Conquer Club

this map rules already

It looks pretty fantastic. I'd also agree with Hoff in that some sort of architectural building would enhance the legend. I'd make the names maybe a little bloder, and the numbers perhaps bigger. Also a little gripe, the numbers aren't lined up vertically in a column, but that isn't anything major. Just looking to improve the over all visual appeal of a well put together map.

Only a minor suggestion: an argument could be made to knock Peloponesos down to bonus of 4, due to 3 borders, similar to Boreia Ellada. Though you could also argue the other way, since the Peloponesos does have 2 more countries than the Red Continent, and two more attack routes. But I am not sure those constitute a higher bonus.


--Andy

I agree that it looks great. But, even as a natural pedant, I also can't disagree with Scarus' point about Sparta and Troy.

I fixed up all the stuff Hoff suggested, but I accidentally forgot to save the changes. So i'll redo it tomorrow and show you guys tomorrow. I suppose it couldn't hurt to change Lakonia to Sparta, though Lakonia itself is pretty well known because its always mentioned whenever Sparta is (because its the homeland of the empire). But Sparta is obviously better known and apparently favored.

I dont really know much about Troy, I figure you guys would want what is currently named Mysia to be Troy?

That would be too cool!!!

What about adding a connection between Skyros and Xios to made the map more cross-playable and less circular?

Naval warfare was a major component of combat at that time (perhaps an image of Jason and his Argonauts is appropriate?)

Looking forward to seeing this map added.

IMO, Ancient World maps are well suited for Risk variants.

Changes:
1. Added a roof for my pillars
2. Made the Key more readable
3. Took away an attack route from Kyklades to Samos and added one from Tinos to Xios (to make the map less circular)
4. Changed Lakonia to Sparta and Mysia to Troy
5. Dimmed the glow around the wording
6. Lessened the drop shadow on the entire map

I think thats it if i remember right. Only question now is should I make the attack route go from Xios to Tinos or from Xios to Euboea? I dont want it to go to Skyros because I don't want any more attack routes on Athens.

Edit: also, i'm aware "Ancient Greece" is off center, I'll fix it next time around don't worry. Also I think i'm gonna change the link to be from Xios to Euboea rather than Tinos.

You are toooo accomodating. This is sooo awesome. I can't wait.

Only question now is should I make the attack route go from Xios to Tinos or from Xios to Euboria? I dont want it to go to Skyros because I don't want any more attack routes on Athens.

Aren't Tinos, Euboria and Skyros all a part of Athens?

I would choose Euboria or Skyros since Tinos is all the way as the end of the island chain.

Thanks for doing it!

BTW is it "Euboria" as you wrote above, or "Euboea" as is written on the map?

zorba_ca wrote:

Only question now is should I make the attack route go from Xios to Tinos or from Xios to Euboria? I dont want it to go to Skyros because I don't want any more attack routes on Athens.

Aren't Tinos, Euboria and Skyros all a part of Athens?

I would choose Euboria or Skyros since Tinos is all the way as the end of the island chain.

Thanks for doing it!

BTW is it "Euboria" as you wrote above, or "Euboea" as is written on the map?

Sorry, its Euboea. My bad.

But anywho, what I meant was I didn't want a territory in Athens that isn't already a border to become a border. Meaning, Tinos already borders with Kyklades and Euboea already borders with Thessaly and Locris, so i'd want to make one of them the link to Xios. Skyros doesn't border any other continents. So, hypothetically, if you were playing and you were trying to hold Athens, you would need to fortify Corinth, Boetia, Euboea and Tinos. I wouldn't want to make it harder still to control and connect Skyros to another continent, cause then you'd had to split your armies even more to control Athens.

I'd keep the attack route at Xios to Tinos as it is. It seems like Euboea would just be so cluttered with attack routes, and plus It hink it actually helps out Athens by moving the attack route down there, and makes it a ltitle easier for say Asia Minor and the Agean to butt heads.

--Andy

The bonuses are ridiculous!! I hate do this analysis all time. The map makers should keep it in mind always. A map is hardly balanced before this.

# countries, # borders, # routes.
Boreia: 6, 3, 3 - 3 is a good bonus.
Asia Minor: 6, 3, 3 - as I said, 3 is a good bonus; why 3 here and 4 for hold Boreia?
Agean: 4, 2, 3 - bonus of 2, of course. How can you give same bonus of Asia Minor?
Athens: 7, 4, 6 - bonus of 5, or 6.
Sterea: 5, 5, 6 - of course, this continent shouldnt have all countries in borders. How about 3 border countries to a bonus of 4? Even now the bonus cant be 7, 5 at maximum, since it has 5 countries only.
Peloponesos: 8, 3, 4. - the bonus of 5 is good.

