Conquer Club

cairnswk wrote:

cairnswk wrote:I hate to be pushy here again, but is this ready for gameplay stamp?

I have same question here, under the new foundry policy, if i am awaiting gameplay comment and don't do a graphics update for a month, does this map also get thrown in the recycling bin?

You posted an update on the 1st. You'll get GP comments before the 30 days hits, I promise.

nolefan5311 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

cairnswk wrote:I hate to be pushy here again, but is this ready for gameplay stamp?

I have same question here, under the new foundry policy, if i am awaiting gameplay comment and don't do a graphics update for a month, does this map also get thrown in the recycling bin?

You posted an update on the 1st. You'll get GP comments before the 30 days hits, I promise.

OK thanks.

A couple of questions/concerns cairns. A major concern I have is the large number of armies players start out with. We saw what kind of problem that presents in Pot Mosbi. I know there needs to be some buffer there with the losing condition, but those large stacks could make it too advantageous to go first.

I don't like that the two land batteries on Gendarmerie and Gaba Teppe have unrestrained ability to bombard the Landing Ships. Those two regions seem to be unnaturally powerful with the ability to bombard my opponents starting positions before he has a chance to play. The battleships can only bombard territories that start n3, or n6 in rare circumstances. I know you want historical accuracy, but having them be able to bombard the landing beaches instead of the battleships would even things up a bit.

The Gameplay notes in the first post don't really indicate this, but will each player be dropped the same amount of Land Positions and/or Landing Ships/Minesweepers? Since a player could potentially drop 3 or 4 more Landing Ships than his opponent, he could potentially start with a large advantage in autodeploy, but be disadvantaged in the amount of land territories he has. Is this just part of the luck?

Will the normal deployment of 1 army for every 3 territories apply?

nolefan5311 wrote:A couple of questions/concerns cairns. A major concern I have is the large number of armies players start out with. We saw what kind of problem that presents in Pot Mosbi. I know there needs to be some buffer there with the losing condition, but those large stacks could make it too advantageous to go first.

OK, forget Battleships...they can only bombard first go and then fort.

starting numbers....60 neutrals and 40 positions distributed less the 8 battleships.

2P: 2 x 13 + 74N
3P: 3 x 13 + 61N
4P: 4 x 10 + 60N
5P: 5 x 8 + 60N
6P: 6 x 6 + 64N
7P: 7 x 5 + 65N
8P: 8 x 5 + 60N

in all games each person will start with 3 army drop, correct?

So,
1. if player places 1 on each of a BS, and landing craft (2), that gives the player 10 armies on first attack to get ashore to conquer at least 6-9 armies before they get within cooey of another player
2. they can chose to make their way through the Dardenelles...big job getting through mines...
3. they can chose to take land positions if they drop close by (randomly)...perhaps increase the land batteries to stop them getting them first go...perhaps 12N
4. or if you feel the numbers are too high...we can drop each start position by 3 to reduce the risk that someone will have lucky first dice.

I don't like that the two land batteries on Gendarmerie and Gaba Teppe have unrestrained ability to bombard the Landing Ships. Those two regions seem to be unnaturally powerful with the ability to bombard my opponents starting positions before he has a chance to play.

Well drop the starting numbers there also by three or more.

The battleships can only bombard territories that start n3, or n6 in rare circumstances.

Yes that was done so as to not take out someone on first go.

I know you want historical accuracy, but having them be able to bombard the landing beaches instead of the battleships would even things up a bit.

Gees, ok i can go with that, but are you gonna get me the extra room i need to display that graphically.

The Gameplay notes in the first post don't really indicate this, but will each player be dropped the same amount of Land Positions and/or Landing Ships/Minesweepers?

No the starting positions are as indicated on the map, and each player will be allocated that as per random drop, so 8 BS positions have to go into the start sequence, plus 32 other positions (if that's possible)

Since a player could potentially drop 3 or 4 more Landing Ships than his opponent, he could potentially start with a large advantage in autodeploy, but be disadvantaged in the amount of land territories he has. Is this just part of the luck?

well that depend on whether we go with the start allocation as above or we lay it out as per similar to Salem, and go with groups of random drop (as i have indicated on the map with what i thought was roughly even distribution.

