Conquer Club

Map Name: Tribal War-Florida
Link to Thread: none at this time
Mapmaker(s): Seamus76, V.J.
Map Size: 60
Your aims/design style: We are honored and excited to present to the community what we hope will be the next newly released map, and the first in a long line of Tribal Wars. For this we wanted to create a smaller map with multiple strategies for ultimate war domination. It includes a "free-for-all" region, the Timucua War Zone, which should create a fun opportunity for players to fight it out, while strategically maneuvering through the territories to secure additional bonuses. We hope you enjoy and welcome your constructive criticism and feedback.
Relevant Experience: CC players
Description: "There is no death, only a change of worlds".
Tribal War-Florida is based on the 9 Native American tribes located in the Florida region during the late 17th Century, and during the initial influx of Spanish settlements and missions, and the eventual slaughter of many of the Native American Indian tribes. Players should round up their Chief (1 per tribe) and Warriors (4 per tribe), as well as amass weapons to achieve victory in Tribal War-Florida. Take over the Spanish fort, Castillo de San Marcos, for extra security and forces. This map incorporates resource collection (6 weapons), build-a-bonus, play style from standard CC maps, "free-for-all" region of the Timucua War Zone, and a bonus for holding the Spanish Fort.

TERRITORIES

60 territories in total
13 always start neutral (3 Bow & Arrows, 3 Tomahawks, 1 Spanish Fort, 1 Conquistador, 1 Shell Mound Ruins, and four territories, AP-3, AP-4, TM-4, CH-2 will be coded neutral)
3 impassables (3 Swamps)

BONUSES

Region Bonus = 9 regions in total (bonuses +2 to +10)
Tribe Bonus #1 = 1 Chief plus 3 Indians (of same tribe) equals +3
Tribe Bonus #2 = 1 Chief plus 4 Indians (of same tribe) equals +5
Weapons Bonus #1 = +2 for each Bow & Arrow (4 total) (always start +3 neutral)
Weapons Bonus #1 = +2 for each Tomahawk (4 total) (always start +3 neutral)
Spanish Fort = +3 (starts 3 neutral) - Can only be attacked by Conquistador 2
Conquistador = Hold both the Conquistador and Shell Mound Ruins = +2 (starts 2 neutral) - Can be attacked by any territory in the Timuca War Zone and Canoe 2
Shell Mound Ruins = Hold both the Shell Mound Ruins and Conquistador = +2 (starts 3 neutral) - Can be attacked by any territory in the Timuca War Zone
Swamps = Are impassable

STARTING POINTS

44 territories can be starting points (excludes Weapons, Swamps, Spanish Fort, Conquistador, and four territories, AP-3, AP-4, TM-4, CH-2 will be coded neutral). All initial territories are placed at random from available starting points.

2 = 8 territories
3 = 8 territories
4 = 5 territories
5 = 5 territories
6 = 5 territories
7 = 5 territories
8 = 5 territories

CURRENT MAP VERSION:

v14.2 - Large (840x800)


v14.2 - Small (630x600)


XML
http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/9/30/3202881//finalxml-v11.xml

CURRENT UPDATE INFO-2012-01-31:

show

OLD MAP VERSIONS:

show

OLD UPDATE INFO:

show

nice draft... I assume you will be splitting the war zone up? like you did the rest?

Very nice first draft!

You are going to need territory names, though. You may have to fiddle with the shape of some territories to fit the names on them.

Is that Timucua zone really one territory? I think it creates too big of a chokepoint... perhaps you could divide it a little. Also, the map is a bit too choked up otherwise... some sea routes would fix this nicely.

Graphically this looks really nice, better than 99% of first drafts we see here. Shows that you've really put some effort to it. However, there's room for improvement too... The tents are too similar in tone, it's a bit hard to distinguish some of them. Also, you should include the non-playable land area... Florida is not an island.

I would also recommend to make the shape of the land area a bit more stylistic. It gives more of a feel of old times... accurate maps are more a modern thing. That is, remove those very small islands that serve no gameplay purpose, and smooth out the shorelines somewhat.

Looking forward to your next update!

Joining the choir of supporters! Looking very good.

I like the middle sections as a "free for all" section, where each territory attacks the other. Don't see how this would work as a 'chokepoint' at all (re natty's comment). Should be very easy to cross indeed!
I agree, however, that sea routes are a good idea, to provide access from one end to the other.

