Conquer Club

koontz1973 wrote:Shape, double posts are a no no. Please put everything into one post. As for being a fan of neutrals, I am with you their but they are needed. How can you not be a fan when you only have 1 game finished.

3 games I've played Risk many a time, and mostly as the four-player version. My friends and I set up the board much the same as Conquer Club does, though we used the black troops as neutral to fill in the extra spots. Those black troops were the bane of my existence every game, I swear. If you think CC dice is bad, you don't know jack! And I know neutral troops are needed, especially in this instance; I'm not suggesting zero neutral troops, just 1.

-Shape

Shape wrote:Those black troops were the bane of my existence every game,

I always played black.

Quick graphics suggestion:
The contours you have around the land in the sea (the bits which look like waves breaking on the beach): you could try having them in order of decreasing opacity, the make them blend into the sea like a gradient.
ie. the one nearest the coast have at 80% opacity, the next at 60% etc.
See how it looks.

Also, the symbol you've used for one-way attack doesn't actually indicate which direction it's going in like an arrow does.

ManBungalow wrote:Quick graphics suggestion:
The contours you have around the land in the sea (the bits which look like waves breaking on the beach): you could try having them in order of decreasing opacity, the make them blend into the sea like a gradient.
ie. the one nearest the coast have at 80% opacity, the next at 60% etc.
See how it looks.

I think that will look pretty good actually. Thanks for the suggestion.

ManBungalow wrote:Also, the symbol you've used for one-way attack doesn't actually indicate which direction it's going in like an arrow does.

Yeah, those arrows aren't working, they're antique clock hands, but I'll have something different for the next update. Just trying to get those Three Kingdom mountains all worked out at the moment, but will have an update this week.

Thanks for the feedback.

I'll be posting an update for this in the next day or two, which will include small boat names, we're there any other thoughts?

None from me for now.

I love this one!

Kschame1 wrote:I love this one!

Thanks so much. Any feedback is greatly appreciated.

Seamus76 wrote:I'll be posting an update for this in the next day or two, which will include small boat names, we're there any other thoughts?

koontz1973 wrote:None from me for now.

I think once the GCCM is over I'll use these quotes as my new signature.

One question, how do you see the outpost attack-ability explanation working best? Right now there are basically two terts in each of those terts, but I want the outpost to only be attacked by the region it's within, so the way it is looks now is a little ambiguous as to what attacks what. Would it be better to use the routes to go through the one army circle and then to the outpost to indicate a line of attack, or would there be some other way to show this instead of having to take room to explain that "Outposts are only attacked by the tert they are within", etc. Thoughts?

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-04-09:
- Added all of the small boat names.
- Redid the title in the same "antique" style as the rest of the text.
- Brought out the Aleutians mini-map image more.

This is from the last update, and despite the conversations on the topic I would like to continue seeking feedback on these:

- Expedition Routes and Base Camps. What do you all think? The idea is that these expedition routes provide an additional bonus opportunity, and at the same time "break up" the larger bonus regions, by providing bonuses within them, which was a concern for a few people.
--- The Base Camps could use some work, and I'm sure they will change, so I'm more interested in the gameplay behind them. Basically the idea for them is that they provide a resting point for the expedition, which has faced harsh terrain and the loss of 1 explorer per turn.
---- My thought is that the base camp sits within it's tert, and can only be attacked by the tert it's within. Would it be best to leave it the way it is, or have the route go the tert army circle then the base camp army circle, to show the connection?

I know there have been some comments on this, but I'm looking for some more feedback - As for the docks, and which ship sets they attack, is it clear? Right now it looks like St Lawrence is attacked by both the Bearing Sea ships, and the Chukchi Sea, depending on if the orientation of the dock determines which waters attacks it. (I don't mind it being attacked by both, just wondering.) Or should St Lawrence dock be turned up so that it goes into Chukchi rather than looking like both. This would give those two ship sets two docks, and the 3 in Bearing Sea only 2. Thoughts?

Things to do (among other things):
- Change the large boat/small boat one-way attack arrows.
- Put a lighter glow behind the tert names to make them stand out more, especially on the smaller islands, etc.
- Add the rest of the general aesthetic stuff.

CURRENT MAP VERSION

v3.1 - Large (840x800)

Insert cricket noise here...

There's some good stuff here, enough to move this one forward imo.

