Conquer Club

I think as long as I can make the map look good and be fun to play for the community I think the map could be of the middle of nowhere'sville... Case in point, Charleston. Not that I'm as good as rj, but that is a fantastic map of a... less than major American city and that map is one of the pillars of map library. I'm probably going to try and run with this expanded to include the nearby burbs. We shall see where it leads. A historical map might be nice... but isn't really lighting my fire. Maybe someone can twist IH's arm on that one.

In this event I'll likely change the name to something like Greater Philadelphia maybe' we'll see.

Well, the best thing about Charleston are the choke points, i think. I makes the ma easier to play.

As EvilD mentioned, some incorporation of the History is something I'd support, rather than any strictly modern-city map. It'd help set the map apart from the various other city maps we have had that failed.


--Andy

I totally disagree with Andy on this one. I'm always looking for some nice clean city maps as they work great in tournaments where you expand from city to region to nation to continent to world type of thing. There are very few clean city maps out there at the moment, most have some sort of tricky gameplay. When I'm looking at tournaments with cities I look at the following

Clean/standard gameplay
Cairns Metro
Charleston
Hong Kong
Puget Sound

Clean/standard with 1/2 non standard game play points
Berlin 1961
Chicago
Montreal
San Francisco
Sydney Metro
Vancouver

Messy
Forbidden City
Pearl Harbor
Poison Rome
Prohibition Chicago
NYC
Stalingrad

Now the foundry has churned out a lot of cities over the past year or so which was needed but having a few more clean cities would be great from my perspective.

(and I'm not sure what Andy means by "failed maps" is he referring to ones that don't get out of the foundry or ones that don't get played as much-I'd suspect that those that don't get played as much are in the messy side of my list)

For me one of the things I like about CC is the variety, the foundry does a great job making maps however there is sometimes a tendency to ignore standard game play maps in favor of new and exciting things which is find in moderation as long as the standard stuff is also represented IMO

barterer2002 wrote:There are very few clean city maps out there at the moment, most have some sort of tricky gameplay.

Montreal is almost entirely standard gameplay: It has one small subcontinent worth 1 troop; I'd hardly consider it to be 'tricky'. San Francisco is also pretty darn close to standard and you won't really lose much advantage if you play it as such. Vancouver and New York also essentially behave like standard maps. I don't think we really have a dearth of standard urban gameplay.


Incidentally, some of the maps you listed aren't really cities. Puget Sound covers a much larger region, Pearl Harbor is a naval base, and Poison Rome is a family tree.

I understand what they are. I'm looking for anything I can use in a tournament when I need a city. There are about 10 clean maps to use for cities which include Puget Sound and if I want to include the messy stuff there are 16. What I'm saying is that I disagree with the idea that having a clean map without having gimmicks and such isn't the bad thing that Andy is portraying. I think there is a tendency in the foundry to go for new gameplay features and to ignore the mapmaking part of things.

barterer2002 wrote:I understand what they are. I'm looking for anything I can use in a tournament when I need a city. There are about 10 clean maps to use for cities which include Puget Sound and if I want to include the messy stuff there are 16. What I'm saying is that I disagree with the idea that having a clean map without having gimmicks and such isn't the bad thing that Andy is portraying. I think there is a tendency in the foundry to go for new gameplay features and to ignore the mapmaking part of things.

I think you are mis-characterizing my post. I didn't say anything about gimmicks or tricks---just an inclusion of history since it is one of the historical sites in the USA. It can still certainly be clean and standard.


--Andy

Perhaps I did read it wrong Andy, my apologies for mis-characterizing your point. I read your comment as disliking the idea and attributed my own reason to you which isn't what you said.

I've always been a fan of standard maps over anything complex, tricky, or in similar veins. So I most always endorse a map if it has terrific graphics theme, and standardish game play.

I'm interested in seeing how the project develops. I think City maps can be interesting...especially once we start to get into the 'famous cities of the world' category. It'd be an enjoyable thematic series I think, should anyone climb up that banana tree.


--Andy

hmmmm, interesting, I could go a little bit bigger and encompass the surround tri-state region, Philadelphia and it's suburbs, or.... maybe go a bit smaller and focus of the core of the City of Philadelphia itself, which is generally Center City and South Philly, which could make it easier in incorporate historic monuments and other places of interest in Philly. hmmmmm smaller might be better., what do you guys think?

I think less of the outside city area, if it means a nod to including some the history (via monuments, etc).


--Andy

I agree, smaller is better for this map. Hope you keep West Philly. "Innnn West Philadelphia... born and raised...", plus Penn and Drexel, etc. Maybe just get rid of the purple yellow and red regions on the current map?

I'll see what I can come up with, should be mainly Center City/West & South Philly. All the main attractions/sites are there: Independence Mall, City Hall, Liberty Towers, the sports stadiums, the main airport, University City, museums, cathedrals, and so on...

Hmmmm, and a period map in the same kind of vein(Historic/Revolutionary War era) could be Valley Forge: Winter 1776-77. :cough:Helix:cough:

I know nothing about Philly, but map looks interesting.

the idea about historical Philly map sounds better as modern. how you can use bridges? and if will be map from past were these bridges build?

what about to delete impassables which you add later (parks, river)? and you can connect bridges over area outside city by highway which continue over bridges to city as main roads and these could be impassable...

How about adding The Girard Point Bridge near the Naval Base where I-95 crosses over the Schuylkill and Delaware River Merge.

South Jersey person here.....I like the basic looks of this! Keep it up

bernooch

Still thinking about this, finally got a base image I like, and I've got some vacation time coming. Update to come in a week or so.