Will the normal deployment of 1 army for every 3 territories apply?

at this stage yes. don't see why not, unless u can think of some reason not to, but i don't think it is an issue at start....could be wrong.

thanks for ur efforts to make a light-coloured map for me. much appreciated!

cairnswk wrote:

nolefan5311 wrote:A couple of questions/concerns cairns. A major concern I have is the large number of armies players start out with. We saw what kind of problem that presents in Pot Mosbi. I know there needs to be some buffer there with the losing condition, but those large stacks could make it too advantageous to go first.

4. or if you feel the numbers are too high...we can drop each start position by 3 to reduce the risk that someone will have lucky first dice.

6 on each landing ship is more reasonable. if someone deploys on a landing ship at the start, then the initial stack will be 6 plus 2-auto-deploy plus 3 deployment, giving 11 instead of 14. this is still high-ish, but is it decisively so?

cairnswk wrote:

nolefan5311 wrote:I don't like that the two land batteries on Gendarmerie and Gaba Teppe have unrestrained ability to bombard the Landing Ships. Those two regions seem to be unnaturally powerful with the ability to bombard my opponents starting positions before he has a chance to play.

Well drop the starting numbers there also by three or more.

some players will start with an extra landing ship and others an extra minesweeper. do the minesweepers have anything to compensate for their lack of a +2 auto-deploy? or do we have 3 land batteries and pair them with the minesweepers?

ian.

iancanton wrote:thanks for ur efforts to make a light-coloured map for me. much appreciated!

NPs. glad i could help.

iancanton wrote:...

cairnswk wrote:

nolefan5311 wrote:A couple of questions/concerns cairns. A major concern I have is the large number of armies players start out with. We saw what kind of problem that presents in Pot Mosbi. I know there needs to be some buffer there with the losing condition, but those large stacks could make it too advantageous to go first.

4. or if you feel the numbers are too high...we can drop each start position by 3 to reduce the risk that someone will have lucky first dice.

6 on each landing ship is more reasonable. if someone deploys on a landing ship at the start, then the initial stack will be 6 plus 2-auto-deploy plus 3 deployment, giving 11 instead of 14. this is still high-ish, but is it decisively so?

we could always drop minimum deploy to 1 or 2 to reduce that 3, lessening the 11 even more to say 9.

so are you happy with the other "9"s on land starts? are they too high also?

cairnswk wrote:

nolefan5311 wrote:I don't like that the two land batteries on Gendarmerie and Gaba Teppe have unrestrained ability to bombard the Landing Ships. Those two regions seem to be unnaturally powerful with the ability to bombard my opponents starting positions before he has a chance to play.

Well drop the starting numbers there also by three or more.

some players will start with an extra landing ship and others an extra minesweeper. do the minesweepers have anything to compensate for their lack of a +2 auto-deploy? or do we have 3 land batteries and pair them with the minesweepers?
ian.

well, there are 7 starts on turkish side....
my idea was hoping that according somewhat to history....someone would get in there early and have a go at the landing craft...although i would be happy to drop those 9s on the turkish side to 6s if need be.
...and we could also make the mine-sweepers +2/+1 autodeploy to make them fair and match the landing craft?

cairnswk wrote:so are you happy with the other "9"s on land starts? are they too high also?

yes, i see no need for more than 3 on the land starts and landing craft.

can the minesweepers move in both directions?

the forts can bombard regions that are in sight of the dardanelles or narrows. is this everything below and to the right of the peninsula, for example, L3?

ian.

can the minesweepers move in both directions?