Again, I would appreciate 42 countries... territories like Troy, Lydia and Makedonia could be splitted easily, and some islands could be used too. Are you sure you want your map a smaller one?

Marv's bonuses are similar to what I suggested early on page 2, nearly spot on. If only people followed everything that everyone said! This map is coming along, still some balance issues are hanging out there.

Edit: And Marv hates the analysis...I particularly like it...hehe

--Andy

I just followed your suggestions for the bonuses Andy.

Marv, thanks for the suggestions. I'll take a look at them later.

But anywho, what I meant was I didn't want a territory in Athens that isn't already a border to become a border. Meaning, Tinos already borders with Kyklades and Euboea already borders with Thessaly and Locris, so i'd want to make one of them the link to Xios. Skyros doesn't border any other continents. So, hypothetically, if you were playing and you were trying to hold Athens, you would need to fortify Corinth, Boetia, Euboea and Tinos. I wouldn't want to make it harder still to control and connect Skyros to another continent, cause then you'd had to split your armies even more to control Athens.

Now I understand. I guess, then, that Xios to Euboea is the best to cut down on the circular nature of the map. With that link a player can go from Sterea Ellada (or Peloponesos) to Asia Minor much more reasonably.

As for the bonuses...I agree with Marv.

After adjusting them this time I would let the map play and then re-evaluate after about 100 games on it.

Maybe Lack (or Troy) has a way of identifying how often a certain continent was held and you can use that information at a later date to re-adjust if it becomes apparent that one continent is much easier to hold.

Again, I would appreciate 42 countries... territories like Troy, Lydia and Makedonia could be splitted easily, and some islands could be used too. Are you sure you want your map a smaller one?

I favor this as a 42 territory map... 6 more to go

a. Troy - excellent suggestion... Troy and Phryia

b. Lydia - divided into Mysia and Lydia

c. Makedonia - the 3-finger hand in southern Macedonia was known as Chalcidice

d. The 3 islands, between Troy and Thasos, could be combined into 1 territory.

e. On the left edge of the map... I would add in Magna Graecia. Split this into 2 territories.

I dont like 42 territories. That means neutral territories when you play 4 player. How about 40 territories? I could make that happen much easier, and no neutral territories.

Well, unless you have 60 countries (or multiples), you will always have neutral armies in some games.

I used the game finder, and standard games of 4 and 6 players have both 11 pages (a similar number of games). Do you prefer 4 players? The most popular is 3 players (18 pages ), can you believe?

Anyway, I think there are no problems with some neutral countries. Like deadbeat armies, a good player can take some advantage of their position. 2 neutral countries trouble you that much?

40 means there wont be neutral countries for 4,5 or 6 players. 42 means no neutral countries for 3 and 6 players. Right now 36 means no neutral countries for 3,4,5 or 6 territories. Personally I like 4 player best. I'll look more into it later i suppose.

40 means there wont be neutral countries for 4,5 or 6 players. 42 means no neutral countries for 3 and 6 players. Right now 36 means no neutral countries for 3,4,5 or 6 territories. Personally I like 4 player best. I'll look more into it later i suppose.

You might want to check your math there, Mr. K.

40 means that there will be:
3 players = 1 neutral country
4 players = 0 neutral countries
5 players = 0 neutral countries
6 players = 4 neutral countries

36 means that there will be:
3 players = 0 neutral countries
4 players = 0 neutral countries
5 players = 1 neutral country
6 players = 0 neutral countries

Must be the spring sun in those delicate penguin eyes.

I think that the more territories the better. It can be hard to fit them in but i agree with marv that you should have atleast 42. Neural territories arnt a big deal. They dont really matter. Try for as many territories as you can without making the map look confusing. Definitely do not go for less.

I think people place way too much stock in the "magic 42." I've said it before: If you want to play on the Classic map, do it. If you want to play on a different map, don't bitch about the fact that there are more or less countries than you're used to.

36 is a fine number of countries. You'll only have a neutral country in one scenario, and what's the disadvantage? It'll take you longer to get more than 3 armies per turn.

This is your map. Do it your way.

thegrimsleeper wrote:This is your map. Do it your way.

Hear, hear.