I'm kind of getting back to this... Working hard on the gameplay, and keeping the map simple.

Well here it is, gameplay should be a lot better than anything I've had previously. I'll hold off on the design brief until I'm pretty sure we're good to go on this project. Really I just want to make sure there is enough of an interest to continue. Honestly this is probably the biggest hole in the map library, IMO. There are only a few city sized regions out there. Maps in this vein often have issues since there always seems to be a cry about the map being to localized and there really isn't an audience. At this point though, most of the world's major countries have been made into maps, or represented in a major way on a map. Not to mention continents, and large regional sub-divisions. This is a big thing, I believe, once upon a time there was a map pack possibility based on 12 of the major cities being used for the World Cities map (bka: CLASSIC) I think it was by cairns. Anyways, this direction will hopefully bear some fruit, and lets see if a few maps follow along the way....(i.e. London, Paris, Moscow, L.A., Miami, Tokyo, Beijing, Rome, Rio de Janeiro, etc. etc. etc...)

Well you've got my interest. Maybe throw up a poll or something to secure interest?

Sounds like a plan, poll created.

Personally, I think, we are already starting to have enough standard gameplay maps. I mean, they're starting to repeat themselves. It's starting to be like we have a lot of instances of the same map with different skins on it... ok, the gameplay isn't exactly the same, but there's only so many medium-sized standard-gameplay maps you can make before all the options have been explored.

So while I think that yes, CC could use more city maps and other smaller regional maps, I'd love to see some innovative gameplay designs. We just got a new XML feature, and while not every new map should instantly jump on it, it gives us some new tools to work with. The gameplay doesn't even need to be tweaked that much, just adding an interesting "twist" on it can be sufficient.

TL,DR: I'd like to see the map go forward, but the more you can deviate from the "standard" gameplay model, the better.

I echo natty. There's nothing that quite goes BAM I'm a sweet map like nothing you've ever seen before! Idk... City maps just feel... weak, to me. There are maps out there that allow you to conquer countries and even the world, a city map just doesn't appeal to me IMHO unless it has something to set it apart from all the other maps. Also with cities, most people aren't entirely familiar with the Philadelphia area, so it's like, "Yay I took over Maple Shade," but he has no clue what exactly he's taking over, if that makes sense.
Anyways, I suggest experimenting with different gameplay things you can throw in. I'm wondering if making it a historical, as opposed to modern, map would be better, as I would expect it would be easier to implement gameplay features based off of historical events. Just a thought.
I do give you credit, this draft is better than the one you had previously.

-Sully

True... I think I can add a couple things to quench those thirsts. I was thinking about making the bridges into their own territories and a separate bonus. I dunno if that'll set this apart. Historical Philly is a much, much smaller area.(comprised almost entirely into the territory on this map's territory of "Olde City") and really no battles were fought there. Battles were fought defending Philly, although it eventually was taken and occupied by the British from late 1776 to spring 1777. (see: Battle of Brandywine Creek and Battle of Germantown and see: winter encampment at Valley Forge 1776/1777)

natty_dread wrote:Personally, I think, we are already starting to have enough standard gameplay maps. I mean, they're starting to repeat themselves. It's starting to be like we have a lot of instances of the same map with different skins on it... ok, the gameplay isn't exactly the same, but there's only so many medium-sized standard-gameplay maps you can make before all the options have been explored.

Look back to what barterer2002 said a while ago natty. Themed tournaments don't really a lot of city sized standard gameplay maps to choose from when putting their tournaments together. The only ones we have that are standard gameplay for cities are: NYC, San Fran, Puget Sound, (Seattle) Charleston, Vancouver, Sydney Metro, and Chicago. There are a couple other city sized regions but the gameplay for most of those is generally very complicated. And if you look at each of those maps I've mentioned they are on the larger size, except for San Fran and Puget Sound.

An interesting though I had though... consider the well known underdog/blue collar mentality of Philadelphia. (see: Rocky) Something interesting I though might go really really well and make for very interesting gameplay, especially on team games, would be to alter the territory bonus to favor the player that is losing. i.e. As you lose territory, you GAIN armies. I kinda imagine a reverse territory bonus where being at 1, 2, 3 territories gets you what you would if you had most of the board. (in the current draft 42 territories total, you would get 13 armies for having 3 territories or less) But that would likely be too high at the start of the game so would have to be fiddled with. assuming it could work within the current XML.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Yay I took over Maple Shade

Beware New Jersey folk Vic...

RedBaron0 wrote: The only ones we have that are standard gameplay for cities are: NYC, San Fran, Puget Sound, (Seattle) Charleston, Vancouver, Sydney Metro, and Chicago.

And Montreal, and Hong Kong, and Cairns Metro...

I'm all for conquering Philly -- I live here -- but if you can think of even a little gimmick, that'd go far in justifying this map to the rest of the world.

RedBaron0 wrote:An interesting though I had though... consider the well known underdog/blue collar mentality of Philadelphia. (see: Rocky) Something interesting I though might go really really well and make for very interesting gameplay, especially on team games, would be to alter the territory bonus to favor the player that is losing. i.e. As you lose territory, you GAIN armies. I kinda imagine a reverse territory bonus where being at 1, 2, 3 territories gets you what you would if you had most of the board. (in the current draft 42 territories total, you would get 13 armies for having 3 territories or less) But that would likely be too high at the start of the game so would have to be fiddled with. assuming it could work within the current XML.

I wonder what a map like that would play like. If it works out wrong, it could lead to a whole lot of stacking. But if you can make it work (possibly with some counterincentive collectible bonus?) it would certainly be different.