Conquer Club

This idea has been floating around in my head for an incredibly long time... pretty much since 8p games were introduced, I think.

Very simply, it's a World map, halfway between Classic and World 2.1 in terms of size, that is more suited towards 8p games.

What I'm interested in finding out initially is if there is wider appeal/support for the idea, and if so what sort of thematic style would people like for it?

The following is a very rough draft to give a feel for it... All I'm interested in right now is discussion about the idea and gameplay. There are 58 territories (the label for N America incorrectly shows 11 instead of 10); which means that 1v1 games start with 14 terrs each. The graphics are only there to put some shape to it.

I think that would be an awesome map. Great idea Benn.

This is a fabulous idea. It engages those who find the Classic map to be too small, and those who think World 2.1 is too big.

It's a great idea that is well worth pursuing in my opinion.

Could be fun. I like the fact that it eliminates the Aussie pocket. Could be worth further development. I'd look for some sore of unique twist or something to truly set it apart from the others.


C

In general I feel that we already have a lot of world maps, but they are popular.

what I don't like about recent maps of the world is the bonus given for holding Antarctica. In terms of strategic value and natural resources is the south pole equal to central america? i think it would be interesting to leave it the territories there but remove the bonus... it should be little more than a way to move around.

Looks excellent! Maybe split australia down to give and extra tert and slpit brazill down to give one less?

For the graphics - how about using photochopped satellite images?

Rocket.

Ehh, I don't know, if we're going to do another world map it should be World 3 imo.

I like it, and would definately give it a good few goes. Although I agree with the post by oaktown. And I don't think antartica needs to be spilt into 4 territs either.

I also think that there doesn't need to be a "unique gameplay factor" as suggested above. There are too many maps like that so some maps get confusing if you don't have time to check everything out.

oaktown wrote:In general I feel that we already have a lot of world maps, but they are popular.

what I don't like about recent maps of the world is the bonus given for holding Antarctica. In terms of strategic value and natural resources is the south pole equal to central america? i think it would be interesting to leave it the territories there but remove the bonus... it should be little more than a way to move around.

You could actually make it a negitive bonus due to troop losses crossing the continent.

C

I like the idea a lot. I thought I'd seen someone working on this exact idea before. What ever happened to that one?

oaktown wrote:In general I feel that we already have a lot of world maps, but they are popular.

what I don't like about recent maps of the world is the bonus given for holding Antarctica. In terms of strategic value and natural resources is the south pole equal to central america? i think it would be interesting to leave it the territories there but remove the bonus... it should be little more than a way to move around.

I disagree with Oak and think Antarctica should remain a bonus, that always peeved me in 2.1 when I would hold it I felt I should get at least a small bonus.

neanderpaul14 wrote:

oaktown wrote:In general I feel that we already have a lot of world maps, but they are popular.

what I don't like about recent maps of the world is the bonus given for holding Antarctica. In terms of strategic value and natural resources is the south pole equal to central america? i think it would be interesting to leave it the territories there but remove the bonus... it should be little more than a way to move around.

I disagree with Oak and think Antarctica should remain a bonus, that always peeved me in 2.1 when I would hold it I felt I should get at least a small bonus.

agreed. despite the lack of resources etc it brings. it is a strategic attack point in my opinion, and should at least receive +1, although it shouldn't get the same bonus as central america

OK... So it seems like there's murmurs of support for the idea...

The fact that Antarctica doesn't have a bonus is one of the very few things that niggles me about World 2.1. I guess it could be dropped to a +1 bonus or something? I'm not against dropping a territory from it either... nothing is set in stone (apart from the lie of the land )

A very random idea I had was to add the Northern Ice cap too; which could connect to Greenland, Aland (the top of Europe) and somewhere in Northern Russia/Siberia... The ice caps could have negligble bonuses, possibly with auto-decay on the terrs, with a bonus for holding the two poles?? Having said that, i's a big deviation from classic/standard gameplay, which I didn;t really want.

The other questions are about theme/style - what sort of look would people go for?

MrBenn wrote:OK... So it seems like there's murmurs of support for the idea...

The fact that Antarctica doesn't have a bonus is one of the very few things that niggles me about World 2.1. I guess it could be dropped to a +1 bonus or something? I'm not against dropping a territory from it either... nothing is set in stone (apart from the lie of the land )

A very random idea I had was to add the Northern Ice cap too; which could connect to Greenland, Aland (the top of Europe) and somewhere in Northern Russia/Siberia... The ice caps could have negligble bonuses, possibly with auto-decay on the terrs, with a bonus for holding the two poles?? Having said that, i's a big deviation from classic/standard gameplay, which I didn;t really want.