I think Aleutian Islands are a bit overpowered...I understand there's a the decay for the expedition route, but the position let me think that is the best place to start.
I don't like so much the fact that the Southwest islands can't be reached using the very same bonus regions; that bonus region looks very hard to grab and hold imo.

Apart the above thoughts, if no one has additional input for this map project I will move it within the next 48 hours.

Nobodies

thenobodies80 wrote:There's some good stuff here, enough to move this one forward imo.

I think Aleutian Islands are a bit overpowered...I understand there's a the decay for the expedition route, but the position let me think that is the best place to start.
I don't like so much the fact that the Southwest islands can't be reached using the very same bonus regions; that bonus region looks very hard to grab and hold imo.

Apart the above thoughts, if no one has additional input for this map project I will move it within the next 48 hours.

Nobodies

Thanks TNB.

What would you suggest for the Aleutians? Also, keep in mind Dutch Harbor does border three of the ships, which will be auto deploying, so if someone really wanted to break a bonus it wouldn't be as hard as you're thinking, maybe? Not sure.

I understand about the islands, as there are islands for the Aleutians, and Inside Passage as well that do not connect. Those Islands I did put docks on so as to at least have them attackable from other areas, but I see what you mean. What would be your thoughts to fixing that? My only thought was to add sea routs back to their respective region, which isn't a big deal, but might need some major highlighting to stand out. As an example has anyone noticed the sea route from Klawak to Ketchikan in the very bottom right corner of the Inside Passage? It's kind of hard to see, and the others to be added will be so short they will be hard to see as well, with out some major highlighting or something else creative.

Maybe once it's moved to the main foundry there will be some good thoughts. Thanks again, and if anyone has anything to help just let me know.

Seamus76 wrote:

thenobodies80 wrote:There's some good stuff here, enough to move this one forward imo.

I think Aleutian Islands are a bit overpowered...I understand there's a the decay for the expedition route, but the position let me think that is the best place to start.
I don't like so much the fact that the Southwest islands can't be reached using the very same bonus regions; that bonus region looks very hard to grab and hold imo.

Apart the above thoughts, if no one has additional input for this map project I will move it within the next 48 hours.

Nobodies

Thanks TNB.

What would you suggest for the Aleutians? Also, keep in mind Dutch Harbor does border three of the ships, which will be auto deploying, so if someone really wanted to break a bonus it wouldn't be as hard as you're thinking, maybe? Not sure.

I understand about the islands, as there are islands for the Aleutians, and Inside Passage as well that do not connect. Those Islands I did put docks on so as to at least have them attackable from other areas, but I see what you mean. What would be your thoughts to fixing that? My only thought was to add sea routs back to their respective region, which isn't a big deal, but might need some major highlighting to stand out. As an example has anyone noticed the sea route from Klawak to Ketchikan in the very bottom right corner of the Inside Passage? It's kind of hard to see, and the others to be added will be so short they will be hard to see as well, with out some major highlighting or something else creative.

Maybe once it's moved to the main foundry there will be some good thoughts. Thanks again, and if anyone has anything to help just let me know.

TNB, just checking to see if you had any thoughts on this?

Seamus76 wrote:

Seamus76 wrote:

thenobodies80 wrote:There's some good stuff here, enough to move this one forward imo.

I think Aleutian Islands are a bit overpowered...I understand there's a the decay for the expedition route, but the position let me think that is the best place to start.
I don't like so much the fact that the Southwest islands can't be reached using the very same bonus regions; that bonus region looks very hard to grab and hold imo.

Apart the above thoughts, if no one has additional input for this map project I will move it within the next 48 hours.

Nobodies

Thanks TNB.

What would you suggest for the Aleutians? Also, keep in mind Dutch Harbor does border three of the ships, which will be auto deploying, so if someone really wanted to break a bonus it wouldn't be as hard as you're thinking, maybe? Not sure.

I understand about the islands, as there are islands for the Aleutians, and Inside Passage as well that do not connect. Those Islands I did put docks on so as to at least have them attackable from other areas, but I see what you mean. What would be your thoughts to fixing that? My only thought was to add sea routs back to their respective region, which isn't a big deal, but might need some major highlighting to stand out. As an example has anyone noticed the sea route from Klawak to Ketchikan in the very bottom right corner of the Inside Passage? It's kind of hard to see, and the others to be added will be so short they will be hard to see as well, with out some major highlighting or something else creative.

