Conquer Club

I plan on doing a new draft soon, but I've been really busy lately so I haven't had time. If you want something to discuss I'm trying to decide if Ireland would be more effective as a 7 territory bonus worth +4 or a 8 territory bonus worth +5? 7 for 4 would be easier to take, but there wouldn't be a really powerful bonus to take on the map. 8 for 5 would make it a really important bonus but it might be to hard to take and would be ignored until the end game.

The Bison King wrote:8 for 5 would make it a really important bonus but it might be to hard to take and would be ignored until the end game.

8 territories is not that hard to take, especially given the multiple small bonuses all around.
Then again, it's a very small map, so the games will be short.
At any rate, I think 5 for 8 is better than 4 for 7.

Evil DIMwit wrote:At any rate, I think 5 for 8 is better than 4 for 7.

Seconded.

I'll be back on this next week.

I'm Back!






I changed Dyfeds connection to Cornwall(bonus) from Devon to Cornwall(territory). Why? Because before there was equal pressure being applied on both of cornwalls territories. Now 3 territories attack Cornwall while only one attacks Devon. This essentially creates a front and back door to the Cornwall bonus.

Why does Powys start neutral, and not, for example, Devon? It seems the Cornwall bonus would be a better candidate for a bonus drop block.

Why does Powys start neutral, and not, for example, Devon? It seems the Cornwall bonus would be a better candidate for a bonus drop block.

Because I want Wales to be worth +3, I think it was you who was telling me that that would be too high for a bonus you could potentially land on the drop. I see what you are saying about making a territory on cornwall start neutral. I'd have to do some mathe to find out if adding a neutral will screw up the numbers too much. If so, I'll have to come up with some creative thinking. That or we remove the neutral on Powys at the risk of a player maybe starting with wales to block the likely event that a player starts with Cornwall.

Ah, I see. Well, 7p games would start with a lot of neutrals with 27 deployable territories; that's about the worst of the danger. If you don't like that, you can add another territory somewhere. It's also possible that the possibility of dropping 1 bonus isn't so bad, though I don't know that there's another map this small that allows for that so easily.

Ah, I see. Well, 7p games would start with a lot of neutrals with 27 deployable territories; that's about the worst of the danger. If you don't like that, you can add another territory somewhere. It's also possible that the possibility of dropping 1 bonus isn't so bad

If so I don't think Cornwall would be a bad one for a risk of potential auto deploy, since it's not very powerful, centrally located, so easily removed. Also there always is the option of adding a territory to Cornwall.

though I don't know that there's another map this small that allows for that so easily.

Netherlands.

The Bison King wrote:

though I don't know that there's another map this small that allows for that so easily.

Netherlands.

Yeah, that's about right. Cornwall is a bit less connected/central than Utrecht is but the scale is about the same. On the other hand, Utrecht has less clear expansion potential, while Cornwall sits next to two relatively small bonus areas as well as Stonehenge's auto-deploy. Next to Stonehenge, the extra troop could be a fairly meaningful advantage early on. Then again, the same is true (to a lesser extent) of Brittany...

I would increase Stonehenge's starting neutral to at least 3, quite possibly 4.

What about having both Devon and Powys start neutral? That way it takes the place of dropping a bonus' on either. You could even have them start neutral 2 just to take away dropping the bonus. Although I'd prefer it just starting neutral 3

I would increase Stonehenge's starting neutral to at least 3, quite possibly 4.

I think 3 sounds pretty good.

What about having both Devon and Powys start neutral? That way it takes the place of dropping a bonus' on either.

If I've done my math right there's no reason this wouldn't work. In an 8 player game everyone would still start with 3 territories even if there were 5 starting neutral territories. (Stonehenge, Powys, Cornwall, Celtic sea, Isle of Mann)

The issue is more with 7-player games: With 4 coded neutrals, there are 28 open territories, so each player starts with 4. With 5 coded neutral, each player only starts with 3 territories, and there are 11 neutral territories in total.

Which isn't necessarily bad, I guess; it might make games more interesting. But it's something to watch for.

Good News!!! Last night I played the first ever "real life" "alpha" test of the board. I'm am very pleased with how it played. We actually didn't finish the game as it was 2 o clock and probably around round 10 or 11, and there was no clear winner yet (though the end was near since there were only 2 players left). It played well and seemed surprisingly open for how you could move around and choose where you wanted to attack. It was a 4 player game (3-5 players is the suggested size for this map) Flat rate, unlimited.

