Conquer Club

deantursx wrote:I'm loving the difference in number of troops deployed and the winning objective. However, I'm not too into all of the neutrals being 3's instead of 1's. It makes it a lot harder to move around the board.

woah woah, it switched? yeah, no you gotta keep it at 1 for the normal territs at least, maybe make the center shields 2 nuetral

Sorry about that guys. Here is the new xml with the neutral ones back in the centre territs.

Dont think I would have changed it. You had a map with a breath of fresh air. Something unique. Now all these guys are wanting you to change it to something more what they are used to. There was no need for the win objective. You are changing your map from an arena fighters gallery feel to a funky looking regular ole map.

As well with the bonuses.

Do what you want, its your map. But it saddens me.

army of nobunaga wrote:Dont think I would have changed it. You had a map with a breath of fresh air. Something unique. Now all these guys are wanting you to change it to something more what they are used to. There was no need for the win objective. You are changing your map from an arena fighters gallery feel to a funky looking regular ole map.

As well with the bonuses.

Do what you want, its your map. But it saddens me.

The win objective with holding 9 shields and the extra troops for holding 32+ territs is there to finish the games of faster. By the time you hold 9 shields or half the board, you have pretty much won. Unlike chess where a player can resign, you cannot here so a player who has lost may still have to play another few rounds. This just shortens the games a tad, not change.

I think the territory bonuses match teh sheild bonuses well ... almost lost a game misunderstanding that ... so there is the dope option to boot!!

This map is growing on me. Have only played one game and it turned out to be pretty bland, but I think it would've been a better game if we used spoils or freestyle.
Maybe "knight attack routes" will be common in future maps .

Gillipig wrote:This map is growing on me. Have only played one game and it turned out to be pretty bland, but I think it would've been a better game if we used spoils or freestyle.
Maybe "knight attack routes" will be common in future maps .

If that happens, then the gimmick will where of very quick. Playing no spoils is the best way IMO and it adds that element of skill to the map. Spoils bring in luck a tad more. Try an assassins game in fog. Loads of fun to be had there.

koontz1973 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:This map is growing on me. Have only played one game and it turned out to be pretty bland, but I think it would've been a better game if we used spoils or freestyle.
Maybe "knight attack routes" will be common in future maps .

If that happens, then the gimmick will where of very quick. Playing no spoils is the best way IMO and it adds that element of skill to the map. Spoils bring in luck a tad more. Try an assassins game in fog. Loads of fun to be had there.

Well I'm aiming for the bronze medal in assassin so I just might ! The game I played wasn't much about skill because we both went with the exact same strategy and occupied two of the center bonus regions. We kept going back and forth for 13 rounds until his dice eventually was better than mine and he was able to hold a bonus. But I'm not a sore loser . Freestyle should be interesting on this map, partly because of the win condition but also because of how the bonuses are placed.

Hate freestyle so never play it but that has been said to be fun on this map. What I will say that if you an your opponent have the exact same strategy, dice luck will always win the game, vary it slightly and the results can pay of really quickly. Had a couple of games where I would normally say good game and let the other win but got it turned around quick. Players are still getting used to the new routes and can really bugger it up.

koontz1973 wrote:

army of nobunaga wrote:Dont think I would have changed it. You had a map with a breath of fresh air. Something unique. Now all these guys are wanting you to change it to something more what they are used to. There was no need for the win objective. You are changing your map from an arena fighters gallery feel to a funky looking regular ole map.

As well with the bonuses.

Do what you want, its your map. But it saddens me.

The win objective with holding 9 shields and the extra troops for holding 32+ territs is there to finish the games of faster. By the time you hold 9 shields or half the board, you have pretty much won. Unlike chess where a player can resign, you cannot here so a player who has lost may still have to play another few rounds. This just shortens the games a tad, not change.

what mapmakers lose site of is the possiblility of winning by the win condition... Traditionally they set theses completely unrealistic stupid ass win conditions that are either 1) good in freestyle fog 2) good for a room full of new players.

The rest of us look at these conditions and say to ourselves "Another map gimmick for the mapmaker to make a "cooler" map"

Reality.... make a fuckin win condition that is realistic or keep it out of the game.