Maybe once it's moved to the main foundry there will be some good thoughts. Thanks again, and if anyone has anything to help just let me know.

TNB, just checking to see if you had any thoughts on this?

To quote my favorite band of all time, Pink Floyd, Is there anybody out there?

Okay, I have some thoughts on this map but I understand there are different stages for gameplay, graphics and suchlike - so what stage are we at? Just want to make sure my comments are relevant.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Okay, I have some thoughts on this map but I understand there are different stages for gameplay, graphics and suchlike - so what stage are we at? Just want to make sure my comments are relevant.

All comments are welcome at any stage, so let'm rip. Some people are more into graphics, some more into gameplay, etc. I'll take whatever feedback I can get on this one, but technically it's still a "Draft", with Gameplay next, then Graphics, but again you can post whatever feedback you'd like, it's all helpful and appreciated.

I guess for me, Gameplay would be where I'd like the most feedback at this time, as I really like the Graphics for the most part.

Seamus76 wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Okay, I have some thoughts on this map but I understand there are different stages for gameplay, graphics and suchlike - so what stage are we at? Just want to make sure my comments are relevant.

All comments are welcome at any stage, so let'm rip. Some people are more into graphics, some more into gameplay, etc. I'll take whatever feedback I can get on this one, but technically it's still a "Draft", with Gameplay next, then Graphics, but again you can post whatever feedback you'd like, it's all helpful and appreciated.

I guess for me, Gameplay would be where I'd like the most feedback at this time, as I really like the Graphics for the most part.

Cool. I quite like the graphics as well, but the ports could be more obvious and I don't really like the text for the territories. It works well with the purple but everywhere else I think it looks too sharp. There are parts where it is fainter like Colville compared to Nigalek. Finally, it's very hard to read in some of the red and orange regions because of the borders.

Now in terms of gameplay, I'm assuming the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea are separate bodies of water, based on the placing of the names? I find that quite confusing as when you explain the Small Boats in their bodies of water, I'm not entirely sure where the bodies of water start and end, apart from the Gulf of Alaska. I can work it out from common sense, but it should be made more obvious - and I could still be wrong.

Based on the number of borders that need defending, and comparing to other bonuses, I think Interior should only be +7.

Maybe I'm being stupid, but what exactly is the point of the Small Boats and Exploration Ships? Do the Ships form part of the Expedition Routes? If not I just don't see the point in them.

Thanks for the feedback. I have an update ready which should help with a couple of the issues, but see below for specifics.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Cool. I quite like the graphics as well, but the ports could be more obvious and I don't really like the text for the territories. It works well with the purple but everywhere else I think it looks too sharp. There are parts where it is fainter like Colville compared to Nigalek. Finally, it's very hard to read in some of the red and orange regions because of the borders.

I see what you mean for the sharpness, and the next update will make all of the text soft like Colville. Also, you're right about the names that cross the borders, which I've been working to fix, and the next update should fix that as well. So, once that's posted I'd love you're thoughts again.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Now in terms of gameplay, I'm assuming the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea are separate bodies of water, based on the placing of the names? I find that quite confusing as when you explain the Small Boats in their bodies of water, I'm not entirely sure where the bodies of water start and end, apart from the Gulf of Alaska. I can work it out from common sense, but it should be made more obvious - and I could still be wrong.

You're right on this again. If you check the last update info in the OP you'll see that's one of the major GP issues I'd like to address. As you stated, those are the three Seas, and right now I think it could be more clear as well, but what would be some thoughts as to fixing that, anyone? I could use some kind of texture for each one, a different color for each maybe variations on light blue (this is my least favorite, as I'd like to keep the color to the land, and not use anything for the waters). Other thoughts?

iAmCaffeine wrote:Based on the number of borders that need defending, and comparing to other bonuses, I think Interior should only be +7.

I really don't have a preference either way, I think the +8 came from some of the CA's. This should be something we can confirm once this is Draft stamped and moved to the main foundry. HINT HINT!!

iAmCaffeine wrote:Maybe I'm being stupid, but what exactly is the point of the Small Boats and Exploration Ships? Do the Ships form part of the Expedition Routes? If not I just don't see the point in them.

