Conquer Club

Clarification needed : enemy equals opposing nation and not players

if i hold 1bn and you hold 2bn i cannot attack you ?

so then the only way to kill you would be ?

enemy equals opposing nation and not players

There are two nations in the conflict. England and Argentina.

If you look at the aircraft section I have put - All planes can shoot down enemy aircraft. So the British planes can shoot down the Argentina planes and vice versa.
Navy section - Ships can bombard enemy fleet. So a British ship cannot bombard a British ship. Only the Argies.
Subs can bombard all enemy ships.

For what it's worth, I agree with the naming issue. It's very hard to relate the year to the conflict while falklands war was much more recognizable

The maps title stays as is but if it can be changed on the start a game page and the browse a map page then I will change it to...

1982 Falklands War/Guerra de las Malvinas.

Only if it will fits all of that, and in that order, then I will consent to the change. But I do not think it can change once it is loaded into beta.

Agree on changing name!

Good work overall, I think:)

Name change, thumbs up.


--Andy

What about "Maggie's War"?

Scotts Guard shows 2Bn in the legend but on the map looks like "2 Bn" It confused me at first because of the fact that the B looks like an 8 in the legend so I was looking for 28n instead of 2 Bn on the map. If it isn't too late that might be helpful, map looks fun btw

squishyg wrote:I followed the home page link to this and expected a very different map... No neon colors? No pop punk imagery? No leg warmers? Apparantly 1982 was very different in the Falklands.

that was my exact reaction! For me the first thing I thought of was classic video games, that was the peak of the first Golden Age of home games and some of the best arcades as well! HA someone make a map like THAT! Anyway "1982" can mean anything to anyone, you need to reference the Falklands Islands war. Don't worry about including the Spanish name.

kmhebert wrote:

squishyg wrote:I followed the home page link to this and expected a very different map... No neon colors? No pop punk imagery? No leg warmers? Apparantly 1982 was very different in the Falklands.

that was my exact reaction! For me the first thing I thought of was classic video games, that was the peak of the first Golden Age of home games and some of the best arcades as well! HA someone make a map like THAT! Anyway "1982" can mean anything to anyone, you need to reference the Falklands Islands war. Don't worry about including the Spanish name.

That will never happen. To have the British name and not the Argentine name dishonours there memory.

I have said from the start of beta that the name can change, I have no problem with that.

We've been experimenting on this map and when I have both fleets and both enemy subs I get -4 x 2 but not the +6 and +7 as well. Is it meant to be like this? Other maps I've played you get the minus troops forfeit but you also get the plus bonus.

Just wondering if it was meant to be like this or an oversight.

Also, why would you get a forfeit for holding an entire fleet and the enemy sub in the first place? I would have thought it a great strategic advantage to have the whole fleet and the enemy sub!

Cheers

Barns wrote:We've been experimenting on this map and when I have both fleets and both enemy subs I get -4 x 2 but not the +6 and +7 as well. Is it meant to be like this? Other maps I've played you get the minus troops forfeit but you also get the plus bonus.

Just wondering if it was meant to be like this or an oversight.

Yes it is. The loss of troops when taking the board is correct. You lose the bonus and get the negative bonus added on top. It is a late game changes intended to allow a player that is down to be not out. And to make players think of there routes more.
What you should of gotten is this....

- 4 for holding British fleet + enemy sub
-4 for holding Argentinian fleet and enemy sub
+2 for holding both subs

Also, why would you get a forfeit for holding an entire fleet and the enemy sub in the first place? I would have thought it a great strategic advantage to have the whole fleet and the enemy sub!
Cheers

It is a strategic advantage to hold both fleet and subs so I wanted to discourage it. The subs start neutral so taking them has benefits in the early game (able to bombard long range), early to mid game (bonus of 2 for having both) and benefit for later (able to see and kill of opponents). The subs where never boarded or captured in the war so why have that dynamic in the map.

That's exactly what I have got, (-4 -4 and +2) I was just checking to make sure it was meant to be that way. Thanks for the reply. Nice map!