Please for the love of god.
I play, and my friends play a lot of games on a lot of maps here... We respect and love the mapmakers because you create new battlefields for us... but you also disappoint us more than a cross-eyed step-kid that is a mensa.

Just make a map for the people .... just once like oaktown use to do every single fucking map (maybe I should contact him and pay him to make real maps again) .. or cairns before he got all complicated.

This could have been so revolutionary, and it is being dragged down the path of convention. The problem is you mapmakers do not play a lot of games.. like none of you are even crossmapped ... you spread your genius in making maps on convention, and not on gameplay.

Yes koontz

convention says you need a win criteria.. convention says you need a more "normal" bonus pattern for terts held.. and by all means conform.


gl in life

Seriously Army? Maybe this isn't the thread for such high-flalutent ideals? Not sure why you are so angsty? At any rate, I don't agree with anything you've said. Firstly, the win condition is easily obtained (even I can do it). Secondly, you are taking things way out of proportion with respect to "convention". Thirdly, mapmakers make maps and the foundry process discusses options for improvement - your attack on Koontz is an attack on us all - but why? Finally, why not make a map yourself (or if you can't or won't then there's nothing to stop you from posting ideas so that map makers can use them to make maps that everyone likes). I like you Army and (usually) you've got a lot to add. I think you missed the mark this time.

thehippo8 wrote:Seriously Army? Maybe this isn't the thread for such high-flalutent ideals? Not sure why you are so angsty? At any rate, I don't agree with anything you've said. Firstly, the win condition is easily obtained (even I can do it). Secondly, you are taking things way out of proportion with respect to "convention". Thirdly, mapmakers make maps and the foundry process discusses options for improvement - your attack on Koontz is an attack on us all - but why? Finally, why not make a map yourself (or if you can't or won't then there's nothing to stop you from posting ideas so that map makers can use them to make maps that everyone likes). I like you Army and (usually) you've got a lot to add. I think you missed the mark this time.

angsty? lol


my ideas? sorry i disturbed the flow here..

make your crap maps.. thanks for calling me out.

I dare just 5% of the mapmakers to crossmap. I mean seriously... you listen to other ideas of mapmakers that dont play games. In reality, I dont care so much. I just wanted to thank you for calling me out... good job.. you are a hero
at least in my eyes.

I greatly dislike the +3 reinforcement rule. +5 made the map not only unique for the bare fact of the +5 rather than +3, but for the size of the map. It kept every player in contention. With +3, if a player doesn't have a bonus, they're screwed. Keep it +5. Don't give in to the pressure. There's no other map that combines such base deploy with such small size. It's special.

The map is losing its charm.

VicFontaine wrote:I greatly dislike the +3 reinforcement rule. +5 made the map not only unique for the bare fact of the +5 rather than +3, but for the size of the map. It kept every player in contention. With +3, if a player doesn't have a bonus, they're screwed. Keep it +5. Don't give in to the pressure. There's no other map that combines such base deploy with such small size. It's special.

The map is losing its charm.

I agree man +1... glad you could say this without angst.

army of nobunaga wrote:I dare just 5% of the mapmakers to crossmap. I mean seriously...

Maybe they should have to get their bronze cross-map achievement medal before they are allowed to make a map? It's an interesting idea that probably has some distinct validity. A but like saying: "I love Idaho, it's the best place in the world, I'm never even going to get a passport let a lone a car ... Idaho is the bizz!" No disrespect to Idaho-ians, no doubt you are the most well travelled people oon the planet

So you would rather the +5 come back in. That is not a problem. I can do that. This is what beta is about. Getting things done right.

As for the extra troops and the win condition, they will stay for one very good reason. It finishes the games of faster. Even I have to admit, it is no fun playing turns after a win has been obtained. Playing hive of first nations Americas when you have lost the game is no bloody fun.

As for the attack on map makers, cross map may not be held by most map makers, but I have it. I love the maps I make and make them for me. If I do not want to play the map, then I will not make it.
New maps.


New xml

This brings back the 5. My personal choice from day one.

well its not any of that.. you can go crazy and exagerate my points and call me angry all you want... I do not care.


My opinion stands.. and thats it.

I believe in the 'potential' of this map this much

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=167974



hippo... you believe in anything in cc that much.. ever?

no... well just keep calling me agnst. nice.

army of nobunaga wrote:well its not any of that.. you can go crazy and exagerate my points and call me angry all you want... I do not care.


