Conquer Club

chipv wrote:I think it might be an interesting twist to have the archers not immune to impassables, actually.

More realistic also?

They are the light infantry, the skirmishers. That's why they are not affected by impassables unlike heavy infantry or cavalry.

mattattam wrote:

chipv wrote:I think it might be an interesting twist to have the archers not immune to impassables, actually.

More realistic also?

What if you have the archers immune to green impassables only? This would make it so you don't have to change around any archers and they can still have access to the archers on the raised green impassables. It's like archers can not shoot across the large lakes and rock field impassables, but they can shoot up and down the green hills. That's more realistic too. In the map key you can put "immune to green impassables," instead of, "are immune to impassables".

for the sake of simplicity, I want all bombards to not be affected by impassables. Meaning that a Trebuchet can bombard over mountains, and so would Archers and catapults. Thought I recon the realistic part you're talking about.

Adding extra rules and definitions would mean adding a lot more of legend boards and making the map more complicated to read.

I have to agree with kab with the part about the archers - gotta follow the old KISS rule

Although I also agree with chipv's suggestions about the name changes.

I think the impassables is a great idea for the gameplay.

It is far simpler as you say to keep the rules consistent for all projectiles. Players may wonder whether or not
impassables count as part of the range of a ranged weapon.

I also agree about players wondering whether or not catapults can assault any trebuchet as opposed to one within range.

The best maps do not require BOB to play them, so I hope that is where we end up, great job so far, Kab.

In terms of colour I would prefer to keep all the impassables lakes. I think maybe it would be clearer in terms of
who can move where and who can shoot where.

Thanks chip!

as for the impassables, I really like that variety (we could say that we have mountains, lakes and forests) - it will benefit hugely the map, making it more rich graphically. I also like the hidden archers on some forests that can only be reached by bombardments or other archers (and we couldn't have those standing on lakes).

Kabanellas wrote:Thanks chip!

as for the impassables, I really like that variety (we could say that we have mountains, lakes and forests) - it will benefit hugely the map, making it more rich graphically. I also like the hidden archers on some forests that can only be reached by bombardments or other archers (and we couldn't have those standing on lakes).

I can get behind the forests, that is a good idea , gameplay would be awesome.

It's the rules and legend now I'm worried about.

I am struggling to follow the ability of archers, catapults , and trebuchets being able to fire over a mountain.
That is the only odd thing about this map. There aren't even any weapons in modern times that are able to accurately
hit a target over a mountain. I hope players dont assume that they can't.

Maybe that is worth adding to the legend if room.

Aside from that, can archers not assault all adjaecent territories? The post about starting neutrals kinda implies no.

chipv wrote:Aside from that, can archers not assault all adjaecent territories? The post about starting neutrals kinda implies no.

no they can't. I covered that in the legend:

'Archers, Catapults and Trebuchets can only bombard unless stated otherwise'

the 'otherwise part' in the archers legend :

'-assaults other archers within a range of 4'

as for the reality aspect, imagine it this way:

Trebuchets have shoot in a very wide arch that can go over hills, while archers can quickly position themselves to shoot their arrows, due to their high mobility.

So Archer S1 could quickly climb the hill to give a shot at any troops standing in A4.

Kabanellas wrote:

chipv wrote:Aside from that, can archers not assault all adjaecent territories? The post about starting neutrals kinda implies no.

no they can't. I covered that in the legend:

'Archers, Catapults and Trebuchets can only bombard unless stated otherwise'

the 'otherwise part' in the archers legend :

'-assaults other archers within a range of 4'

When you have a small and large map with all hexes named on it, I will try out the gameplay straight away.

I'll be posting them today... I expect.

Here they are (Version 13):





I Kept the 'family' thing in the legend board... I like the idea of having aristocratic families that are represented by a family member in the Court.

Initial drop for 4 players with red starting.

Great!! That's exactly how it's supposed to be, apart from the army locations within the hexagons.

They should be placed like this (don't mind the map version, it's an old one)

I have that on the large map, didn't make the same adjustment on the small one, was very late time.

