Conquer Club

why would anyone fight to have the dust bowl?

mybike_yourface wrote:why would anyone fight to have the dust bowl?

RjBeals wrote:

Final Links:
http://www.rjbeals.com/dustbowl/finals6 ... 8Large.jpg
http://www.rjbeals.com/dustbowl/finals6 ... 0Small.jpg

XML Stays same.
These are ready to replace the live maps now.

nice work again rj

I have a problem with people purposely missing turns to
avoid the dustbowl penalty and then ending up with
multiplied armies for the rounds they missed.

did they lose 2 armies on their dustbowl territories?

edbeard wrote:did they lose 2 armies on their dustbowl territories?

No they don't - this is a valid point - but I don't know what could be done to solve... shy of missed turn processing automagically running the autodeploy code... also - that would occur for "killer neutrals" too?!

In fact - I've raised it in the suggs & Bugs...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ?p=1104147

C.

I just wanted to point out a misspelling in the Dust Bowl map. Dalhart, TX is spelled wrong. Whoever created the map spelled it Dallhart. It is actually Dalhart.

redjohnny wrote:I just wanted to point out a misspelling in the Dust Bowl map. Dalhart, TX is spelled wrong. Whoever created the map spelled it Dallhart. It is actually Dalhart.

Thank you.
Since the revised maps haven't been updated yet, I'll fix the spelling and repost (both XML and Large / Small Maps).

RjBeals wrote:

redjohnny wrote:I just wanted to point out a misspelling in the Dust Bowl map. Dalhart, TX is spelled wrong. Whoever created the map spelled it Dallhart. It is actually Dalhart.

Thank you.
Since the revised maps haven't been updated yet, I'll fix the spelling and repost (both XML and Large / Small Maps).

don't forget to put links this time

DiM wrote:

RjBeals wrote:

redjohnny wrote:I just wanted to point out a misspelling in the Dust Bowl map. Dalhart, TX is spelled wrong. Whoever created the map spelled it Dallhart. It is actually Dalhart.

Thank you.
Since the revised maps haven't been updated yet, I'll fix the spelling and repost (both XML and Large / Small Maps).

don't forget to put links this time

Damn - just noticed that the map was replaced. I don't think I'm going to change the spelling. It's not that big of deal really.

RjBeals wrote:Damn - just noticed that the map was replaced. I don't think I'm going to change the spelling. It's not that big of deal really.

don't get lazy

True dat.

I'm not sure if this is part of the update above, but I've just noticed that the XML has Dalhart, while the map has Dallhart...

Hmm... I was wondering if it would be more fair to start all the dustbowl territ's as a neutral +1. I know during map creation this was discussed about starting neutrals and unlucky drops, but I've played some games where due to a bad starting drop, players have had absolutely no chance of winning. Is this worth revisiting, or letting it stay as luck of the drop?

RjBeals wrote:Hmm... I was wondering if it would be more fair to start all the dustbowl territ's as a neutral +1. I know during map creation this was discussed about starting neutrals and unlucky drops, but I've played some games where due to a bad starting drop, players have had absolutely no chance of winning. Is this worth revisiting, or letting it stay as luck of the drop?

Let it stay - shit happens.

C.

I just had a 1v1 where I dropped with 6 of my 12 territories in the dust. Then I lost all 4 from my deployment on bad dice. There's no chance I can win.

Night Strike wrote:I just had a 1v1 where I dropped with 6 of my 12 territories in the dust. Then I lost all 4 from my deployment on bad dice. There's no chance I can win.

I had about the same. Dropped 7 in the dust which i lost. I won the game.. but still.

I knew this would happen.

Yes Shit Happens - but it may be bad enough where 1 game with an unlucky drop, and the player will not play the map again for fear it will happen again. My vote is to leave it be also I guess, simply because I'm done with the map, and focused on my next project - but if this keeps rising to the top, and the staff agrees, then I'll have no choice but to re-open the map.

I just had a thought; could all the dustbowl territories start with 4, so on the first turn they decay to 3 rather than 2?
I'm not sure what I think of that, but it might be a way to mitigate against the drop?

MrBenn wrote:I just had a thought; could all the dustbowl territories start with 4, so on the first turn they decay to 3 rather than 2?
I'm not sure what I think of that, but it might be a way to mitigate against the drop?

Yeti, is this possible?

MrBenn wrote:I just had a thought; could all the dustbowl territories start with 4, so on the first turn they decay to 3 rather than 2?
I'm not sure what I think of that, but it might be a way to mitigate against the drop?

Yes - with a lot of coding... every single territory would need to be a "<position>" - and you could then set them to 4...

This would have a sideeffect of eliminating the 3rd Neutral player in 1v1 games though.

C.

That sounds like a bit too much effort...

Thinking about it, you'd get complaints about people starting with more armies... (ie if you went 1st, all the dust would have 4s on them)

An excellent map and nice game. I just finished listening to the audio version of the Timothy Egan book, The Worst Hard Time. Very striking story and reflective of the fact that we as humans CAN have a nearly immediate, measurable affect on the environment.

Thanks for your great work here!

exclaim wrote:An excellent map and nice game. I just finished listening to the audio version of the Timothy Egan book, The Worst Hard Time. Very striking story and reflective of the fact that we as humans CAN have a nearly immediate, measurable affect on the environment.

Thanks for your great work here!

.
Your Welcome. Inspiration from reading that book is why I created this map. Glad you like it!