MS1,2,3 are starting positions and that area is designed to get those starting positions through the Narrows to land.
there is no bonus for minesweepers, so moving in both directions is kind of irrelevant, as these MS's are bombardable if players want to use them.
I have now placed the one-way arrows at land's edge only.

the forts can bombard regions that are in sight of the dardanelles or narrows. is this everything below and to the right of the peninsula, for example, L3?
ian.

i've changed that to "Forts bombard sea positions in the Narrows or Dardanelles"
this should make it clearer.

iancanton wrote:

cairnswk wrote:so are you happy with the other "9"s on land starts? are they too high also?

yes, i see no need for more than 3 on the land starts and landing craft.

ah...wait a minute....previously you stated:

6 on each landing ship is more reasonable.

so which is it to be? 3 or 6? on landing craft.

For the moment on V29 update...i've changed the land positions to 3 starts and left the landing craft at 6.
Also added that Min, Deploy is 1, not 3.

cairnswk wrote:

can the minesweepers move in both directions?

MS1,2,3 are starting positions and that area is designed to get those starting positions through the Narrows to land.
there is no bonus for minesweepers, so moving in both directions is kind of irrelevant, as these MS's are bombardable if players want to use them.
I have now placed the one-way arrows at land's edge only.

it's a valid question, since a player might want to eliminate an opponent's minesweepers but have no access to forts for bombardment.

cairnswk wrote:

the forts can bombard regions that are in sight of the dardanelles or narrows. is this everything below and to the right of the peninsula, for example, L3?
ian.

i've changed that to "Forts bombard sea positions in the Narrows or Dardanelles"
this should make it clearer.

clearer still will be a slightly lighter shade of green-blue for the dardanelles and narrows, starting gradually east of L5.

cairnswk wrote:Also added that Min, Deploy is 1, not 3.

the landing craft ought to be reasonably safe from the first attack of the game. i dislike the minimum deploy being 1: not only does this reduce choice of deployment and relatively increase the influence of dice, but can lead to a slow, lingering death where a player with 1 region cannot surprise an opponent who deems it advantageous to keep him alive a bit longer.

cairnswk wrote:i've changed the land positions to 3 starts and left the landing craft at 6.

pair kum kale with enrenkui as silver positions? let in pepe border dumbrek and let kum kale land battery be a separate region starting as n1 or n2, so minesweepers have a chance while letting kum kale be vulnerable from more locations?

ian.

^^^ ian, i have taken notice of this and will attend to it when my main system is back onboard.

cairnswk wrote:^^^ ian, i have taken notice of this and will attend to it when my main system is back onboard.

Ian, i think this is what you meant from the above notations...
Version 30.

u've swapped the positions so that each land battery is paired with a minesweeper, which is good.

the two green land positions are very close together, making it relatively easy to eliminate green. the two silvers are also close to each other and to the silver minesweeper. perhaps swap the bigali green with the erenkui silver?

the yellow landing craft can assault kum kale land battery after taking only 3 neutrals, while all other positions except minesweepers are separated by at least 6 neutrals. is this deliberate?

can the m1 and m2 mines attack the three minesweeper positions?

ian.

iancanton wrote:u've swapped the positions so that each land battery is paired with a minesweeper, which is good.

your suggestion

the two green land positions are very close together, making it relatively easy to eliminate green. the two silvers are also close to each other and to the silver minesweeper. perhaps swap the bigali green with the erenkui silver?

Done!

the yellow landing craft can assault kum kale land battery after taking only 3 neutrals, while all other positions except minesweepers are separated by at least 6 neutrals. is this deliberate?

KK Beach given 6 neutrals

can the m1 and m2 mines attack the three minesweeper positions?
ian.

m1 and m2 are killer neutrals, but if you hold them, yes you can attack along the routes indicated.
I have deliberately made a selective path from the the orange blue and silver start positions here, so that there is some strategy between these guys, but if they decide to wipe each other out, they'd be crazy to let it happen on the 1st turn.

Version 31.

Just a masterpiece of artistry and gameplay, amazing work as always cairns.

