Conquer Club

Pm reply to joe and sully is coming.

Victor Sullivan wrote:XML with coordinates fixed, neutral 3 on Montego Bay, HQs lowered to neutral 2 and operations reduced to neutral 3:

CubanMissileCrisis7b.xml

-Sully

The above file and a fixed version of the map have been uploaded!

Ty Joe <3

I mentioned this in Live Chat to Ace Rimmer. I don't recall the items in the upper right legend coming much into play during the one game I played. But it could be more of an anomalous game than representative, but thought I would mention it. Most of our battles tended to be more on the gameboard proper.


--Andy

I agree in team games and 1 v 1 they don't come into play that much. However I haven't played it singles 4-8 players. They might be used then? especially with FOW? Mostly right now it seems to be about fighting for ships/Jamaica/Haiti

AndyDufresne wrote:I mentioned this in Live Chat to Ace Rimmer. I don't recall the items in the upper right legend coming much into play during the one game I played. But it could be more of an anomalous game than representative, but thought I would mention it. Most of our battles tended to be more on the gameboard proper.


--Andy

Right, which is why I provided an XML with lower neutrals in that area (which nobodies had lack upload, it seems). Hopefully that will at least help. I'm thinking reducing the auto-decay on the HQs may help, too.

-Sully

Legend should read "all of mainland Cuba apart from Guantanamo Bay. I wasn't clear on whether it bombarded MQ or not. I was going to use the Legend area, to get to the Missile Launch in an Assassin game, but BOB told me that missiles don't launch into MQ, so I would've had to go the long way round.

Great Strategy in Assassin games: take some MQ, so you can't be bombarded to death.

Victor Sullivan wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I mentioned this in Live Chat to Ace Rimmer. I don't recall the items in the upper right legend coming much into play during the one game I played. But it could be more of an anomalous game than representative, but thought I would mention it. Most of our battles tended to be more on the gameboard proper.


--Andy

Right, which is why I provided an XML with lower neutrals in that area (which nobodies had lack upload, it seems). Hopefully that will at least help. I'm thinking reducing the auto-decay on the HQs may help, too.

-Sully

Actually, in larger games of 5 or more people, having lower neutrals would make it too easy for someone to jump to a quick lead. That's been my XP. As they stand now, a player really has to "risk" it to go for them, making it fun. The -5 is helpful here because a player, at least until well established, has to think critically about how many men he needs to go for a bonus through the neutrals in that region. He can't leave men behind, so he better make sure he takes enough with him, etc.

VicFontaine wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I mentioned this in Live Chat to Ace Rimmer. I don't recall the items in the upper right legend coming much into play during the one game I played. But it could be more of an anomalous game than representative, but thought I would mention it. Most of our battles tended to be more on the gameboard proper.


--Andy

Right, which is why I provided an XML with lower neutrals in that area (which nobodies had lack upload, it seems). Hopefully that will at least help. I'm thinking reducing the auto-decay on the HQs may help, too.

-Sully

Actually, in larger games of 5 or more people, having lower neutrals would make it too easy for someone to jump to a quick lead. That's been my XP. As they stand now, a player really has to "risk" it to go for them, making it fun. The -5 is helpful here because a player, at least until well established, has to think critically about how many men he needs to go for a bonus through the neutrals in that region. He can't leave men behind, so he better make sure he takes enough with him, etc.

If you think so, I'm fine with leaving it.

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:

VicFontaine wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I mentioned this in Live Chat to Ace Rimmer. I don't recall the items in the upper right legend coming much into play during the one game I played. But it could be more of an anomalous game than representative, but thought I would mention it. Most of our battles tended to be more on the gameboard proper.


--Andy

Right, which is why I provided an XML with lower neutrals in that area (which nobodies had lack upload, it seems). Hopefully that will at least help. I'm thinking reducing the auto-decay on the HQs may help, too.

-Sully

Actually, in larger games of 5 or more people, having lower neutrals would make it too easy for someone to jump to a quick lead. That's been my XP. As they stand now, a player really has to "risk" it to go for them, making it fun. The -5 is helpful here because a player, at least until well established, has to think critically about how many men he needs to go for a bonus through the neutrals in that region. He can't leave men behind, so he better make sure he takes enough with him, etc.

If you think so, I'm fine with leaving it.

-Sully

I just played it for the first time and thought it was Great. Note sure the other players figured out exactly How to get there or what They did, the one player I thought would catch on and go for it held Washington for a lot of the game but never attempted to take the HQ I can't complain about it because I used it Greatly to my advantage and Won the Game . The Nuke Buttons were a Game Changer
I definitely wouldn't reduce the number of n players that area should definitely be a challenge to breach and hold.

