Conquer Club

I THINK this is where you post rough drafts.

Based on a board game by an awesome German company called Mayfair games, this map takes place on a continent where you get bonuses for resources held by your town. The boar game itself is nothing like risk (So this is sorta like the monopoly map idea(s) that have been around.)

Territores:
86
61 start neutral
25 starting territories

Bonuses:
Not yet determined

Continents:
None

Current version [v 2.1]:

Changed what seemed to be the worst hexes so that numbers show up better, and altered the shape of towns so that they take up less space in the hexes.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


So, the idea is that you hold cities to gain access to the resources they sit on. certain resources will earn you certain bonuses. (which I haven't set yet...)

Cities all start neutral (with a value also not set yet)

Cities can SHARE resources along their roads.

I would like to make this a map for a lot of armies, like City Mogul. Get 5 for each starting territory, bonuses earning anywhere from 15 to 30, etc.

So, let the criticism begin.

P.S. I'm using Photoshop (CS3)

Previous versions:

Version 2.0:




Version 1.0:




Added the roads. Roads and city positions may be altered basically infinitely. If there were such a system, I could make up several different layouts, one of which would be chosen at random for each game. Sorta like random map, but with but the different "versions" of this map, but that'd be up to admin. I doubt it.

Version 1.1:

Is this Settlers of Catan?

Did we read the first post? Yes. =)

Will there be a copy right issue?

Well, I don't think copyright will be an issue, as long as you don't use any names or terms from the original game.

For example, if the original has "cities" you can rename them as "settlements" and so on... I haven't actually played SOC so this is just an example, but you get the drift.

There was an earlier attempt at this, you might want to check it out: viewtopic.php?f=63&t=109113&start=0

So, the territories are between the hexagons, right?

No, the hexagons and the cities (or settlements, if you like) are the territories. the water around the outside is just a boarder. (Or maybe they will be starting territories with no bonus. IDK.)

Interesting link there. My art work is better

This few territories, each potentially giving +20, seems very, uhm, volatile to me. Wouldn't take a lot to win the game, a lucky round and you'd be there. Maybe I misunderstand?

If those brown T's aren't towns or starting positions, what are they?

Riskismy wrote:This few territories, each potentially giving +20, seems very, uhm, volatile to me. Wouldn't take a lot to win the game, a lucky round and you'd be there. Maybe I misunderstand?

If those brown T's aren't towns or starting positions, what are they?

the "T"'s are the towns. I will probably end up making it larger, as it is sorta confined as is. the +20 was put without thinking But I do want to make it a big army map, like Mogul. There aren't to few maps where 2 players are determined solely by dice and drop.

Mr_Adams wrote:There aren't to few maps where 2 players are determined solely by dice and drop.

Really? In my impression, victory in Catan is entirely determined by dice and drop.

Evil DIMwit wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:There aren't to few maps where 2 players are determined solely by dice and drop.

Really? In my impression, victory in Catan is entirely determined by dice and drop.

The goal is to not be determined by drop and dice. It's a work in progress. The concept is what is up so far.

Ok, here's a potential large version. 77 territories. I put numbers in just to take a look, clearly some of the tiles need to be changed.



With this, perhaps the towns could be starting positions, and the tiles would be neutrals. I want to make something like +100 bonuses, perhaps +5 for each Hex held (like the blank terrs in Mogul). Could have the XML made up so that you can't start with any two connected cities.

Could have the XML made up so that you can't start with any two connected cities.

That's going to be tricky. It's probably impossible for all game sizes.

natty_dread wrote:

Could have the XML made up so that you can't start with any two connected cities.

That's going to be tricky. It's probably impossible for all game sizes.

True. It may depend on how I connect the cities, and how many are set to start neutral. I would at least want to set it up so that you don't start with a bonus in 2 player games.

You have 25 cities... so, I'd suggest either 12 starting positions with 2 cities in each or 8 with 3 each.

natty_dread wrote:You have 25 cities... so, I'd suggest either 12 starting positions with 2 cities in each or 8 with 3 each.

