Conquer Club

First off, in case I didn't say it before: This is a great map, thanks a lot for making it.

isaiah40 wrote:You are the first person since I redid the state lines awhile ago. For right now, I am reluctant to redo them unless I see more players mentioning the same thing.

I think the borders are fine the way they are. They are clearly visible but not too strong, so the emphasize is still on the connections and not on the borders.
Speaking of connections: I know you're trying to go for geographic accuracy, but do you think you could move Sioux Falls SD slightly away from Sioux City, so it doesn't look like they're connected?
And I found a "real" bug (as opposed to the other stuff which is just a matter of taste I guess): The Rockies capitals bonus includes Omaha instead of Lincoln for Nebraska.

I really don't get this map. What the heck are all the things on the side? I against it unless you can make it make more sense.

Bradley Bomber wrote:I really don't get this map. What the heck are all the things on the side? I against it unless you can make it make more sense.

Maybe you could be a bit more specific...

I think it's clear....

To the right side is the list of names of the cities which are numbered on the map - because there was not enough room on the map itself to write these cities names...

To the bottom left is the basic legend for the special connections and bonuses...

I think where he might be getting lost is the info at the top of the map...
For example - you list all the western section of that map and indicate that if controlled the player will receive +7 units.
Also with in this section (for example) you have inside of California a +9 (which I believe to mean that their is 9 areas "cities" with in California which is needed to control all of California. ((Though since you have it as a +9, just as you have the all western area controlled as a +7... It might make him think that he gains 9 troops for controlling california, but only 7 if he controls all of the western coast.))

Well the mini-maps on top indicate "Hold all Western (or whatever bonus region) Capitals for +7" It means if you hold all the capitals in the western region you receive 7 men. If you hold all of California you receive 9 men. If you hold all of California and all western capitals then you will receive 16 men. It is really self explanitory.

oops... I was wrong -

I just looked at it closer now ...

It's +7 units for all capitals in the west
And +9 units for controlling California

I think it's clear, just someone needs to take a moment or two to actually look it over and not just jump in....
I see no issue with this map....

Has anyone given any consideration to simply cloning the map and labeling the map "USA 2.2", changing the xml for 40 players, and making this the second Battle Royale map?

I think it could work quite well as one. With this map "USA 2.1" staying an 8 player map.

=D13=

dolomite13 wrote:Has anyone given any consideration to simply cloning the map and labeling the map "USA 2.2", changing the xml for 40 players, and making this the second Battle Royale map?

I think it could work quite well as one. With this map "USA 2.1" staying an 8 player map.

=D13=

Fantastic idea...

Somehow I got the feeling you didn't read my last post because of that "feedback" by Bradley Bomber, so here's a kind reminder.

docchaos wrote:Speaking of connections: I know you're trying to go for geographic accuracy, but do you think you could move Sioux Falls SD slightly away from Sioux City, so it doesn't look like they're connected?
And I found a "real" bug (as opposed to the other stuff which is just a matter of taste I guess): The Rockies capitals bonus includes Omaha instead of Lincoln for Nebraska.

docchaos wrote:Somehow I got the feeling you didn't read my last post because of that "feedback" by Bradley Bomber, so here's a kind reminder.

docchaos wrote:Speaking of connections: I know you're trying to go for geographic accuracy, but do you think you could move Sioux Falls SD slightly away from Sioux City, so it doesn't look like they're connected?
And I found a "real" bug (as opposed to the other stuff which is just a matter of taste I guess): The Rockies capitals bonus includes Omaha instead of Lincoln for Nebraska.

Nah, sorry, I just forgot about it. I'm going to wait and see if others have the same problem with Sioux City & Sioux Falls. So far you are the first one to bring it up. As for the Rockies capital bonus, Gilligan did you get that!?

EDIT use file below this post

Update with Omaha/Lincoln fix, and Augusta coordinate

Sioux Falls Numbering a little off centered...?

Update with all airports starting with 5 neutral

i'm surprised that the airports have n5 neutral. i thought it was n2, with the n5 on anchorage being a mistake. it does make some sense that the airports are more than n2, but having to go thru 10 neutrals just to take a flight seems a bit extreme.

ian.

iancanton wrote:i'm surprised that the airports have n5 neutral. i thought it was n2, with the n5 on anchorage being a mistake. it does make some sense that the airports are more than n2, but having to go thru 10 neutrals just to take a flight seems a bit extreme.

ian.

It's the TSA security check points, it's the hassles!

Gilligan wrote:Update with all airports starting with 5 neutral

Apparently you reintroduced that Omaha/Lincoln bug with that update.

iancanton wrote:i'm surprised that the airports have n5 neutral. i thought it was n2, with the n5 on anchorage being a mistake. it does make some sense that the airports are more than n2, but having to go thru 10 neutrals just to take a flight seems a bit extreme.

ian.

I can see having them 2-5. Having airports at 2 but resetting should maybe be a consideration.

docchaos wrote:

Gilligan wrote:Update with all airports starting with 5 neutral

Apparently you reintroduced that Omaha/Lincoln bug with that update.

...Huh. How did that happen

Gilligan wrote:

docchaos wrote:

Gilligan wrote:Update with all airports starting with 5 neutral

Apparently you reintroduced that Omaha/Lincoln bug with that update.

...Huh. How did that happen

Sent!

I've played some games on USA 2.1, and actually won two of them... (one win was because other players just dropped out, since it's such a huge map, and it takes a lot of patience and attention to detail on every turn). I think having n5 neutral on the airports is good, because they play such a critical part in the final stages of a game, especially with the Trench option. Resetting with n2 neutral wouldn't be good with trench.

Noticed that in the game log, Missouri is abbreviated as MI instead of MO. No mistake though in the graphics (mini-map and legend for St Louis).

I don't know how augusta got moved again. I didn't touch the coords.

Because it has not been updated yet...

isaiah40 wrote:

iancanton wrote:i'm surprised that the airports have n5 neutral. i thought it was n2, with the n5 on anchorage being a mistake. it does make some sense that the airports are more than n2, but having to go thru 10 neutrals just to take a flight seems a bit extreme.

ian.

It's the TSA security check points, it's the hassles!

i know exactly what u mean. i missed my plane once, going from toronto to detroit, because of the thoroughness of the TSA in processing each passenger.

ViperOverLord wrote:I can see having them 2-5. Having airports at 2 but resetting should maybe be a consideration.

killer neutral airports cannot be used for this map because the airports are part of the state bonuses. the road through calgary, which does have a killer neutral, works because calgary is not part of any bonuses.

Olinguito wrote:Noticed that in the game log, Missouri is abbreviated as MI instead of MO. No mistake though in the graphics (mini-map and legend for St Louis).

the USALive (2).xml file still has this error.

ian.