Conquer Club

Beta - Quenching

---The Final Forge period has concluded for the Land and Sea 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 for BETA Play. After an extended period of time in BETA and once all quirks and issues have been resolved, the map will be put into Full Play (barring any Lack vetoes).

Conquer Club, enjoy!

--Andy

Great job!

.44

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !



thanks first to gimil for being a very pleasant, understanding, and capable partner in crime. thanks to people giving feedback/posting in the thread. thanks to people who didn't post in the thread. thanks to the CAs. thanks to me...I'm great.

right now I have zero games which I've enjoyed immensely after a couple years of games everyday. yikes. soon I have will have some games again! but only for a little while.

Nice Job!

It's live!


--Andy

NA4 is coded incorrectly. (on Larger map)

Wolffystyle wrote:NA4 is coded incorrectly.

Damn he beat me

Probably my fault for keeping all versions up on ripway, but did you guys upload from …LS.xml not …las.xml ? That'd be your problem

So correct and current XML is at: http://h1.ripway.com/killing44/las.xml
.44

Perhaps we could add 'Ocean' to the oceanic bonuses to make it sound better rather than just 'Indian'?

I like how it is currently. Plus then there's an argument to add "Ocean" to the legend and that's busy work for gimil. no "intensity", Gilligan. but thanks for the thought.

PM sent to andy RE the coordinate being off

Play seems decent. However, a couple of small points. EU9 looks a LOT like EU4. This is admittedly something people will learn over time, but right now, its confusing. Maybe make the 9 more "rounded" at the top or something?

Also, the arrows on EU9 are confusing. In the legend, it says that they connect land to water, but it looks as if the arrow jumps over EU9 and does not connect EU9 to IN2 (though the other one does connect to PA1). Maybe you could either note this in the legend or make the arrow look different (perhaps with dots?)

Actually - the bit about arrows says "Land and Sea are only connected by arrows"...

This is to show that all the seas don't border the coast lines... It doesn't mention like for like connections - as they are implied by the arrows which is basic map reading 101?!

C.

I think that the arrows are fine (they may however be a bit unnecessary, but I will let Andy decide on that). It is always good to clarify, especially in a map where there are a fair amount of territories.

With all the petty scrutiny i read everday in the foundry , this map is proof that preferential treatment is given to certain members.. The graphics for starters is not up to par with what is being expected in the foundry.. Is this map drawn to scale? Much of the water territories are huge and therefore they take from areas where the circles dont even fit in the region.Also how were the attack routes figured out.. No part of the US can even attack the water .And the east coast of africa not attacking the water either. Now thats just silly. But the gulf of mexico can attack the pacific ocean I give this a thumbs down .all the way down .. IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

danfrank wrote:IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

I'm pretty sure the mapmakers didn't have reality in mind when creating this map. In fact I think edbeard stated right away that he was concerned only with the gameplay. I'm glad he approached it this way.

I'm in round 5 of a 3 player game and I'm enjoying it quite a bit. I'm dominating in Territs, but I definitely don't feel like I'm winning. I think the land to sea connections are spread out well to make sure that the game is balanced, but still affording some strongholds.

I love the graphics because they don't try to re-create history or geography class, although I do appreciate that in other maps on the site. It is nice to play a game that looks like a game.

As for preferential treatment, I wouldn't know anything about that. I did skim through this thread and there was certainly resistance to the development of the map. It seems to me that all reasonable requests/concerns were addressed.

I'm definitely giving it a thumbs up and I'm sure I'll play it again.

danfrank wrote:IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

Panama canal

Danyael wrote:

danfrank wrote:IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

Panama canal

While I appreciate seeing the concerns of more and more CC users being expressed here in the foundry, I must say that timing is important as well. This is a case of folks coming in WAY too late to point out something they don't like in a map. Everything that you guys have brought up was discussed months ago. Let's continue...

danfrank wrote:With all the petty scrutiny i read everday in the foundry , this map is proof that preferential treatment is given to certain members.

