Conquer Club

So is there a classic +1 for every three territories owned, with a minimum deployment of 3? If not, the map should clarify how its gameplay differs from this typical behaviour.

The default +1 for 3 territories is not changed.

[quote=MarshalNey] Under that scheme, the expeditions if all held would be worth the following:
Henry Hudson +2 (1 + 1), 2 regions
Franklin +10 (5 + 5), 10 regions
Parry +6 (3 + 3), 6 regions
McClure +4 (2 + 2), 4 regions [/quote]

If you add in the default bonus, you can earn more armies than regions you are holding. Is it too much? It actually all seems on par with other maps, which are roughly even (give or take 1 army) between territories held in a group and total bonus received. And it's not like the larger bonuses can be held by fortifying 2 or 3 territories either.

I realize now why I started all the expedition territories at neutral - the bonus. I can put starting positions on the remaining 4 land-expedition spots, but there would still be a chance of someone starting with +1, wouldn't there. And 3/4 are neutral-locked, protected. If I put spots on all 4, in a 1v1 there would be a chance of a player getting 2/3 locked territories and having a protected +1 to start. If I only put spots on the 3 locked ones, if anyone starts with a bonus, the 2nd territory will be Devon, which at least borders one other territory in the random drop.

..then match those up with (3 or 4) start positions for Northwest Territories to keep it from dropping to one person. Perhaps it has already been said that S. Qikiktaaluk (Melville Peninsula, Igloolik, Prince Charles Island, and Mansel Island) probably doesn't need start positions, considering the bonus will be so easy to break.

(with the neutral on Disko Island instead of Yellowknife)

shakeycat wrote:start positions for Northwest Territories to keep it from dropping to one person.

u're saying that u'll have 3 or 4 start positions for nwt only? if so, then 3 works, but 4 doesn't, since 3 results in 17 starting regions each in 1v1, while 4 positions gives 18 each.

is it a fact that franklin landed on king william island? if it's only conjecture, then it's better for gameplay that kwi belongs only to the yellow amundsen route because it makes up a red bonus when combined with devon island. if kwi belongs to both red and yellow, then it's possible to have 2 (and only 2) start positions on kwi and devon island instead of 2 or 3 on nwt.

u're correct that the level of bonuses is in line with that of many other maps and not excessively high.

ian.

Yeah. 3 and 3 starting positions.

I don't understand what you mean about making up a red bonus with Devon: Whether KWI is red/yellow or just yellow, if KWI and Devon are held, there is +1. Am I mistaken? Were were going under the idea that colours had to match to make a bonus?

shakeycat wrote:Yeah. 3 and 3 starting positions.

I don't understand what you mean about making up a red bonus with Devon: Whether KWI is red/yellow or just yellow, if KWI and Devon are held, there is +1. Am I mistaken? Were were going under the idea that colours had to match to make a bonus?

Um, yeah I'll think I was assuming at least that only expedition regions of the same color would give a bonus.

My how the time flies... has it really been over a month? Mea culpa.

Small change to the wording: "In addition, earn +1 for each 2 Expedition territories held on the same route", to make it clear.

And there will be only one set drop, for Devon Island, King William Islad, and Melville Island, to prevent the +2 bonus by dropping two red territories. I'm not even sure if THAT is necessary.

The rest looks really straight forward. It looks like I've opted for neutrals where someone might drop with something, leaving no need for a controlled drop. Are there any loose ends I'm forgetting?

I like the map, are the Expedition Territories all going to be neutral starters? If it is, may I recommend putting around 5 neutrals for the non-Amundsen routes and 10 neutrals for the Amundsen routes?

Joodoo wrote:I like the map, are the Expedition Territories all going to be neutral starters? If it is, may I recommend putting around 5 neutrals for the non-Amundsen routes and 10 neutrals for the Amundsen routes?

Yes, the white 88's will start as neutral 2.

