to give the impressions of some thickness to the photo.
I have given a small outer glow to the hats in the legend which should make them more prominent.

Version 28a

Could you tweak the color of the IQT hat a little, it blends into Peru a little too much, to the point where you can barely see it.(Except where it overlaps Columbia a little)

RedBaron0 wrote:Could you tweak the color of the IQT hat a little, it blends into Peru a little too much, to the point where you can barely see it.(Except where it overlaps Columbia a little)

Done in V28a above RB0, please F5 to see the change.

Preview....Version 28a with the 88s generated with new 12 player colours

With the tides of change come additional requirements. Since this map began its journey under the assumption that 8 being the maximum amount of player, I won't ask the map be totally reworked to accommodate this, however, please note that a player cap may need to be imposed should it be discovered and/or deemed that the map can't handle player amounts over 8.

Also note that there are 5 new army colors, 4 totally new and a different shade of green for player #2. Please take this into account when doing graphics testing. All HEX codes are as follows:

Red: FF0000
Green: 006400
Blue: 0000FF
Yellow: FFFF00
Pink: FF00FF
Cyan: 00FFFF
Orange: FF9922
Silver: C0C0C0
Purple: 9400D3
Lime: 00FF00
Amber: CD5C5C
Olive: 688E23

RedBaron0 wrote:Could you tweak the color of the IQT hat a little, it blends into Peru a little too much, to the point where you can barely see it.(Except where it overlaps Columbia a little)

RB0, are we all happy with this now?

cairnswk wrote:these are the new bonuses i propose...
These are worked with adjustments made for
1. minus hat bonuses

iancanton wrote:the hat bonuses haven't been deducted correctly: they have to be done at the end of the calculation, not in the middle, since each hat reduces the bonus by only 0.17 at the moment (the correct deduction is 0.5 for a 2-station hat and 0.67 for a 3-station hat).

ian.

this is the new bonus list with the hats removed at the end.

Line Bonus CONTINENT Plus Hat Bonus
1 H - Central America 0
3 O - Columbian 3
0 D - Ecuadorian 1
2 P - Peruvian 2
2 C - Chilean 3
1 V - Bolivean 3
2 U - Venezuelan 2
1 K - Guyanese 1
2 Y - Paraguayan 1
3 G - Uraguayan 0
4 B - Belem Line 1
6 R - Rio Line 2
4 A - Soa Paulo Line 2
4 Z - Porto Alegre Line 1
4 I - Campo Grande Line 0
3 L - Porto Velho Line 2
2 J - Amazon Line 2
1 M - Manaus Line 1
3 Q - Teresina Line 0
2 N - Santiago Line 0
2 E - Bahia Line 1
3 S - Santa Fe Line 1
2 T - Cordoba Line 1

But i am sorry, i have to say, i don't agree with many of those bonuses, particularly when some continents have 4 stations to defend but only get 3 to defend it with.

sorry for the delay, cairns. i think i know what's wrong. deducting 0.5 for each 2-station hat is perfectly logical because, by grabbing 1 extra station, u increase the bonus by 1 without increasing border count. deducting 0.67 for each 3-station hat makes no sense at all if u have to conquer 2 extra stations and increase border count by 1, the extreme example being bolivia, which has 3 3-station hat bonuses. when combined with an upward adjustment for the more difficult bonuses to allow for the existence of the 2-station hat bonuses elsewhere, a good number of the line bonuses in the 18/08/2013 spreadsheet that u prepared therefore look more suitable, as given below.

at +1, H, D, K and M are good as they stand.
at +1, V is low and ur +3 is better.
at +2, Y, B, N, E and T are good as they stand.
at +2, P is low and ur +3 is better.
at +2, C, U and J are low and ur +4 is better.
at +3, G looks high and i suggest +2.
at +3, Q and S are good as they stand.
at +3, O and L are low and ur +5 is better.
at +4, I is good as it stands.
at +4, A is low and ur +6 is better.
at +4, Z is low and ur +6 is better.
at +6, R is low and ur +8 is better.

earlier comments from koontz about the ease of cutting off the south by occupying the N line also hint at the BUA hub bonus, which is at the edge of the map and adjacent to the N line, having an unbalancing effect, in which case +5 or +6 rather than +10 might be more appropriate. BSB, even at +12, does not upset the gameplay like this because it's not a natural expansion from anywhere, so can stay as is.

ian.

iancanton wrote:...
sorry for the delay, cairns.

