Conquer Club

Welcome to the Foundry Proper... onwards and upwards

Mr B

edbeard wrote:I'm just saying that the percentage of territories for land and sea respectively is about as far as I'm willing to go. If I added a few more land or took away a few sea territories then it would 'cross the line' for me

You mean - that if you have to change it further then you'd drop it and move on?

C.

yeti_c wrote:

edbeard wrote:I'm just saying that the percentage of territories for land and sea respectively is about as far as I'm willing to go. If I added a few more land or took away a few sea territories then it would 'cross the line' for me

You mean - that if you have to change it further then you'd drop it and move on?

C.

huh? I'm just saying that's as far as I'm going. It's my map why would I 'have to change it further'?




Edit:

also, thanks benn for the move

edbeard wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

edbeard wrote:I'm just saying that the percentage of territories for land and sea respectively is about as far as I'm willing to go. If I added a few more land or took away a few sea territories then it would 'cross the line' for me

You mean - that if you have to change it further then you'd drop it and move on?

C.

huh? I'm just saying that's as far as I'm going. It's my map why would I 'have to change it further'?

I don't know - I'm just trying to work out what you're saying... you're talking in riddles at the moment!!

C.

any gameplay comments folks?

If you think it's good then give me a post

what about adding some large airports and/or ports and apply a bonus system for them. and in the case of airports, make them connect to each other.

might add some interesting gameplay.

zimmah wrote:what about adding some large airports and/or ports and apply a bonus system for them. and in the case of airports, make them connect to each other.

might add some interesting gameplay.

I strongly disagree. Things are already incredible connected - adding another level of connectivity could make the gameplay impossible.

Also, here's a for you, Ed.

so in addition to general bonus and gameplay discussion, here are a couple other points of discussion


1. Atlantic. All four borders have 2 attackers. These come from 8 continents. EIGHT continents have one way to attack this continent. It's 7 territories and only a bonus of 5. Seemingly it'll be a central point because it borders basically everybody.

Should we remove some of these connections? (could remove both AT 4 connections and make AT 2 connect with NA 7 instead)

Should we increase it's bonus? (+6 or +7)

Should we leave it as it is?



2. In general, this map doesn't have very many 'hold both these continents together' routes. some people like these a lot. does it matter?

edbeard wrote:1. Atlantic. All four borders have 2 attackers. These come from 8 continents. EIGHT continents have one way to attack this continent. It's 7 territories and only a bonus of 5. Seemingly it'll be a central point because it borders basically everybody.

Should we remove some of these connections? (could remove both AT 4 connections and make AT 2 connect with NA 7 instead)

Should we increase it's bonus? (+6 or +7)

Should we leave it as it is?

I'm inclined to say this: Redraw the border between AT2 and AT4 so that AT2 is much larger. Then draw a connection between NA6 and AT2. I like the positioning of the connecton at NA6 better than NA7, so by redrawing AT2, you preserve this connection while decreasing the number of borders for AT. Also, erase the connection between SA3 and AT4. Instead, have SA2 connect to AT6.

I think +5 should be good for 7 territories with 3 borders. I'd say make it +4, but it's still dead-center and touches a lot of places, so +5 should be good.

edbeard wrote:2. In general, this map doesn't have very many 'hold both these continents together' routes. some people like these a lot. does it matter?

I don't think that's a major problem. It's nice when you get that, but at the same time, it makes a good drop much better and a bad drop much worse. Plus, I don't see any easy way to redraw this map to change this.

edbeard wrote:Still looking for gameplay discussion. Or if you want to do the graphics let me know.

So, you're not planning on doing the graphics? I think it would be fun if we stole the look of the old classic - though perhaps we'd need the permission of the original classic mapmaker... demon art? If I wasn't already in over my head wit other projects I'd volunteer, and if we got the go-ahead to copy the original classic style I might volunteer anyway, so long as the gameplay was completely sorted out first.

The aspect of this map that I don't like too much is that so many regions have single-border frontiers. For example, look at North America: the continent has only three borders. Two of those borders have only one neighboring country that it can attack, and the third has only two. Once you hold North America your options for expansion are limited to four territories. Africa has only, um, two or three territories it can attack - three if AF1 border EU1. And Eurasia has only four borders, each of which have only one bordering territory.

