Conquer Club

Evil DIMwit wrote:note that the bare minimum for full playability card-wise is four per players plus one; if any player gets five, their number is immediately reduced to two)

Not quite:
4 per player plus n.
Where n= number of players.

You get the 5th at the end of your turn, you don't need to cash these cards in until the start of your next turn, meanwhile all the other players may have accumulated 5 cards.

Ruben Cassar wrote:Andy has already said he sees no point in making this map so let it die guys.

Andy always says that, early on in map development!

Captain Crash wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:Andy has already said he sees no point in making this map so let it die guys.

Andy always says that, early on in map development!

Is that so? I don't think he does actually...

Ruben Cassar wrote:

Captain Crash wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:Andy has already said he sees no point in making this map so let it die guys.

Andy always says that, early on in map development!

Is that so? I don't think he does actually...

And what's wrong with a little hyperbole now and then?

Captain's correct. I often say such things early in development. Sometimes it takes time for everything to win me over


--Andy

Captain Crash wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:note that the bare minimum for full playability card-wise is four per players plus one; if any player gets five, their number is immediately reduced to two)

Not quite:
4 per player plus n.
Where n= number of players.

You get the 5th at the end of your turn, you don't need to cash these cards in until the start of your next turn, meanwhile all the other players may have accumulated 5 cards.

This is also true. Now, don't I feel like a fool twice. But I'm not entirely convinced there is no mechanism that makes possible maps with fewer than thirty territories; a closer examination of the program's procedure would be required.

evil dimwit, to get on with your map, you have to put either bigger teritories or smaller names, so the army circles can fit.

And take away the penguins at the top of the page, either put them at the bottom or put polar bears there because penguins live in anatartica and polarbears live in the artic.

But back to the map...

So we have determined we need 15 Territories minimum for 3 players and 20 for 4 players.

So 2 Questions:
1) Can we limit a map to a max number of players?
and then
2) Can you had two territories (One could be the pair of small islands off of the east coast of Australia...New something or other...lots of sheep) to take it up to 20 and then make it only for 3 or 4 players? (Hence allowing for the odd doubles game if people were so inclined)
Another option may be to shrink Turkmenistan and split India from China to give the second extra territory.
You could possibly separate Australia from Asia and create a 5th 'continent' and give it a small bonus (+1?).

also fireedud wrote:take away the penguins at the top of the page, either put them at the bottom or put polar bears there because penguins live in anatartica and polarbears live in the artic

Agreed

So, first of all, it looks like the crayon beats the satire; the latter might then be a later project (though the region involved may change). Perhaps I'll post it in the ideas thread if the spirit strikes me so.
Incidentally, whom d'ya have to see around here to get a poll changed?

Secondly, adding two or three territories sounds like a solid plan, but there are several ways to go about that that I can think of off the top of my head:
1. I could add some territories to existing continents, leaving the number of continents intact and thus keeping the board on the simple side.
2. I could add some territories to America, Asia, and what would become Oceanea, and split the world into six continents again (which is somewhat against the simplifying spirit of the map)
3. If I'm putting in some New island nation off Australia, I might as well put in Japan, and the Caribbeans, and Madagascar, and then I might as well just give some complicated bonuses for holding more than one island territory to make up for the fact that it's so difficult to gain more than 11 territories for 3 territorial armies a turn.
4. Something else. I'm sure there are other great possibilities.
Incidentally, whom d'ya have to see around here to get a poll changed?

Thirdwise,

Captain Crash wrote:

also fireedud wrote:take away the penguins at the top of the page, either put them at the bottom or put polar bears there because penguins live in anatartica and polarbears live in the artic

Agreed

Well, I'm glad to tell you that I'm quite aware of usual Penguin habitation practices; the joke was meant that the hypothetical child who is drawing the world is not.

That, or they're auks. I like auks.

add territories to continents- i dont think they deserve the bonuses they have at the moment anyway. dont add more continents, like you said, unsimplifies it.

and i dont know if this was addressed or not, but both your pics have been scanned or photographs of a drawing. are you planning on making a digital picture? cuz i think its necessary.

It's been taking a while; I guess I do get carried away with aesthetics. I'll fix up something quick later today (or tomorrow if I have too much work today) and worry about prettifying it up later.

Evil DIMwit wrote:Incidentally, whom d'ya have to see around here to get a poll changed?

We used to PM Andy... now I think you can also PM keyogi.