NPs ian.

i think i know what's wrong. deducting 0.5 for each 2-station hat is perfectly logical because, by grabbing 1 extra station, u increase the bonus by 1 without increasing border count. deducting 0.67 for each 3-station hat makes no sense at all if u have to conquer 2 extra stations and increase border count by 1, the extreme example being bolivia, which has 3 3-station hat bonuses. when combined with an upward adjustment for the more difficult bonuses to allow for the existence of the 2-station hat bonuses elsewhere, a good number of the line bonuses in the 18/08/2013 spreadsheet that u prepared therefore look more suitable, as given below.

at +1, H, D, K and M are good as they stand.
at +1, V is low and ur +3 is better.
at +2, Y, B, N, E and T are good as they stand.
at +2, P is low and ur +3 is better.
at +2, C, U and J are low and ur +4 is better.

all good, done

at +3, G looks high and i suggest +2.

still think this should be +3, since no hat, and has BUA +6 on one end and A LIne +6 on the other.
otherwise it will simply get swallowed

at +3, Q and S are good as they stand.
at +3, O and L are low and ur +5 is better.
at +4, I is good as it stands.
at +4, A is low and ur +6 is better.
at +4, Z is low and ur +6 is better.
at +6, R is low and ur +8 is better.

for L, i can't justify +5...+4 is better since it has 2 hat opportunities, which if held make it +6
otherwise...all good. done.

earlier comments from koontz about the ease of cutting off the south by occupying the N line also hint at the BUA hub bonus, which is at the edge of the map and adjacent to the N line, having an unbalancing effect, in which case +5 or +6 rather than +10 might be more appropriate. BSB, even at +12, does not upset the gameplay like this because it's not a natural expansion from anywhere, so can stay as is.

ian.

happy to have BUA at +6, but think if you're reducing BUA then there is no reason to have BSB as +12...nothing to justify that i think...more appropriate would +9...to at least provide incentive high enough to hold, but still low enough not to be too big a threat to attached lines...and i don't think it will upset gameplay.


ian, the other thing we need to consider....do we need max start numbers for smaller games.
...in 1v1, first player drop is likely to be +8
...need to reduce this wouldn't we?
Thoughts?

Version 29....bonuses adjusted as above.

cairnswk wrote:

iancanton wrote:at +3, G looks high and i suggest +2.

still think this should be +3, since no hat, and has BUA +6 on one end and A LIne +6 on the other.
otherwise it will simply get swallowed

i'm willing to give +3 a go.

cairnswk wrote:

iancanton wrote:at +3, O and L are low and ur +5 is better.

for L, i can't justify +5...+4 is better since it has 2 hat opportunities, which if held make it +6
otherwise...all good. done.

the 2 hats are both 3-station hats, so the same argument applies to this as for the V bonus: to take each hat bonus, a player who already has the L bonus must increase his border count. that's why i favour +5, though +4 also works.

cairnswk wrote:

iancanton wrote:earlier comments from koontz about the ease of cutting off the south by occupying the N line also hint at the BUA hub bonus, which is at the edge of the map and adjacent to the N line, having an unbalancing effect, in which case +5 or +6 rather than +10 might be more appropriate. BSB, even at +12, does not upset the gameplay like this because it's not a natural expansion from anywhere, so can stay as is.

ian.

happy to have BUA at +6, but think if you're reducing BUA then there is no reason to have BSB as +12...nothing to justify that i think...more appropriate would +9...to at least provide incentive high enough to hold, but still low enough not to be too big a threat to attached lines...and i don't think it will upset gameplay.

let's try it at +6 for BUA and +9 for BSB, which seem to be reasonable values.

cairnswk wrote:ian, the other thing we need to consider....do we need max start numbers for smaller games.
...in 1v1, first player drop is likely to be +8
...need to reduce this wouldn't we?
Thoughts?

an initial drop of 8 troops is the same as for forbidden city. it's possible to reduce it to 7 troops if u code every non-neutral station as a start position, to give 89 positions with underlying n2 neutrals, then restrict initial deployment to 23 positions per player. isaiah40 used a similar approach in usa 2.1.

ian.

^^^^
Thanks ian for those thoughts.
I'll consider that 7 start positions.

Also, i want to ask others...every other rail map has roofs of some design, but this map doesn't.
Does it need it, or would it be liekly to cause confusion with the hats?

don't bother with the roofs.

deleted

greenoaks wrote:don't bother with the roofs.