I see that there need to be strict limits on how many places sea-going territories can hit land territories - open them all up and this game would be madness. But I'd like to see some additional connectivity to open this map up a little more and reduce the predictability of play. One obvious add woudl be to make a connection between AT4 and AF1 - both territories are already border territories, so it mixes things up without making either region any harder to hold. Same with EU9 and PA1, OC1 and IN1, EU1 to AR2, and probably some others that I'm too tired to find right now. Adding connections to a border territory isn't always a negative - while it may mean one more neighboring enemy, it also means greater opportunity for expansion.

And I'm sure this has already been said, but 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?

Any consideration of putting the Med in there, perhaps as a stand alone territory not connected to a region? It's a sad void in the middle of an otherwise very full map.

appreciate the posts.

Z, while I'll consider the redrawing of that border, I won't be adding the connection to SA 2. That'd make all 3 territories into borders and I'd rather not have that happen.

Oak, you might be right. I had quite a few and removed them. I think we're talkin' 'bout removing AT4 as a border but connecting AT2 with AF1 makes sense. Here's a list of proposed land-sea connections (including current ones and removing disappearing ones). Might be easier if I drew it but let's talk about it first.

NA4-AR1
NA1-PA4
NA6-AT2

SA1-PA6

AT2-EU1
AT2-AF1
AT6-AN2
AT7-AF5

EU7-IN1
EU8-PA1
EU9-PA1

IN4-AN4
IN4-OC3


I notice that you talked about NA in your example but didn't actually add any borders to it. hmm. Perhaps NA1 to PA1? This makes PA1 hugely important though.

How would this change the continents?

NA - 3 borders against 5 territories (added 1 (assuming my NA1-PA1))
SA - 2 borders against 2 territories (removed 1)
AT - 3 borders (removed 1) against 8 territories (removed 0. switched 1 so only borders 7 continents)
AF - 4 borders against 4 territories (added 1)
EU - 4 borders against 7 territories (added 0 but PA1 attacks 2 borders now)


Interestingly enough you can hold EU, AF, and OC with 5 territories (AT2, AF5, EU7, PA1, OC3). expansion is possible just really hard.

oaktown wrote:

edbeard wrote:Still looking for gameplay discussion. Or if you want to do the graphics let me know.

So, you're not planning on doing the graphics? I think it would be fun if we stole the look of the old classic - though perhaps we'd need the permission of the original classic mapmaker... demon art? If I wasn't already in over my head wit other projects I'd volunteer, and if we got the go-ahead to copy the original classic style I might volunteer anyway, so long as the gameplay was completely sorted out first.

graphics I will not be doing. If you want to do it that way it's fine but let's get the gameplay stamp or close to it and we'll see if you're still willing then. I do really like my colours though. at least for the land continents.

Any consideration of putting the Med in there, perhaps as a stand alone territory not connected to a region? It's a sad void in the middle of an otherwise very full map.

Which continent would it go with? How will the small map deal with another territory in that already tight area? I only see more problems for something that doesn't appear to add much to the map.

So what's happening with this?

This is awsome

ZeakCytho wrote:So what's happening with this?

not much. I'll draw up the proposed new land-sea connections and we can get discussion going as visuals are quite needed for these proposed changes

blacky44 wrote:This is awsome

sweet. thanks.

blacky44 wrote:This is awsome

That's what I said!

[bigimg]http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r4/runthemover/worldv5.png[/bigimg]


thanks Ink. I like it too.


Anyway, here's the "update". Just put on a few different land-sea connections and re-drew one border to help with this change.


Thoughts?

well I've had 3 people mention interest in doing the graphics. I think I had mentioned if there's interest we could have a mini-competition to see who does the graphics. I say mini because having everyone do a full draft but getting nothing out of it seems a bit unfair. Each person could give a small sample of their graphics plan and the winner receives full autonomy for their graphics work.


buuuut


we need the gameplay stamp so get to discussing please!

edbeard wrote:we need the gameplay stamp so get to discussing please!