2 Thumbs Up,, I Loved It

Month and a half with no comments, longer than that with no changes. Any reason to keep this in beta longer? I've got an open trips game on it (see Callouts) if anyone wants to take on the mapmaker on his second game on the map.

Ace Rimmer wrote:Month and a half with no comments, longer than that with no changes. Any reason to keep this in beta longer? I've got an open trips game on it (see Callouts) if anyone wants to take on the mapmaker on his second gave game on the map.

(Fixed)

Quenching

---The Beta period has concluded for the Cuban Missile Crisis Map. All objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready to be released into live play.

Congratulations Ace Rimmer and Victor Sullivan, your shiny new medals are well-earned


Conquer Club, enjoy!

isaiah40

Congrats Ace Rimmer!

Thanks to everyone who helped ou with this one!

This is, easily, "won" of my favorite maps. Very appreciative of your time and effort. I wish I had noticed this prior to the map going live, but I do wish the legend was clear that the invasion craft are not part of the ship bonuses of "hold any 3 of same ownership and get +2" or whatever it is. In all the games I've played on this map, I never noticed they weren't until I took the invasion craft on Round 2 of a game I'm in now in an effort to get that bonus. DUH! lol

Well done, Ace!

-Deuce

You have that you get +1 for "every 3 ship's of the same ownership." You then have that a flag "Denotes ship's ownership." From this alone, it would be logical that every flag denotes the ownership of a "ship." However, I had to go into the XML to discover that Landing Craft apparently do not count as "ships." I don't see this clarified anywhere on the map.

I would suggest, either don't use the flags on the landing craft or put in the key that landing craft don't count as ships (even though it looks like subs, carriers, cruisers and destroyers all count as ships).

... or, of course, count landing craft as part of the bonus.

agentcom wrote:You have that you get +1 for "every 3 ship's of the same ownership." You then have that a flag "Denotes ship's ownership." From this alone, it would be logical that every flag denotes the ownership of a "ship." However, I had to go into the XML to discover that Landing Craft apparently do not count as "ships." I don't see this clarified anywhere on the map.

I would suggest, either don't use the flags on the landing craft or put in the key that landing craft don't count as ships (even though it looks like subs, carriers, cruisers and destroyers all count as ships).

... or, of course, count landing craft as part of the bonus.

This is what I was saying above, too.

VicFontaine wrote:

agentcom wrote:You have that you get +1 for "every 3 ship's of the same ownership." You then have that a flag "Denotes ship's ownership." From this alone, it would be logical that every flag denotes the ownership of a "ship." However, I had to go into the XML to discover that Landing Craft apparently do not count as "ships." I don't see this clarified anywhere on the map.

I would suggest, either don't use the flags on the landing craft or put in the key that landing craft don't count as ships (even though it looks like subs, carriers, cruisers and destroyers all count as ships).

... or, of course, count landing craft as part of the bonus.

This is what I was saying above, too.

Hm, agentcom makes a good point.


--Andy

I understand what you are saying. The flags were there to show ownership for the invasion authorisation bonus and the bombardment, it wasn't intended for them to be part of the ship bonus (as that was for the warships). I do see the confusion, but I don't want them to be part of the bonus. Any thoughts on how to clear that up?

What if you used the same thing, except with a circle shape for the invasion craft? I think that would clear things up sufficiently.

-Sully

Not sure if this has been raised/noticed before or if it would be considered a problem (it is annoying though):

In trench you can not attack out of the HQ in the move you take it as its not a killer neutral although it does kill 5 of the troops. So unless you already have a large deploy and probably dont need the bonus its going to be difficult to take.

I was unsure if this would be classed as a killer neutral but the fact that troops are stuck there tells me it is not.

Yes HQ has just a 5 troops decay "due to stress"(lower left legend) and it's not a killer neutral. This means you can attack further in the same turn if you are playing a trench game. You're correct, in a trench game it could be good to have more armies before to think to take it.
I don't know if this thing makes it worth a change considering that it affects just this type of games?

thenobodies80 wrote:Yes HQ has just a 5 troops decay "due to stress"(lower left legend) and it's not a killer neutral. This means you can attack further in the same turn if you are playing a trench game. You're correct, in a trench game it could be good to have more armies before to think to take it.
I don't know if this thing makes it worth a change considering that it affects just this type of games?

If you're just talking about this map, I would say no. But, you have to think how it would effect other maps with decays... Dust Bowl would be majorly effected for trench play, it would make Antarctica different at well. To me, nothing should be changed. That's not how adjacent attacks (AKA trench) is supposed to work.