That would work. for games or 4≥ players, can you set it so that each player gets 2 starting positions? or different starting positions (so as to still prevent round 1 bonuses?) I think the big version will have to be the one I go with, as DiM said, it would still be dice and drop with the little one.

Starting positions will always be divided evenly between players.

Leftover starting positions will either be made neutral or divided like normal territories, depending on how they're coded.

Each starting position can contain multiple territories.

My vote goes to 77.

So, just to get this perfectly clear: When you have a city, you get X amount of troops per bordering hexagon (resource)?
I gather you'd need to own the resource as well?

If that's the case, we would need to consider the placement of the settlements very carefully, obviously. For example, I don't like how there's two settlements that border only one resource.

What do you get, if anything, from a 'free' hexagon (like in the lower left)?

Riskismy wrote:My vote goes to 77.

So, just to get this perfectly clear: When you have a city, you get X amount of troops per bordering hexagon (resource)?
I gather you'd need to own the resource as well?

If that's the case, we would need to consider the placement of the settlements very carefully, obviously. For example, I don't like how there's two settlements that border only one resource.

What do you get, if anything, from a 'free' hexagon (like in the lower left)?

There are no "free" hexagons, I just put one number of each color for each type of territory to compare the colors to the back ground. sorry for the confusion. And, in my idea, you wouldn't need the resources to collect the bonus, but I guess that would make sense. there will be roads (see the second picture, first post), which will no be attack routes, but connect cities for bonus purposes only. they will be passable, unless it is decided otherwise. It's a very rough sketch of the concept.

Well, the two territories on the lower left are free in the sense that no city is next to them. Not sure if there's any significance to that, or whether this is where the roads come in.

I don't quite understand those roads, you see. Are they territories you attack and hold to gain a bonus, and if so, how do you decide on which side of the road you get a bonus?

I'm sorry, not playing dumb here (which isn't to say that I ain't actually dumb )

no, there will be bonuses for holding specific resources (Say, 2 "brick" (red & black) and 3 "wood" (green and black)) In order to gain this bonus, you will have to have cites that are connected, so that they "share" resources. Cities will be connected by roads. (perhaps this will be easier to explain when I get a naming system and full key worked out.)

As a Settlers of Catan enthusiast myself, I approve The terms "settlement" and "city" are both used in the game. Remember, the settlements are the house-looking pieces that cost a lumber, a wool, a wheat, and a brick, and receive one resource from an adjacent resource hex, and cities are the funky building-looking ones that cost 3 ore and 2 wheat, and receive 2 resources from an adjacent resource hex. You could use both on your map, if you so desire. Alright, so here are my ideas of what the gameplay should/could look like (I realize some of these points are just restating what you've already included - it just means I'm in agreement):

1. Include settlements and cities for more depth in gameplay.
   
   • Resource hexes surrounding an owned settlement yield +5 each (or whatever increment you decide to use. I thought +5 seemed good).
   • Resource hexes surrounding an owned city yield +10 each.
   • Settlements are starting positions, cities start neutral.
   • Losing Conditions - You are eliminated if you do not hold at least one settlement or city.
   • Objective - Control 10 settlements to win (equivalent of 10 Victory Points - the amount required to win Settles of Catan. I realize cities are worth 2 VP in Settlers as well, but given the XML and the necessity to balance them out more, they won't be included in the win conditions.
2. Cities and settlements can attack each other along the roads, but the hexes along a road do not count for the settlements and cities connected to it.
3. Resource Monopoly (more optional than essential)
   
   • Control all hexes of one resource type and...
     