My opinion stands.. and thats it.

I believe in the 'potential' of this map this much

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=167974



hippo... you believe in anything in cc that much.. ever?

no... well just keep calling me agnst. nice.

Chill out with all the agnst...Your 3 paragraph essay berating Koontz for having a win condition was ridiculous. The win condition is essential, it helps to put a stop to some endless speed games...

Haven't read the thread but have played a few games on this map, yes it is beta but wasn't thrilled when the map creator changed the deployment numbers mid-game which enabled him to go on and win. I've beta tested a few things over the years, some of which have involved moving goal posts in play but given the very early change of deployment numbers so early in "open testing" I question whether this beta is being tested properly.

I'll agree that +5 regardless isn't right but the new numbers are even worse and very disappointing.

I like the idea of the map, probably because I am (or was) a very active chess player and even though I haven't bothered in years was very capable of the "Knight's Tour".

Deployment numbers need work and I'm not sure about the bonus areas, if you can take them and hold them you've probably got control of over half the board anyway and don't actually need the bonuses to win the game.

Vid_FISO wrote:Haven't read the thread but have played a few games on this map, yes it is beta but wasn't thrilled when the map creator changed the deployment numbers mid-game which enabled him to go on and win. I've beta tested a few things over the years, some of which have involved moving goal posts in play but given the very early change of deployment numbers so early in "open testing" I question whether this beta is being tested properly.

I'll agree that +5 regardless isn't right but the new numbers are even worse and very disappointing.

I like the idea of the map, probably because I am (or was) a very active chess player and even though I haven't bothered in years was very capable of the "Knight's Tour".

Deployment numbers need work and I'm not sure about the bonus areas, if you can take them and hold them you've probably got control of over half the board anyway and don't actually need the bonuses to win the game.

The shields are being taken faster than I expected, even faster in fog games. The deployment was a mistake and as soon as the new xml is uploaded, that will get sorted. When, the winning condition and the +10 are there to help games end earlier.

Any word on when the update will go live as it does sort out a major game play f**k up by me?

The new files has been sent to lackattack

koontz1973 wrote:

Vid_FISO wrote:Haven't read the thread but have played a few games on this map, yes it is beta but wasn't thrilled when the map creator changed the deployment numbers mid-game which enabled him to go on and win. I've beta tested a few things over the years, some of which have involved moving goal posts in play but given the very early change of deployment numbers so early in "open testing" I question whether this beta is being tested properly.

I'll agree that +5 regardless isn't right but the new numbers are even worse and very disappointing.

I like the idea of the map, probably because I am (or was) a very active chess player and even though I haven't bothered in years was very capable of the "Knight's Tour".

Deployment numbers need work and I'm not sure about the bonus areas, if you can take them and hold them you've probably got control of over half the board anyway and don't actually need the bonuses to win the game.

The shields are being taken faster than I expected, even faster in fog games. The deployment was a mistake and as soon as the new xml is uploaded, that will get sorted. When, the winning condition and the +10 are there to help games end earlier.

reduce slightly the bonus of the shields... go back to the 5 army deployment no matter... and my friend you have a map of ages

I am trying to get games on it constantly.

You would have the first real gladiator map where strength of will dominated.. not dame win criteria, and not dame tert bonuses




this map is so close, but im betting it will not get there.


gl in life and cc

army of nobunaga wrote:reduce slightly the bonus of the shields... go back to the 5 army deployment no matter... and my friend you have a map of ages

I am trying to get games on it constantly.

You would have the first real gladiator map where strength of will dominated.. not dame win criteria, and not dame tert bonuses




this map is so close, but im betting it will not get there.


gl in life and cc

The 5 is back but the 10 stays for over half the board. As for the bonuses, I never wanted them and as soon as the new files are loaded, that should solve the problem with the bonuses. They are only 2 or 4 now. Remember, each of the centre 8 shields can be attacked by 8 territs so an incentive to go for them needs to be there. By rights, they should be higher bonuses but I feel they are correct now. Lets get some games over with as soon as the files are uploaded and see how it should play.


Thanks nobodies.

Updated. Will update the first post ASAP, but the it is not letting me right now.