Thanks for your opinion greenoaks


Here is a summary of where we are with starts....i have decided to code for Max 22

Bonsues:
23 "Line" Continent Bonuses
13 "Hat" Bonuses
2 Large City Bonuses

Starting Positions:
114 Territories - 26 neutral starts results in 88 positions
88 positions start with a max of 22 (underlying neutrals of 2)
26 postions are coded neutrals as follows (including hat neutrals):

SCI U 4n...............BSB B 1n
GEO K 4n..............BSB R 1n
UIO D 4n...............BSB A 1n
IQT P 4n...............BSB Z 1n
MAO M 4n.............BSB I 3n
TRS Q 4n..............BSB L 1n
REC R 4n
CRS L 3n..............BUA N 3n
ARI C 4n..............BUA E 1n
UYU T 3n..............BUA S 1n
SAO A 3n..............BUA T 1n
ASU Y 4n..............BUA G 1n
SCB E 4n
PVH V 3n

The Drop:
Players...........2...3....4...5....6...7....8...9...10...11...12
Start Regions..23...23..22..17..14..12...11..9...8.....8.....7
Neutrals........68...45..26..29..30..30...26..33..34...26...30

cairnswk wrote:Also, i want to ask others...every other rail map has roofs of some design, but this map doesn't.
Does it need it, or would it be liekly to cause confusion with the hats?

Confusion yes and I do not see any need to delay this map further to try and get an unnecessary flourish added.

If you wanted to give the map another flourish and some local flavour, why not see if you can turn the bonus legend into something else. Like you did with Rail Asia. But towards this I have no ideas.

koontz1973 wrote:...
Confusion yes and I do not see any need to delay this map further to try and get an unnecessary flourish added.

If you wanted to give the map another flourish and some local flavour, why not see if you can turn the bonus legend into something else. Like you did with Rail Asia. But towards this I have no ideas.

Thank-you for the comment on the roofs, and not wanting to hold the map up to try and get unnecessary flourish.
I've tried to create a multi-sign post, and it simply looks ridiculous because it doesn't fit the style of the map.
I previously had a portion-border there with the rail line, and removed that so that the legend would be of similar nature to the other side of the map, and this move was welcomed by yourself.
I feel giving the legend some background, would necesseitate doing the other side of the map (hats section) also, and indeed this would hold the map up.
Personally, i don't think adding a background to the legend would enhance, if anything, would detract from the map itself.
This is a case of less is more i think, because there is such a lot of text to read.
Because the other rail maps have a legend of ticket, building etc. the space taken by this legend is vast, and i think the flavour of S America is already in the hats and title, and sub-titles
Also doing something with the legend would necessitate re-odering the layout of countries and that i don't want to do since the current layout makes logical sense.
At present also, i am like yourself, having no ideas on this one.
But let me think on it some more...

cairnswk wrote:Here is a summary of where we are with starts....i have decided to code for Max 22

Bonsues:
23 "Line" Continent Bonuses
13 "Hat" Bonuses
2 Large City Bonuses

Starting Positions:
114 Territories - 26 neutral starts results in 88 positions
88 positions start with a max of 22 (underlying neutrals of 2)

why 22 positions and not 23? 23 is a better number because player 1 must conquer 3 regions in 2-player or 3-player games to reduce an opponent's initial deployment. the maximum, if 22 or 23, has no effect on games with 4 or more players.

ian.

iancanton wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Here is a summary of where we are with starts....i have decided to code for Max 22

Bonsues:
23 "Line" Continent Bonuses
13 "Hat" Bonuses
2 Large City Bonuses

Starting Positions:
114 Territories - 26 neutral starts results in 88 positions
88 positions start with a max of 22 (underlying neutrals of 2)

why 22 positions and not 23? 23 is a better number because player 1 must conquer 3 regions in 2-player or 3-player games to reduce an opponent's initial deployment. the maximum, if 22 or 23, has no effect on games with 4 or more players.

ian.

Mmm, didn't think of that, thanks
Done! 23 positions placed into xml file.

Here is a summary of where we are with starts....code for Max 23 positions

Bonsues:
23 "Line" Continent Bonuses
13 "Hat" Bonuses
2 Large City Bonuses

Starting Positions:
114 Territories - 26 neutral starts results in 88 positions
88 positions start with a max of 23 (underlying neutrals of 2)

This should be the new drop...

The Drop:
Players...........2...3....4...5....6...7....8...9...10...11...12
Start Regions..23...23..22..17..14..12...11..9...8.....8.....7
Neutrals........68...45..26..29..30..30...26..33..34...26...30

gfx wise I just need the tests(88's, 888's, color blind) As long as there isn't any issues there and all are satisfied with any lingering gp issues, you should be all systems go.

RedBaron0 wrote:gfx wise I just need the tests(88's, 888's, color blind) As long as there isn't any issues there and all are satisfied with any lingering gp issues, you should be all systems go.

OK, thanks RB0.
Once i hear from ian and koontz that they're OK with GP, then i'll progress to getting those requirements above done.

Good for me. Go and get the tests done for RB0.