The other questions are about theme/style - what sort of look would people go for?

i think it would be kinda cool if you had the world dark.

MrBenn wrote:OK... So it seems like there's murmurs of support for the idea...

The fact that Antarctica doesn't have a bonus is one of the very few things that niggles me about World 2.1. I guess it could be dropped to a +1 bonus or something? I'm not against dropping a territory from it either... nothing is set in stone (apart from the lie of the land )

A very random idea I had was to add the Northern Ice cap too; which could connect to Greenland, Aland (the top of Europe) and somewhere in Northern Russia/Siberia... The ice caps could have negligble bonuses, possibly with auto-decay on the terrs, with a bonus for holding the two poles?? Having said that, i's a big deviation from classic/standard gameplay, which I didn;t really want.

The other questions are about theme/style - what sort of look would people go for?

I love that idea of the polar ice cap with an auto decay. You should have it attach to several points of land.

How about an auto decay on both poles...
I'd make the Phillipines a tert of the Australasia continent and maybe consider a micronesia and maybe even hawaii or easter island (which is part of micronesia) as a stepping stone thru the middle to central or south america...
Maybe a link from the Caribean to FLA...
+8 for 12 terts in asia seems too much... NA is +5 for 11 and Africa is +5 for 10 you actually eliminated Afganistan as a tert from classic...
I think Europe should be worth a smidge more beacuse it is the crossroads of the map and will be really tough to get an hold... It will have 4? 5? 6? connections?

I hope these were the kind of suggestions you were looking for... I'm kinda new @ this but have always loved this type of game.

C

whitestazn88 wrote:i think it would be kinda cool if you had the world dark.

If you mean a map of the world at night, showing areas light by man, I agree, maps like that are visually interesting. We might have to cheat to fill in the polar regions, but what the heck, it's art.

ender516 wrote:

whitestazn88 wrote:i think it would be kinda cool if you had the world dark.

If you mean a map of the world at night, showing areas light by man, I agree, maps like that are visually interesting. We might have to cheat to fill in the polar regions, but what the heck, it's art.

yeah, thats what i meant.

I think it would be cool for Antarctica to be a single territory with a negative bonus. People would want to hold it because it would be very important for securing other bonuses and limiting the travel of other players. But by holding it you incur a slight detriment to balance things out.

58 territories would be 19 territories each in a 1v1, right? Not 14 like you said? I think 60 would be the ideal size because you limit neutrals in multiplayer games, and each person starts with 20 in a 1v1 which makes things more equal for the player that goes second.

Right now the layout seems awfully similar to World 2.1 for the bigger countries, though most of the smaller countries and islands have been combined. I would suggest splitting up China since the US, Canada, Brazil, Australia and Russia are all broken into at least 3 pieces. China is too critical of a country in World 2.1 I think, let's not repeat that trend.

I also think you should have more bonus regions than the current 8. I think you might have picked that number since you are trying to balance this for 8 player games, but I don't think it would ever work out that each player manages to hold one continent. Especially when you can conquer central america so easily from North America, etc. I would prefer a separate Middle East region worth +2 or +3 and probably a North/South Africa division. That would give you 9 bonus regions if you eliminate the Antarctic division and 10 bonus regions if you keep the Antarctic.

Africa should be divided into Northern and Sub-Saharan, Asia should be divided into Middle East and Far East, and Australasia should be renamed to Oceania. Working on a draft atm.



EDIT: Here it be.



I considered doing "super bonuses" for the three parts of the map (east, middle, west). Thoughts?

I'm all for a 'world at night'

I like the direction that your bonus regions have gone, John. I definitely don't like the 3 letter naming convention though, it is not worth the space saving IMO, especially because you seem to have a lot of room. How many territories are there in your version? Also, I think MrBenn is planning on pursuing this map himself...

santon836 wrote:I'm all for a 'world at night'

As for the world at night, I think those pictures are very interesting but don't fit with the idea of this map. They are cool to show areas of the world that have been industrialized and are now urban, but this map is just trying to lay out the different countries. I'm also afraid it would make the map way too dark for playing, and since the graphics idea doesn't seem necessary I hope Benn goes with a more traditional approach. If anything the 'world at night' is MUCH better suited for my World Cities map, but I still think it would make playing on the map less enjoyable.

Antarctica essentially becomes like the Quad in CCU---a place that can assault many bonuses.


--Andy

My vote goes to the Quad-style Antarctic too - it would give the map a unique feature compared to other world maps (not that I could imagine anyone complaining that there are too many).

Or how about decay - troops lost due to frostbite etc.? This could equally apply to Greenland.

Nice idea

look up my map classic 2.0...there was a lot of discussion about whether or not the idea of a map between Classic and World 2.0 should exist.