Right... the additional connections are good. In looking at the old classic map, I notice that each continent has relatively few borders, so I think the number you have on this map may be appropriate.

Here are some little things that aren't necessarily bad, but are things that catch my attention and may be worth some discussion...

• Eurasia has no Arctic connection, and while it doesn't necessarily need one it seems odd that such a long border - the longest on the map - has no connection.
• The Pacific is the largest of the world's oceans, yet in terms of territories it is smaller than Atlantic. Since Atlantic is the central region it may make sense for gameplay.
• It'd be nice if fewer territories crosses the crease, but I'm not sure how to manage that. Perhaps some methods of distinguishing which is which on both sides of the map?
• I still do wish the the land/sea connections corresponded with major world ports... the entire eastern seaboard, is one port after another, yet there is no connection.
• Oceania cuts off the water passages that go between those islands... I guess that makes sense.
• Mediterranean? Can anyone thing of how to work it in? It's such a politically and historically important body of water, it deserves to be on here.

oaktown wrote:Here are some little things that aren't necessarily bad, but are things that catch my attention and may be worth some discussion...

• Eurasia has no Arctic connection, and while it doesn't necessarily need one it seems odd that such a long border - the longest on the map - has no connection.

Definitely worth thinking more about. If we don't want to add more borders to the Arctic then we'd have to add it to either AR2 or AR1. This would mean either EU8-AR1 which would be quite the clusterfuck but maybe a bit fun. To border AR2, we'd need to either do it from EU1 or somewhere else and add another border to Eurasia. I think EU8 is a better choice. But, is adding another border there putting us over the edge? Or, is another border inconsequential?

oaktown wrote:

• The Pacific is the largest of the world's oceans, yet in terms of territories it is smaller than Atlantic. Since Atlantic is the central region it may make sense for gameplay.

yea I think what I've done is for the best.

oaktown wrote:

• It'd be nice if fewer territories crosses the crease, but I'm not sure how to manage that. Perhaps some methods of distinguishing which is which on both sides of the map?

well I can put the name on both sides I suppose

oaktown wrote:

• I still do wish the the land/sea connections corresponded with major world ports... the entire eastern seaboard, is one port after another, yet there is no connection.

I think gameplay concerns are primary at this point.

oaktown wrote:

• Mediterranean? Can anyone thing of how to work it in? It's such a politically and historically important body of water, it deserves to be on here.

What continent would it go with? How would we fit it in anyway? Too much trouble for something that won't add much to gameplay.

Could be part of the Atlantic? - or just a no continent territory...

Other things to condider are the Panama & Suez canal?

C.

yeti_c wrote:Could be part of the Atlantic? - or just a no continent territory...

Other things to condider are the Panama & Suez canal?

C.

I just don't see how it can possibly fit on the map. Plus that'd be another territory and border for the Atlantic (if it's part of the Atlantic and the canal is put in too)


edit: ok well obviously the legend has ample space for an inset or two. Hmm. Ok. Idea.


FOCUS OF DISCUSSION:


1. Add Mediterranean Sea as an inset. It'd be a territory that's NOT part of any continent. It'd also have the Suez canal to connect to IN1. Connecting it to the land territories around is debatable.

2. Add another inset that shows the Panama Canal Connection from AT3 to PA4. Problem is this adds another border to the Atlantic. If this is done, do we add other borders from AT3 to surrounding land? Do we take away other borders (like NA6 to AT2)

3. as previously mentioned, EU8 to AR1. good? bad? indifferent?

I like the idea of having just "Water" connections...

There are a couple of just "land" connections that span water - so the opposite works for me too.

I'd consider dropping NA1 - PA4 if you have panama canal though?

C.

yeti_c wrote:I like the idea of having just "Water" connections...

There are a couple of just "land" connections that span water - so the opposite works for me too.

I'd consider dropping NA1 - PA4 if you have panama canal though?

C.

I don't get what you mean in the first line



for the record, honestly the two proposals (suez/mediterranean and panama canal) don't appeal to me too much

Water <-> Water bridges...

Land <-> Land bridges...

If you see what I mean?

C.