First I'll put down my friends advice then I'll put down mine/what I agree or disagree with.


($nakeface, Jholter, HistoryHaggis)
Friends advice:

Cornwall should be +2
Brittany should be worth +3
Add a territory to Cornwall
Add a territory to Scotland and raise it to +4
Remove the -1 on Celtic sea
A small change in Sea routes that cover below.

My Advice.

I also agree that Cornwall should be +2. Even as 2 territories it seems like it is worth to because it is at the epicenter of conflict. The idea behind adding a territory isn't as much to make it worth more but to make it more contested at the early part of the game. See the problem with starting one territory as neutral is that it still is essentially "given" to one player as only one player is dropped on the bonus at all. If we don't end up adding a territory we should remove the neutral.

I don't really think Brittany should be worth +3. Maybe the way it is now, but the change in sea connections I'll make on the next update involves removing the southern connection to Morbihan so that you only have to defend 2 territories. So I still think it feels like a +2. Basically its options are, defend 3 for +3 or defend 2 for +2.

I also remain unconvinced about adding a territory to Scotland and raising it to +4. I feel like that would make it too powerful, but if someone came up with the right argument I could see myself being convinced.

I do agree with removing the -1 on the Celtic sea. That was a big pain in the ass and no one ever wanted to go through that territory sans one or 2 occasions. It didn't really seem to add anything but annoyance... although it might serve a purpose with the change in sea connections...

The change in sea connections is simple moving the connection Lugo - Finistere to Lugo - Celtic Sea, and Asturias - Morbihan to Asturias - Finistere. The reason for this is to keep Galicia as a region where you must defend 3 territories, while removing a border with Brittany which was a little hard to defend for +2

I am perfectly for adding a territory to Cornwall if you think it'll fit. That'd solve the aforementioned 27 problem.

If you change Lugo-Finistere to Lugo-Celtic Sea, it'll be possible to defend Galicia with just Asturias and Celtic Sea, so a -1 on the latter might be useful to keep a Galician player on his toes defensively.

I don't think Scotland would be worth +4 even if you did add another territory.

I am perfectly for adding a territory to Cornwall if you think it'll fit. That'd solve the aforementioned 27 problem.

Hmm... I think it's clear to me, Cornwall really does need another territory. well... doesn't "need" but it might iron out a few issues.

If you change Lugo-Finistere to Lugo-Celtic Sea, it'll be possible to defend Galicia with just Asturias and Celtic Sea, so a -1 on the latter might be useful to keep a Galician player on his toes defensively.

The sea routes are a definite, those need to change for Brittany's sake. I see what you are saying about keeping the -1 on Celtic sea since that'll essentially become an extension of Galicia with out it... hmm.... yes.

I don't think Scotland would be worth +4 even if you did add another territory.

Understood, geographically there are definite options for adding a territory but as far as gameplay is concerned I really feel like Scotland has enough territories.

New version to come soon. Maybe, very soon.

if the sea routes are definite, maybe you can try to do them a little crooked...

if the sea routes are definite, maybe you can try to do them a little crooked...

I was referring to a specific "change" in the sea routes. In graphics I assure you that the sea routes will get a make over.

If your looking for another territory in Cornwall, you could add The Scilly Isles, just off the West Coast of Cornwall (about 26 miles) Its Celtic name was Ynysek Syllan

Ok here is the new version! As you can see I made the change in sea connections at the bottom and raised Cornwall to +2. I haven't added the territory to cornwall officially yet but take a look at this:

If your looking for another territory in Cornwall, you could add The Scilly Isles, just off the West Coast of Cornwall (about 26 miles) Its Celtic name was Ynysek Syllan

Those Islands aren't a bad idea. Here is how I am proposing that they "fit in".

So how are they going to fit in??

You might want to move the southern end of the Finistere-Asturias connection further west, so that it doesn't run through the word "Morbihan". And if you do that, you might also move the word "Asturias" west as well.

So how are they going to fit in??

Basically the Islands take on the role that the territory Cornwall previously did. It absorbs all of the sea connections, before they can reach the mainland. Allowing an area that can be defended from the sea.

FYI Cornwalls celtic name is Kernow not Kenrow

FYI Cornwalls celtic name is Kernow not Kenrow

whoops, I know that was a typo. Thanks for pointing it out.