No, this is proof that not enough CC users take part in the mapmaking process. This map has been in the works for eight months, yet some critics choose to show up after the map has been quenched and make accusations about how this map received preferential treatment. Give me a break. I was the gameplay stamper on this one, and here is one of my many concerns about this map that received no support (from November 6):

oaktown wrote:I can't help but wince when I consider the real-life ramifications behind some of the land-sea connections. The Arctic's only landfall is in Alaska, while seagoing countries like Scotland don't? Quebec has access to the Atlantic while the Eastern US doesn't? The only Pacific port in North America is in Mexico? The only Pacific port in Asia is up where the ports freeze every winter?

Anything here sound familiar? I also lobbied for the addition of the Mediterranean Sea and the Panama Canal. I didn't see either of you guys backing me up on these suggestions. In fact nobody did. So the mapmakers proceeded, and rightly so.

The map is solid from a gameplay perspective. The graphics are clean and user friendly. Those CC users who were good enough to visit the thread and participate were comfortable with the connections as is. Those who did not participate in this map's production can now choose to play it or not. But please, before you go accusing folks of something, do your homework.

oaktown wrote:The map is solid from a gameplay perspective. The graphics are clean and user friendly. Those CC users who were good enough to visit the thread and participate were comfortable with the connections as is. Those who did not participate in this map's production can now choose to play it or not. But please, before you go accusing folks of something, do your homework.

i agree with that the map is great and follows the good old KISS rule

Danyael wrote:

danfrank wrote:IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

Panama canal

i followed the map but when i saw it i thought that is awesome nice and simple it stayed that way and enjoy that fact

the reason for posting that because its obvious and if you look at it realistically first thing comes to mind is panama canal is the passage from pa4 to at3 and the one that is in2 to pa1 huge boating passage between thailand and oceania it makes perfect sense!!

oaktown wrote:No, this is proof that not enough CC users take part in the mapmaking process. This map has been in the works for eight months, yet some critics choose to show up after the map has been quenched and make accusations about how this map received preferential treatment. Give me a break. I was the gameplay stamper on this one, and here is one of my many concerns about this map that received no support (from November 6):

This statement alone is proof of preferential treatment.. I havent read the thread all the way through but i will take your word for it.. No support since november 6th that makes 7 months to date aproxiamately.. Funny how there is a map in the foundry that consists of bow and arrows was not supported for a certain amount of time and had all stamps removed..
The last thing i want is toe to toe with you oak i like your maps but i would say you look better without that foot..

Congratulations for the map!

danfrank wrote:But the gulf of mexico can attack the pacific ocean I give this a thumbs down .all the way down .. IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

Why not... ever heard of the panama canal?

C.

danfrank wrote:But the gulf of mexico can attack the pacific ocean I give this a thumbs down .all the way down .. IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

Many maps on Conquer Club are not "realistic" in any sense. World 2.1 doesn't have country in the world---it combines a number of to make certain regions. Caribbean Islands--the ships in the ocean should theoretically be able to assault any island, yeah? But they don't---some things are altered for game play reasons.


--Andy

Just started a game on this map and one player started with all 3 Oceania territories for an instant bonus of +2.

Seems like this is an ideal spot to have at least one starting neutral.

Possibly fix the borders for ocean parts that touch land territories that they can't attack (example: IN2 and EU7.)

Their touching is unnecessary and confusing. Change the borders a bit, and for certain other instances (AT5/AT7/AF5 border, etc. etc.)

Other than stuff like that, good map. Maybe less confusing territory names than just the "codes," though.

danfrank wrote:With all the petty scrutiny i read everday in the foundry , this map is proof that preferential treatment is given to certain members.. The graphics for starters is not up to par with what is being expected in the foundry.. Is this map drawn to scale? Much of the water territories are huge and therefore they take from areas where the circles dont even fit in the region.Also how were the attack routes figured out.. No part of the US can even attack the water .And the east coast of africa not attacking the water either. Now thats just silly. But the gulf of mexico can attack the pacific ocean I give this a thumbs down .all the way down .. IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

Due to my lack of slight inactivity I couldn't get to this earlier. I have always been very open minded about critical feedback however you post above isn't critical and I find it highly offence and insulting. If you are going to acuse me of benefitting of favoritism at least do it with some kind of critical thinking and not through your own biased (it would seem) opinion.

Sorry for being direct and a little offensive but you as a member of the community have offended me when all I have ever done it contribute to this site.

I hope you understand.