Only Conquistador attacks Spanish fort, check - but does all territories in the middle section attack Conquistador? Seems a little 'closed off' with those palisades.

Also looking forward to see this evolve!

Seamus76 wrote: It includes a "free-for-all" territory, the Timucua War Zone,

Ok, this was a bit misleading... it seems you mean Timucua to be a free-for-all bonus area, which consists of several territories. Your usage of the word "territory" threw me off a bit here...

So, in that case, being a chokepoint is not a problem, but it can run into other problems... if I understand correctly, every icon inside that region can assault every other icon? And they can all also assault/be assaulted by the neighboring territories?

Thanks so much for everyone's time and consideration. These are exactly the things we're looking to work out, and make the map as clear, and as fun, as possible.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. You are correct, the TImucua War Zone, is one bonus zone, which includes 27 territories (17 warriors, 3 chiefs, 5 weapons, and the fort and conquistador). Excluding the fort and conquistador, any one the territories can be attacked by any territory bordering the area (6 territories in all), and all territories within that zone can attack each other, and any of the 6 bordering territories. The Conquistador can only be attacked by a territory within the Timucua zone, and is the only territory that can attack the fort. It would start +4 neutral.

Rather than changing the overall colors of the bonus areas we were hoping that adding the territory names/labels in the same color would help distinguish them from each other even more. Also, would it help to have each of the teepees next to their respective bonus area name in the Legend? Obviously we want to make sure it is visually clear and acceptable, and would make any changes necessary to make that happen.

As for Sea routes, we purposefully did not use them for a couple of reasons, one of which was the silly thought that historically the Native American canoes were not fit for sea travel. That being said, if adding sea routes makes the map more playable, or more challenging then we could easily add them. Our thought was to keep the focus on the War Zone where most of the action would be, and make it more challenging to actually win the final game by having to pick through each territory to eliminate your opponent, rather than taking the short route. This might give the opponent one slim chance to catch that last card or make a final stand. Which we all appreciate when you're on that side of the dice. Sea routes are nice, but we want to make sure they enhance the map, and not just give players an easy way around. Which we do recognize has it's place, and if our map is that place we are all for it.

Well, the sea routes are no biggie to me, just voicing personal opinion.

Regarding the chiefs:
Something if off here. Jeaga and Tequesta territories have one, but the other 2-territory 'continent' (Ais) has none. To boot, the 3-territory (Choctaw) continent has none.

I suggest either giving those two last continents a chief as well, or take away the chief from Jeaga and Tequesta and place one on Choctaw. In the latter case, the smallest continent with a chief would then be 3 territories, which seems appropriate to me.

Edit: Checking again, it seems like those smaller continents wouldn't even be able to take a bonus from the chief (requiring a minimum of 3 teepees for the +1). Maybe I missed something here?

Seamus76 wrote:I apologize for the misunderstanding. You are correct, the TImucua War Zone, is one bonus zone, which includes 27 territories (17 warriors, 3 chiefs, 5 weapons, and the fort and conquistador). Excluding the fort and conquistador, any one the territories can be attacked by any territory bordering the area (6 territories in all), and all territories within that zone can attack each other, and any of the 6 bordering territories. The Conquistador can only be attacked by a territory within the Timucua zone, and is the only territory that can attack the fort. It would start +4 neutral.

Ah, ok. You need to make this more clear on the map. For example, the fort/conquistador thing is not explained anywhere, and it's not instantly obvious by looking at the map.

As for the idea of a free-for-all-zone... it can work, it has been done before, at least on Supermax... however, I don't think you should bother specifying a bonus value for the war zone, I don't think anyone is ever going to be able to hold that area, except when he's already winning the game... and at that point, +6 is like piss in the ocean...

Seamus76 wrote:Rather than changing the overall colors of the bonus areas we were hoping that adding the territory names/labels in the same color would help distinguish them from each other even more.

I would advise against this. I understand you want to use the colour scheme to support the theme of your map, but the priority should always be clarity and easy map readability. I fear that making the territory labels multicolour would make the map too chaotic - the different teepees are all mixed up within the regions, so the result would be a jumble of colours...

Perhaps you could create some simple, yet distinctive native american-style patterns for each teepee. This could be a way to better tell the tribes apart, while still keeping your colour palette.

While I'm on the subject of colours... something about the ocean colour feels wrong to me. It just seems to fight with the rest of the map... perhaps something less saturated and faded, while still keeping some contrast with the land colours...