I think that such a high number would hurt the theme of the map. Ideally, players should look at the expeditions as opportunities, not barriers. Generally, 10 neutral is in the range that I think of as a barrier/objective/Wrath of God tert. In the case of Amundsen, although it is an objective, it covers a lot of terts and so doesn't deserve a high neutral count. Putting a slightly higher value on the Amundsen routes is not a bad idea though- it might work to make them neutral 3 (?)

Overall, I think that 2 or 3 neutrals should be fine. Beta testing can easily prove this wrong (or right).

I'm going to sticky this topic, as it's long past overdue

I'd be fine with Amundsen's routes being neutral 3, and the rest being 2. It would make Parry, McClure, and especially Franklin slightly harder to capture too, if we're okay with that. 3 seems pretty standard, 2 gives you a bit of a break.

Is it time for a Map Surveyors announcement?

It should be in the next bulletin.

If there are no objections within the next two days, this map will be promoted.

I do not think I have any issues with the game play. For the most part, I like this map.


--Andy

Seeing no further comments, I hereby present this map with a long overdue stamp.



Congratulations shakeycat on the fine work and patience

Hopefully this one has a glowing tenure in graphics, I'm anxious to see how to it plays

Marshal Ney

Woohoo! Thanks Marshal Ney.

Congrats shakey!

Okay so I gave this a glance over (will look at it at little closer later), and just a couple of things pop out at me. I don't know if it is my monitor so I'll mention them anyways. The legend area is a little hard to read, if you either lighten them or use a lighter color that would likely do the the trick. I believe it is the Parry Route in the bonuses, I'm having a hard time reading that as well. Maybe use a contrasting outer glow for it?

Like I said these couple of things could just be my monitor, so if anyone else can let us know that would be great! Looking forward to your next update.

Thanks Isaiah.

Does this help?



Brightened all the names in the minimap, though they still have a little colour. If one is worse than the others, I can brighten it more.

Does a patch like that behind the four expedition bonuses look funny? Does it help? The problem here is that the other three stand out better on white, while Parry would need black. It looks off when three are white and one is black, for me. If it's same degree of bad or worse, I can try something else.

Yes much better. I don't have a problem with the subdued white under the legend.

Looking at his closer, I think you can do away with the army circles with the exception of course those denoting each route. Where you have "In addition, you earn +1 ..." can you lower it down by a couple of pixels. The +1 is blending in with that new white area making it a tad bit hard to see. Also where you have the impassables listed, lower the ice and tundra down underneath the words. This will make them easier to see. You have plenty of room to move them.

On another note, I have an idea. Can you make the ice on the land solid and then for the ice on the water do something like this:



You can extend the ice out into the water a little more in a few places as well. I'm thinking that it would work quit well here.

Can you also do a small map with the 888's please.

I look forward to seeing your next update soon!

I prefer the ice as it is, in terms of uniformity and transparency. Making it look different over land and water will just add unnecessary visual details which would add no information and would not fit well stylistically. As far as its extent, I would only change it if it makes a boundary clearer, and I don't see anyplace where that is needed.

Like I said, it is just an idea that won't hold it up on this end IMO.

Before Ender's post, I did try a bit of a different style with the ice, see Melville and Baffin Islands:



I might've missed his point completely. I went and looked at antarctica, and while I sort of got the idea .. meh.

It's more detailed as it hugs the coastline, then has a meaningless chunk of sea ice fading off into the sea underneath. But the toothpaste style on the rest of the map might be clearer as to what is and isn't passable.

Hmmm .. maybe that idea doesn't work so well. Thanks for trying! Two last items. Can you move the ice and tundra pics in the legend down underneath the words? Lastly, can you do your small map and post here with the 888's.

When you get these done, I'll see about getting that sticky for you!

Now that my attention has been drawn to Baffin Island:

• It seems odd to have a troop number on top of an impassable: see Clyde River and to a lesser extent, Bylot Island
• Is that tundra between Clyde River and Pangnirtung? The use of a special texture for the tundra regions is not entirely obvious when it is applied to different colours. It might be clearer simply to close off the gap with ice. (Is there other tundra apart from the vast expanse north of Baker Lake?)

This is my first yime looking at this map in a while, but the first thing that springs to mind is that its too dark overall.