I hope that it is not too late for a couple of thoughts and suggestions:
- The colours of the zones are quite similar, all of them are different shades of grey. Could they be a bit more different from each other? You could also keep these colours and add textures that would help to tell the zones apart more easily. I am not saying that you need vivid colours and I understand that this map has a colouring different than the usual. You have to be careful not to make the colours too flat though, because it may not attract players that would otherwise like the gameplay.
- Flag signs: It took me quite long to figure out which is the side of the British air force and which is the side of Argentinian one. My first guess was that the British planes could be the ones on the right side. I am quite familiar with both flags, but somehow the sign that is used here to represent the UK flag did not ring the bell for me quickly. Would it be possible to refer to these signs on the legend (next to the names of the nations somewhere)?
- "Reinforcements 1/4": I am not a native English speaker as you can tell, but I think that the proper CC terminology would be "region bonus". The verb reinforce in CC is used to describe the post-attack phase when the player can move his/her existing troops to another place.
- "Woods, mountains and mine fields are impassable" - The pictures below this text are in different order. They should match.
- There is a grey shape in the middle of the mine field in the bottom right corner, next to the green line. Is that an explosion? If so, then I am not sure if the current colour scale is sufficient to show it in enough detail. I think it would be better to replace it with another mine.
- Overall, the map is unique with all the special bonuses, attack routes, naval and air forces. I am only playing my first game on this map, but the gameplay seems to be quite interesting. I'll see if the strategy I planned will work or not.

Jatekos, firstly, the colours have changed, just waiting for the map to be updated, loads of texture on the map but will not spoil the look by adding different ones for each bonus zone. Will look to the flag problem but right now, there is no room for anything else in the legend. Will change reinforcements 1/4. Grey shape is a sinking ship to reinforce the impassable. Clearly seen on the large map.

koontz1973 wrote:That will never happen. To have the British name and not the Argentine name dishonours there memory.

Uh, no it doesn't. It's for convenience's sake only. It sets a bad precedent to name a map after a year in history with no context surrounding it.

kmhebert wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:That will never happen. To have the British name and not the Argentine name dishonours there memory.

Uh, no it doesn't. It's for convenience's sake only. It sets a bad precedent to name a map after a year in history with no context surrounding it.

Yes it does and it will not happen. And why does it set a bad precedent to have a year instead of a name?

koontz1973 wrote:

kmhebert wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:That will never happen. To have the British name and not the Argentine name dishonours there memory.

Uh, no it doesn't. It's for convenience's sake only. It sets a bad precedent to name a map after a year in history with no context surrounding it.

Yes it does and it will not happen. And why does it set a bad precedent to have a year instead of a name?

I don't think it 'sets a bad precedent'---I just think the name, like others have pointed out, is completely devoid of any context, since it isn't something like Falklands-Malvinas Crisis: 1982, etc.


--Andy

nobodies, lets try and get some suggestions into the thread. Can I ask you to change the title on the start a game page and map index to...

1982 Falklands War / Guerra de las Malvinas

Now, lets try and see if we can improve this somewhat.

RE: The name (change?) ... I clicked on and read this thread because I had no idea what map from 1982 was being forged ... just saying.

Otherwise, awesome idea/map/dialogue ...

Hmmm ... I guess I am going to have to agree on a name change. Sure the Falklands War (series of battles) dominated the year, but it was also the start of the Lebanon War which went on for 20 years! There were a number of other minor attrocities, plane crashes, establishment of the Senegambia Confederation, a massive earthquake in Yemen and other notable events (like the first emoticons and syzygy) but those were the main two battles. Problem is that I am unsure which deserves "1982" more than the other. If you don't like Maggie's war then you'll have to try something else!

hey koontz I'm wondering if it might b a cool idea to put a +1 autodeploy on the first aircraft for both sides. I've been playing it 1v1, and its pretty awesome, but I can't really see myself going for the planes with how high the neuts are

koontz1973 wrote:nobodies, lets try and get some suggestions into the thread. Can I ask you to change the title on the start a game page and map index to...

1982 Falklands War / Guerra de las Malvinas

Now, lets try and see if we can improve this somewhat.

I'll pass this onto the powers that be.

deantursx wrote:hey koontz I'm wondering if it might b a cool idea to put a +1 autodeploy on the first aircraft for both sides. I've been playing it 1v1, and its pretty awesome, but I can't really see myself going for the planes with how high the neuts are

A +1 auto on the first planes would take the most powerful part of the map and make them even stronger. In most 1v1 games, no one will go for them, as you said, to many neutrals but that is normal for a 1v1 game.

isaiah40 wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:nobodies, lets try and get some suggestions into the thread. Can I ask you to change the title on the start a game page and map index to...

1982 Falklands War / Guerra de las Malvinas

Now, lets try and see if we can improve this somewhat.

I'll pass this onto the powers that be.

Thank you isaiah40.

Files were sent and updated!!