Seamus76 wrote:Also, would it help to have each of the teepees next to their respective bonus area name in the Legend? Obviously we want to make sure it is visually clear and acceptable, and would make any changes necessary to make that happen.

Is there some gameplay relation between the bonus areas and the same colour teepees?

Seamus76 wrote:As for Sea routes, we purposefully did not use them for a couple of reasons, one of which was the silly thought that historically the Native American canoes were not fit for sea travel. That being said, if adding sea routes makes the map more playable, or more challenging then we could easily add them.

Yes, I would advise adding sea routes. The movement is a bit constrained on the map currently, it's hard to get from one end to the other... too closed a gameplay will easily stagnate.

There doesn't need to be many. Perhaps 2 routes from one side of the war zone to the other.

Interesting idea... I think i like it. I'd say tone down the red glow and blood. It makes the map seem more ridiculous than it is.

We have made some great updates to the map. Let us know your thoughts.

Very nice. Love the new graphics.

Btw, usually it's good to post your updates to both ends of the thread... it's good to keep the first post up to date, but also good to have the update in the end of the thread so people won't have to scroll back to first post when you update...

I'll comment more later.

Thanks, that means a lot. Can't wait for the feedback.

Yeah, it's a bit late here and I have to get to sleep, early wake up tomorrow... anyway, I like the added sea routes, they open up the map somewhat, which is good. It would be good to add territory names asap, though. It's tough to comment on gameplay without some kind of names to reference the territories by.

Does that one sea route connect to the ruins only, not the whole war zone? If so, perhaps you could clarify it by having the icon for the ruins be hanging a bit towards the sea, on top of the coastline as it were, so that it's clear that the sea route only connects to it....

Also, a textual explanation of the war zone would be a good addition... something like "territories in the warzone all assault each other", just so it's clear to the players.

I'll comment more in depth later.

Give me less than 24 hours and I'll have the above notations included, as well as territory labels.

Ok, do that.

UPDATE INFO-2011-05-01:
Added text descriptions for the Timucua War Zone, as well as territory labels and abbreviations to the legend. I know it looks like a lot, and maybe flipping some of the icons around would make it a little less congested, but we think it looks pretty good, and actually there are more complicated maps that we have seen.

Looks pretty good.

I'm a bit concerned though, that the war zone might be a bit too tight for the small map... not sure if all the army numbers will be able to fit in the small version.

You are using space a bit wastefully, though. Hence I have a suggestion, which you might not entirely like... since it will be extra work for you. But anyway...

What I suggest is "zooming in" to the land area a bit more. Currently, you are not using the maximum dimensions... so it's easy to zoom in, and that small group of tiny islands in the south tip can be left out, since it serves no gameplay purpose... This will enable you to zoom in more to the land, by cropping the image so that the playable land area reaches to the edges of the image.

Hello Seamus and V.J.

That draft is starting to look nice. Good word! However, from the gameplay point of view I am a bit concerned with the war zone. If I have not mistaken my calculations, aproximately 40% of the territories form part of the war zone. So we have basically 40% of the map where everybody can attack everybody with no choke points and no structure at all. In my humble opinion that's maybe too much.

The idea of a free for all zone it's interesting, but I would reduce it's size.

In fact, the rest of the map it's also very open, with almost no impassables. In my opinion a bit more geography needs to be added so players can use the land shape as a point in their strategies.

We could look at taking away one warrior per tribe, which would cut it down by 9. As for impassables, we could maybe add a swamp or two, like Okefenokee, or something along those lines. Maybe an impassable alligator area. Not sure though, we like the chaos factor being very high in that area.

Yes, the chaos factor is an interesting thing. But like everything, it has to be in it's right amount. Not too much, not too few.

I think that cuting the free-for-all zone down by 9 it's a very good choice. The result would be a zone that still would be quite big, but not too big in comparison with the rest of the map, so it would be like the right balance

A couple of swamps could be interesting, or maybe a river or a mountain chain (don't know Florida's geography, so I am not sure if there exists a river or a mountain that can be represented in the map as impassable).

Fair comment. Thanks for taking the time.

Wow, what an awesome idea... taking a state and making it into a unique map. No comments atm but I will be following up.

-griff

For the record, I support what Oliver is saying, he makes a good point on the warzone - it will function better with fewer territories, and you probably won't have to resize the map if you do that.

Thanks natty. Working on the revisions now.

Seamus76 wrote:Thanks natty. Working on the revisions now.

Will be waiting for them