I think the bonuses for the Duke and the Bishop should be changed to 1 per 1 knight and 1 per 1 village.

I dont think anyone is going to be attacking them otherwise, the Lord Chamberlain is a more fruitful target.
Field Marshal also more tempting.

Plus this would shrink the size of the XML massively.....

The castle E and castle D archer can assault each other in their current positions if I understand it correctly.

To clarify, when I look at archers and their assault range of 4 I see four spaces like this: if I'm attacking from the castle E3 archer to the castle D3 archer N54 is 1, N44 is 2, castle D4 knight is 2, and castle D3 archer is 4. Is that how you want people to see it? Or were you thinking that the mountain impassable counts as 1?

No, they don't assault each other.

From E3 (archer) you have 5 spaces to reach D3 (archer) - N54, N48, N45, D4 and then the 5th space would be D3 (archer). That archer is out of range

chipv wrote:I have that on the large map, didn't make the same adjustment on the small one, was very late time.

I think the bonuses for the Duke and the Bishop should be changed to 1 per 1 knight and 1 per 1 village.

I dont think anyone is going to be attacking them otherwise, the Lord Chamberlain is a more fruitful target.
Field Marshal also more tempting.

Plus this would shrink the size of the XML massively.....

..but that would make them very powerful and would mean a huge bonus boost for the player owning them.

Lord Chamberlain, The Duke, and The Bishop are equivalent at the moment in terms of bonus, while Field Marshall will have a minimum bonus expansion (catapults are few and hard to get) but will compensate for his ability to assault any Archer (we could change this to all (S#) archers if you think that he's to powerful).

Kabanellas wrote:No, they don't assault each other.

From E3 (archer) you have 5 spaces to reach D3 (archer) - N54, N48, N45, D4 and then the 5th space would be D3 (archer). That archer is out of range

That makes more sense to me. I can see it being confusing to players. I initially thought that I could attack from E3 archer to D3 archer. The confusion to me lies in archers being immune to impassables. I don't know if there is a way to clarify that. I recommend switching E3 and E4 to avoid any confusion.

but thay are immune to impassables - take A2 Archer, armies standing here can assault S1 Archer. To do so, they will have to pass over that hill right next to it.

Even if E3 Archer goes over that hill below N48, it still can't reach D3 Archer. E3 - N54, hill, N45, N39 (4 steps - not enough)

How do you want the Castle + Knight bonus to work?

If I have 2 Castles and 3 nights, what is my bonus for that?

1 Castle + 3 nights = bonus of 2

But you can count the same knights again for the other castle potentially.

Right! that math is correct.

you'll earn 1 troop for Castle + Knight. For each additional 2 knights you'll get 1 extra troop

chipv wrote:But you can count the same knights again for the other castle potentially.

Haven't really though about it... I think you should only get the bonus for 1 castle, even if you have more. On the other side, making it cumulative with other castles could be conceptually interesting. Will increase the importance of having more than one castle...

What do you think?

I don't think they should be cumulative. It would make the castles too strong. If your enemy manages to get 1 more castle than you and hold it for one round you'd be screwed...

hummm let me try to make a possible scenario here. If you own 5 knights - a very reasonable number, there are 16 knights on map - you 'll be making 3 troops, a very small part of your total income. You'd have more coming from villages and the autodeploy from castles, archers and catapults. I'd say a total that could go around 14 + 3. A new castle would only make that 3 climb to 6. Not much on a first look....

On the other hand, those are free deployable troops.. and there aren't plenty on this map

On the other hand, those are free deployable troops.. and there aren't plenty on this map

Exactly... free deploy vs. auto makes a world of difference on chained or adjacent. Even on unlimited if all your territories don't connect.

Completed the continents which was painful.

Now doing attacks and I noticed that all central archers (S1, S2...) can attack 3 other archers except S3 (which can attack 4) which rather ruins the overall symmetry of the other units.

If you moved archer on B4 out of range and swap with say the catapult,that would make all central archers hit 3 other archers.