     • ...receive a +100 bonus
     • OR
     • ...win! (alternate win condition)

-Sully

Anyways, here is an excerpt from the Game Play Guide:

The following are the "golden numbers" lower than 200, which create a drop that in all (or all except 5/7p) forms of the game require two or three territories to be taken from a player before they are disadvantaged due to territory count and happening to not go first: 24-35, 42, 43, 44, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, (78), (79), 80, (88), (89), 104, 114, 115, 116, (138), (139), 140, 141, 142, 143, 160, 161, 176, 177, 178, 179, 186, 187, 188

This should help you out. SO if you have 77 territories, then I would suggest you either
1) add 3 more territories or,
2) have 6 coded as starting neutral

I would prefer the second option personally. Hope this helps.

isaiah40 wrote:Anyways, here is an excerpt from the Game Play Guide:

The following are the "golden numbers" lower than 200, which create a drop that in all (or all except 5/7p) forms of the game require two or three territories to be taken from a player before they are disadvantaged due to territory count and happening to not go first: 24-35, 42, 43, 44, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, (78), (79), 80, (88), (89), 104, 114, 115, 116, (138), (139), 140, 141, 142, 143, 160, 161, 176, 177, 178, 179, 186, 187, 188

This should help you out. SO if you have 77 territories, then I would suggest you either
1) add 3 more territories or,
2) have 6 coded as starting neutral

I would prefer the second option personally. Hope this helps.

The plan was 25 starting terrs and 52 neutrals.

Victor Sullivan wrote:[*]Cities and settlements can attack each other along the roads, but the hexes along a road do not count for the settlements and cities connected to it.
-Sully

I didn't want to connect settlement along roads, because if you have 25 starting positions and you go first, you take somebody's settlement and put them at a disadvantage. If this starts like feudal/Mogul (with starting special territories and a sea of neutrals), then attack along roads would kill it...

Victor Sullivan wrote:[*]Objective - Control 10 settlements to win (equivalent of 10 Victory Points - the amount required to win Settles of Catan. I realize cities are worth 2 VP in Settlers as well, but given the XML and the necessity to balance them out more, they won't be included in the win conditions.[/list]
-Sully

Perhaps XML may be fooled into counting a city twice, if you list it twice under the win conditions. Or it might not count it at all, reading it as "you must hold two of territory x", in which case you couldn't get the victory point, as you would not be able to hold the territory "twice"... IDK.

Riskismy wrote:Well, the two territories on the lower left are free in the sense that no city is next to them. Not sure if there's any significance to that, or whether this is where the roads come in.

Victor Sullivan wrote:[*]Resource Monopoly (more optional than essential)

• Control all hexes of one resource type and...
  
  • ...receive a +100 bonus
  • OR
  • ...win! (alternate win condition)

[/list]
-Sully

perhaps sully's suggestion will give a purpose to these "free territories". I particularly like the +100 (or so) bonus. As a win condition, I think it would be over kill (having the 10 victory points option, and being able to eliminate players by taking their cities are ideas I also liked. we'll see. But having an easy way to eliminate somebody AND a possibility of 7 different sets for automatic wins being held at one (5 resources & 2 full sets of 10 towns (+5 others)), seems like a bit of overkill, no?)

As a side note, I will not (absolutely REFUSE to) make a bonus which requires less than 4 resources. I don't want any 1 territory bonuses.

Perhaps XML may be fooled into counting a city twice, if you list it twice under the win conditions. Or it might not count it at all, reading it as "you must hold two of territory x", in which case you couldn't get the victory point, as you would not be able to hold the territory "twice"... IDK.

No, that's not how objectives work.

You could however specify several different objectives... so that one would have "8 settlements & 1 city", the other would have "6 settlements & 2 cities", and the next "4 settlements & 3 cities" and so on... to a total of 6 objectives. It should be totally doable.

natty_dread wrote:

Perhaps XML may be fooled into counting a city twice, if you list it twice under the win conditions. Or it might not count it at all, reading it as "you must hold two of territory x", in which case you couldn't get the victory point, as you would not be able to hold the territory "twice"... IDK.

No, that's not how objectives work.

You could however specify several different objectives... so that one would have "8 settlements & 1 city", the other would have "6 settlements & 2 cities", and the next "4 settlements & 3 cities" and so on... to a total of 6 objectives. It should be totally doable.

Alright, there we go!