Good question. The overall theme of the map is charting/exploration, and there are multiple parts that independently come together to support that theme. The main ones being the ships, which help provide reinforcements and supplies to the mainland. The other part are the exploration routes, which to your point do not technically start with a ship landing point, but again support the overall theme of exploration, and provide additional gameplay bonuses and strategies. Both of these also independently support the theme of traversing one of the harshest climates and terrains in the world, one, with the killer neutral small boats, two, the -1 per tert along the expedition routes. Lol, I'm not sure that helps at all, but I guess think of them independently together.

Seamus, get the update posted for me so I can start to look at the GP.

koontz1973 wrote:Seamus, get the update posted for me so I can start to look at the GP. *HINT* *HINT*

Fixed!

isaiah40 wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Seamus, get the update posted for me so I can start to look at the GP. *HINT* *HINT*

Fixed!

I don't get it.

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-04-23:
- Changed all of the one way boat lines of attack arrows. They should be clear now.
- Added sea routes from all islands to their bonus region.
- Toned down all of the text to match Colville, as discussed earlier.
- Took some of the border from under the tert names that crossed them, so they stand out more. Also added a white outer glow to some of them to see what they look like.
- Took out the Docks, I tried to do Ports, but they didn't look right, so I went with these Anchors. I like how they look, but now there is an even bigger problem of distinguishing which "body of water" they belong to. If anyone has a good port or a better dock to use, I'd love to take a look. Instead, it might be better to just have all outbound small boats attack all ports, no? Or what's the thought now? For these I included a couple 888's to show how they would go with the anchors.

This is from the last update, and despite the conversations on the topic I would like to continue seeking feedback on these:

- Expedition Routes and Base Camps. What do you all think? The idea is that these expedition routes provide an additional bonus opportunity, and at the same time "break up" the larger bonus regions, by providing bonuses within them, which was a concern for a few people.
--- The Base Camps could use some work, and I'm sure they will change, so I'm more interested in the gameplay behind them. Basically the idea for them is that they provide a resting point for the expedition, which has faced harsh terrain and the loss of 1 explorer per turn.
---- My thought is that the base camp sits within it's tert, and can only be attacked by the tert it's within. Would it be best to leave it the way it is, or have the route go the tert army circle then the base camp army circle, to show the connection?

*See Above As Well for Updated Ports and Thoughts* - I know there have been some comments on this, but I'm looking for some more feedback - As for the docks, and which ship sets they attack, is it clear? Right now it looks like St Lawrence is attacked by both the Bearing Sea ships, and the Chukchi Sea, depending on if the orientation of the dock determines which waters attacks it. (I don't mind it being attacked by both, just wondering.) Or should St Lawrence dock be turned up so that it goes into Chukchi rather than looking like both. This would give those two ship sets two docks, and the 3 in Bearing Sea only 2. Thoughts?

CURRENT MAP VERSION

v4.0 - Large (840x800)

OK then. The calm before the storm.

Base camps. These all need names putting on. Even a simple BC1, BC2 would suffice. You have multiples so a way if identifying them is needed. Even if you had planned to call them Kaktovik Base Cam in the xml, you need to have some identifier on the map.
Kaktovik, take the army circle of the base camp. It will get lost behind the numbers. Mainly on the small map.
And going in the other direction, put the army circles for the regions onto the route.

All ports connect. This is fine and allows easy movement.
and small boats within their body of water.
change to:
All ports connect to each other.
Small boats border ports in their seas.

You need to split up the seas on the map. Which boat belongs to which sea?

for the exploration ships, remove the reinforcements reference. This is an explorers map, not an attack map. Also, lower the auto deploy to a 2. That is a lot of troops to give for a boat and after a couple of rounds, a lot of troops to give.

Make the bottom right of the map fatter. You now have no room for the 88s let alone the 888s. You have three regions (Sitka, Wrangell and Klawak) in need of making bigger.

That should give you some things to think about.

koontz1973 wrote:You need to split up the seas on the map. Which boat belongs to which sea?

I'm working on the next update, but the above is what I mainly need help with. I don't really want to add more colors, or more lines, but lines in the background might be the best way to go. Thoughts?

For your seas, make sure the boats are within the lines noted, but you can darken the degree lines. You might need to shift one. The you can put the names of the seas along the lines in a far smaller text.

Move Trident to the right, darken the 60 line and put the seas names on either side of it. Alaska one side, Bering the other. That will solve all problems.