Enigma wrote:both your pics have been scanned or photographs of a drawing. are you planning on making a digital picture? cuz i think its necessary.

I don't think it is necessary. You need to fiddle with your scanner settings a bit to improve color and contrast, and maybe draw it larger and shrink it down more after scanning, but I love the hand drawn look. Since you have a white background it should be easy to redraw only parts of the map and composite them in the computer.

Evil DIMwit wrote:adding two or three territories sounds like a solid plan

The argument seems to be that you need enough territories for everyone to have 5 cards... but I'm not sure that's true. What will happen if there aren't enough cards? We really don't know. I bet it doesn't break the game, though... if so, CC should be fixed to allow for fewer than 30 territories (or 40 if 8 player games are ever added). It should just double up on the cards.

Generally I love this map. It doesn't push the smallest map as far as Russian Roulette did, but maybe it pushes it just enough.

EvilOtto wrote:Generally I love this map. It doesn't push the smallest map as far as Russian Roulette did, but maybe it pushes it just enough.

I LOVE the idea of a really small map!
But I think Andy or Keyogi needs to tell us if:
1) The number of players can be limited, and
2) What happens if cards issued exceed the cards 'available' based on number of countries.

Answer to '2' may make the answer to '1' irrelevant.

Which map should be?

The crayon one
36% [ 24 ]
Satire, small
4% [ 3 ]
Satire, large
4% [ 3 ]
Crayon and Satire, small
16% [ 11 ]
Crayon and Satire, large
6% [ 4 ]
Neither you jerk. And where's New Zealand?
30% [ 20 ]

Total Votes : 65

new zealand almost won.

I am honestly quite shocked that it didn't

On the contrary. 30% voted for neither, but a total of 58% wanted to see the crayon map, and 30% in total wanted to see the satire map done.

spockers just doesn't like the idea... but that's OK, he never has to play it!

I understand the question now DIMwit...

The answer is that the cards aren't really affected by the game...

In a real game of Risk you would have physical cards 1 per territory...

However here at CC the cards are completely random and in fact I've noticed they do not actually limit themselves... If you check back through your game logs you will probably notice that the same card can be cashed in several times in a row and with different colours... (Unlike in physical Risk where the territory is a set colour)

However thinking about it more clearly - You never hold 2 of the same countries when you take someone down... Thus perhaps the engine does only allocate cards from a limited pool... thus for a 6 player game 30 cards could be in play at one time...

However there have been test cases where players will outnumber territories - and thus cards... the Battle Royales? Might be worth checking through their logs to see what happened in them... see if you can count the cards going through the system...

If not then ask Lack to set you up a test game with say 10 people in (whom you know) and just accumulate as many cards as you can... and keep everyone upto date with who has what cards...

C.

PS Here's a thought - are the cards in Risk actually chosen to be a set type to a set country? I wonder if anyone has ever analysed that?

The cards used to be limited but the game crashed when it ran out of cards during a battle royale.

Lack changed the program so once all the cards have been dealt it now deals duplicates.

It will be worth checking if that applies to all games or just the battle royales.

The colors are randomely selected each time a card is dealt. They are not set for each country.


Even if you got two cards for the same country, It would just deploy 2 armies on that country twice, so you would get 4 armies for that country.


Is there going to be an updated map, or are we still trying to figure out if this small of a map is even possible?

wcaclimbing wrote:Is there going to be an updated map, or are we still trying to figure out if this small of a map is even possible?

I'm rather on the optimistic side now; a map is on its way. It won't be particularly flashy yet, but it'll serve until I figure out some nice crayon effect.

Edit:



And here we go. Not brilliant, but getting there.
So any comments and/or brilliant ideas at this point?

Evil DIMwit wrote:

wcaclimbing wrote:Is there going to be an updated map, or are we still trying to figure out if this small of a map is even possible?

I'm rather on the optimistic side now; a map is on its way. It won't be particularly flashy yet, but it'll serve until I figure out some nice crayon effect.

Edit:



And here we go. Not brilliant, but getting there.
So any comments and/or brilliant ideas at this point?

Love the bonus scheme - sadly I don't think everyone will get it!!

C.

i know its been said, but is this just not too small. and i think you need to make it clear which green (asian) countries border other continents as there is a ga it could be confusing

PS 2 easy territories to add (if you still wanted too) would be NZ & Japan.

C.

i don't like this map because the author stole my name