Conquer Club

So I just had this idea and how didn't I think of this before?

interesting idea. just, why these countries?

Awesome idea.

What are you going to tie these 4 together?

Nice idea though.

theBastard wrote:interesting idea. just, why these countries?

Because they're small. Because they're often overshadowed by their neighbors and don't have maps of their own. Because those territories are actual administrative divisions and I can't be bothered to do enough research to split a country up into meaningful territories on my own.

Evil DIMwit wrote:

theBastard wrote:interesting idea. just, why these countries?

Because they're small. Because they're often overshadowed by their neighbors and don't have maps of their own. Because those territories are actual administrative divisions and I can't be bothered to do enough research to split a country up into meaningful territories on my own.

This gives me an idea:

A world map, where each continent is separated from the others.

natty_dread wrote:This gives me an idea:

A world map, where each continent is separated from the others.

What are the bonus regions like?

Evil DIMwit wrote:

natty_dread wrote:This gives me an idea:

A world map, where each continent is separated from the others.

What are the bonus regions like?

maybe for each continent another...?

Evil DIMwit wrote:

natty_dread wrote:This gives me an idea:

A world map, where each continent is separated from the others.

What are the bonus regions like?

Well... ideas could be taken from the existing maps of those continents. Or World 2.1.

The only problem is that North & South Americas are kind of connected by land, and the same could be said of Eurasia & Africa. Maybe they could be made into pairs that can bombard each other, or cross through a killer neutral or something.

Another idea: reversing the victory condition idea... into a losing condition: you need to maintain a presence on all of the maps or you're eliminated from the game. That could be interesting, like playing 4 games at once and if you lose one you lose all... the only problem here is making it so that everyone gets equal territories in all separate areas.

natty_dread wrote:Another idea: reversing the victory condition idea... into a losing condition: you need to maintain a presence on all of the maps or you're eliminated from the game. That could be interesting, like playing 4 games at once and if you lose one you lose all... the only problem here is making it so that everyone gets equal territories in all separate areas.

I think that last bit is one reason a victory condition map is better than a losing condition map. That said, possible deployment imbalance will certainly exist, and I can't think of a better way to combat that than having loads of territories.

Would a map like this be better with three small maps, rather than four? There'd be room for more territories in each and the players' attentions would not have to be split in so many ways.

Evil DIMwit wrote:That said, possible deployment imbalance will certainly exist, and I can't think of a better way to combat that than having loads of territories.

How about starting positions? Group up territories of different areas and set them in the same starting position. So that each starting position would have a territory from each area. Although for this to work, the areas should be pretty much identical in territory count.

Evil DIMwit wrote:Would a map like this be better with three small maps, rather than four? There'd be room for more territories in each and the players' attentions would not have to be split in so many ways.

I don't know, I like four. It's an even number. And you can always go supersize.

natty_dread wrote:How about starting positions? Group up territories of different areas and set them in the same starting position. So that each starting position would have a territory from each area. Although for this to work, the areas should be pretty much identical in territory count.

This limits the possible starting territory configuration by a fair bit. I suppose if this really must be done it wouldn't be too terrible, but I'd rather not resort to starting positions if there's no need.

if I good understand, you can not have losing coditions here.
only victory conditions. so what about: hold one country and at least one region in others countries to win?

theBastard wrote:if I good understand, you can not have losing coditions here.
only victory conditions. so what about: hold one country and at least one region in others countries to win?

You can have losing conditions. Middle Ages has them with the hold one castle or you are out. Same with Antarctica with hold a base or freeze to death.

koontz1973 wrote:

theBastard wrote:if I good understand, you can not have losing coditions here.
only victory conditions. so what about: hold one country and at least one region in others countries to win?

You can have losing conditions. Middle Ages has them with the hold one castle or you are out. Same with Antarctica with hold a base or freeze to death.

I know. I meant Evil does not want to have them...

This is a phenomenal idea!

I think its a little strange picking such a group of countries, but I suppose it works.

theBastard wrote:if I good understand, you can not have losing coditions here.
only victory conditions. so what about: hold one country and at least one region in others countries to win?

That would cause some impossible scenarios; say, if player A was eliminated from one map and player B was eliminated from another, and player C from a third, there's no way of re-entering a country once you're eliminated from it.

Industrial Helix wrote:I think its a little strange picking such a group of countries, but I suppose it works.

Do you have a better idea?

Evil DIMwit wrote:

theBastard wrote:if I good understand, you can not have losing coditions here.
only victory conditions. so what about: hold one country and at least one region in others countries to win?

That would cause some impossible scenarios; say, if player A was eliminated from one map and player B was eliminated from another, and player C from a third, there's no way of re-entering a country once you're eliminated from it.

this sounds logic. maybe we can have one "impossible to win" map LOL

I love this! I definitely like the winning condition, and feel it's more appropriate (and necessary) than the losing condition. The main issues I see are starting positions and making sure the level of difficulty of conquering each country is roughly the same.

-Sully

Evil DIMwit wrote:Do you have a better idea?

Heh, not really. I tried thinking about it for a better idea set in maybe WWII or Rome or anything and came up with nothing. You might try a theme, such as OPEC countries. Cities in the UAE. Port cities of China. Islands of the Mediterranean. Islands of the Caribbean. I dunno. They're not great ideas, but I think a unifying theme would help.

Industrial Helix wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:Do you have a better idea?

Heh, not really. I tried thinking about it for a better idea set in maybe WWII or Rome or anything and came up with nothing. You might try a theme, such as OPEC countries. Cities in the UAE. Port cities of China. Islands of the Mediterranean. Islands of the Caribbean. I dunno. They're not great ideas, but I think a unifying theme would help.

Perhaps those land-islands, like Lesotho and Swaziland, where they're surrounded by a single country?

-Sully

Definitely a cool idea, but I'm a little nervous of the fact that once you're kicked out of a country, you can't come back. I suppose that's the point, but still... I wouldn't like to be in a good position, but lose because I'm powerless to stop someone in another corner who found easier opposition.

Perhaps you could have a capital in each country, which could bombard every other capital (attack but not conquer). That means you could still have an effect on another person winning, but you could still be kicked out of a country.

But on the other hand, that might take away the purpose of being kicked out of a country entirely...

I dunno, it's just a suggestion. Otherwise, this could turn out great as a very different but fun map! Great idea!

Victor Sullivan wrote:

Industrial Helix wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:Do you have a better idea?

Heh, not really. I tried thinking about it for a better idea set in maybe WWII or Rome or anything and came up with nothing. You might try a theme, such as OPEC countries. Cities in the UAE. Port cities of China. Islands of the Mediterranean. Islands of the Caribbean. I dunno. They're not great ideas, but I think a unifying theme would help.

Perhaps those land-islands, like Lesotho and Swaziland, where they're surrounded by a single country?

-Sully

Swaziland borders both Mozambique and South Africa.

On another note, perhaps this idea would work for some of those really tiny countries like the Vatican, Lichtenstein, Andorra, Fiji, Bahrain, ect.

Not that I have a huge problem withthe countries selected... but just throwing it out there.

Evil DIMwit wrote:

theBastard wrote:if I good understand, you can not have losing coditions here.
only victory conditions. so what about: hold one country and at least one region in others countries to win?

That would cause some impossible scenarios; say, if player A was eliminated from one map and player B was eliminated from another, and player C from a third, there's no way of re-entering a country once you're eliminated from it.

Industrial Helix wrote:I think its a little strange picking such a group of countries, but I suppose it works.

Do you have a better idea?

4 corrners of amarica?