Only thing I can find are the lines from L11, L12, and L13 are much smaller than any other assault lines, especially L13 which is pretty weak. That one in particular might look better to give it a little more arc up to the "L13", and then back down to the landing point. Rather than coming down and then arcing right into the front of the landing.

Could someone bin this please....i'm not going to have time for it now, thanks.

[Moved]

At the request of the mapmaker, this map has been placed on vacation for a period of 6 months. After the 6 months the map will be considered Abandoned. If the mapmaker wants to continue with the map, then one of the Cartographer Assistants will be able to help put the thread back into the Foundry system, after an update has been made.

isaiah40

Seamus76 wrote:Just a masterpiece of artistry and gameplay, amazing work as always cairns.

Only thing I can find are the lines from L11, L12, and L13 are much smaller than any other assault lines, especially L13 which is pretty weak. That one in particular might look better to give it a little more arc up to the "L13", and then back down to the landing point. Rather than coming down and then arcing right into the front of the landing.

Seamus, i've fixed those things in the new version 32 which i'll post shortly, after some other adjustments.

Version 32
Small changes as outlined from Seamus76 from above, plus adjustments to the spacings in the legend

I am wondering if the gameplay on this map has been finalised from the view of the mods.

Sweet to see this one coming back.

Bruceswar wrote:Sweet to see this one coming back.

Thanks Bruceswar. It's been a long time in development!

I am wondering if gameplay is finalised on this? Perhaps ian canton could comment.

cairnswk wrote:

iancanton wrote:can the m1 and m2 mines attack the three minesweeper positions?
ian.

m1 and m2 are killer neutrals, but if you hold them, yes you can attack along the routes indicated.
I have deliberately made a selective path from the the orange blue and silver start positions here, so that there is some strategy between these guys, but if they decide to wipe each other out, they'd be crazy to let it happen on the 1st turn.

it's a standard tactic in trips and quads to wipe out an opponent from an area before he can play a turn, which is why i raised the question. does ms2 going to ms4 and ms5 instead of to m1 and m2 work any better?

ian.

iancanton wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

iancanton wrote:can the m1 and m2 mines attack the three minesweeper positions?
ian.

m1 and m2 are killer neutrals, but if you hold them, yes you can attack along the routes indicated.
I have deliberately made a selective path from the the orange blue and silver start positions here, so that there is some strategy between these guys, but if they decide to wipe each other out, they'd be crazy to let it happen on the 1st turn.

it's a standard tactic in trips and quads to wipe out an opponent from an area before he can play a turn, which is why i raised the question. does ms2 going to ms4 and ms5 instead of to m1 and m2 work any better?

ian.

ian, sorry i didn't answer this without much thought previously.
i don't think MS2 going to MS4 and MS5 would work any better, and if done that way, would create advantage for MS2 by not having to conquer killer M1 or M2.
What perhaps will work better is if those routes have one-way arrows on them, all the way through to land, so that no-one can turn back and conquer a player behind them.
They will still have to run the gaunlet of someone capturing a fort on either side of the Dardenalles/Narrows though.

Version 33 with those changes

the new one-way minesweeper layout works well.

there are a few regions, such as monash gully and quinn's post, which can be bombarded but have no special property other than the +1 auto-deploy and are not really on the way to anywhere. these are destined to remain neutral in most games, unless u reduce the neutrals to n2.

i think we're at the stage where we can freeze the layout (freeing u to work on graphics) and the only gameplay changes to consider, if any, will be neutrals and bonuses.

ian.

iancanton wrote:the new one-way minesweeper layout works well.
there are a few regions, such as monash gully and quinn's post, which can be bombarded but have no special property other than the +1 auto-deploy and are not really on the way to anywhere. these are destined to remain neutral in most games, unless u reduce the neutrals to n2.

OK, thanks ian. do you have in mind which terts you want reduced apart from monahs gully and quinn's post?

i think we're at the stage where we can freeze the layout (freeing u to work on graphics) and the only gameplay changes to consider, if any, will be neutrals and bonuses.
ian.

can we get the gameplay finalised as much as possible before i tend to more graphics?