Conquer Club

I'll put up a poll and see if I can get some feedback from other members.

the reason the Dust Bowl happened in the first place is 1) the drought and 2) bad farming practices, and these are the reason this map exists. Since I'm not sure how you can work dumb farmers into the map, I think there should be some kind of nod to the conditions of the day. Otherwise it's just a map of the flattest and dullest region of the Western Hemisphere.

The text in the legend is nice and it gives good background on the map, but it lacks an emotional punch. How about incorporating some Steinbeck?

Houses were shut tight, and cloth wedged around doors and windows, but the dust came in so thinly that it could not be seen in the air, and it settled like pollen on the chairs and tables, on the dishes.

A man, after he has brushed off the dust and chips of his life, will have left only the hard, clean questions: Was it good or was it evil? Have I done well—or ill?

Now the wind grew strong and hard, it worked at the rain crust in the corn fields. Little by little the sky was darkened by the mixing dust, and the wind felt over the earth, loosened the dust and carried it away.

Otherwise it's a great looking map... still wish there were natural boundaries other than state lines, but this will do.

Oaktown - thanks for the great quotes. If you are at all interested, I recommend the book The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl. It's what gave me interest in creating the map. I'm not from the area, and really had no idea of how severe the Dustbowl was. Yes you are right about this being a map of the flattest and dullest region in the US - but I'm not sure how to get around that.

At first I started to incorporate crop bonuses - but I don't want to go down that route. I still prefer playing a fairly simple game rather than the "Age of Merchants" style with various item bonuses. That's why I am teetering on the fine line of negative or not. I personally would enjoy the map without the negatives, as much as with the negatives.

But.... I think the whole premise of this map is the "DUST STORMS" and the practically uninhabitable drought areas. Negative penalties fit perfectly for those who wish to occupy those lands. I like your Steinbeck (Grapes of Wrath?) quotes - but I don't think I have room to add them. The font is small enough as is. And this is the large map version.

At a quick glance at the poll. It looks like the "Keep the Negative" is winning. I'll check again tomorrow.

i think you need to make the separation between different bonuses clearer. just my opinion.

i honestly think you can lower the bonuses anyway, if you only hold an entire state you wont get a negative bonus and youll get major armies for few borders. the only way you might get hurt if when you attack which adds a nice twist to the game

Loving it RJ.

C.

This poll doesn't surprise me at all, you didn't have to make it I don't think.

Coleman wrote:This poll doesn't surprise me at all, you didn't have to make it I don't think.

Just wanted to be sure, as there are only a handful of people posting in this thread.

RjBeals wrote:UPDATE 9

AndyDufresne wrote:Just a few random things

• The description below the title...I'd maybe consider a slight revision to say

  ...central U.S. Storms blackened...The worst hit area/region became known...

• Impassible Borders (incapable of suffering pain) --> Impassable Borders (not allowing passage through/over)
• I recall you already noted "between."
• That water south of New Mexico looks familar...is it perhaps the Mediterranean?
• Yeti's last suggestion may just work also, in regards to the Dust areas...

I didn't even mean to make the water look so close to my Italy map - good catch. Although I'm not changing it I incorporated all your suggestions above. I reworded the drought area to reflect what Yeti suggested. I think it will work and is a fair way to drop armies. I also worked on some shading in the states areas. And I was trying to dress up the legend with a frame. Not sure if it works or not. I may fool with it some more...

So close, and yet so far. I am refering to Wyoming.

For example if you held three drought areas, it would result to -1, but if you held 3 normal territorys it would get rid of the penalty. In this case the penalty would be useless because you would hold three other territorys with ease unless, it was nearing the end of the game and you was losing. Also you must hold part of the drought area to get a continent bonus but, you would still easily hold three other territorys because you have a whole continent.

Anyway, i think the penalty should stay because, it could be used to a players advantage to eliminate some normal territorys of other player to make them receive only 2 armies a turn. The map is looking great!

Obviously the majority want the penalties to remain, so I want to try and iron the details out...

I don't think a first turn army bonus should be 0. If you get 0 bonus, what's the point of ending your current turn, only to start out next round with exactly the same armies? +1 is kinda weak also.

I'm leaning more towards the straight penalties..
See new map for a rough idea of how I'm thinking.

Also
I changed Nebraska bonus to +2
I changed Kansas to +3

I like this map - it's nice, clean and simple.

I also like the idea of drought negatives... The main difficulty, already identified, is how to make them not too punishing at the start of the game, and too insignificant later...

I've had two thoughts:

1. Reduce the state bonusses, on the premise that each state has fewer drought than non-drought regions, and so will not be affected by the negative/balance rule.

2. And/Or, is it possible to lose 1 army from each drought region in a fully occupied state?

Oh, and my final thought is that Boise and Dallhart should start neutral, as you can only attack other drought regions from these two terrs.

Keep up the good work!

Ben

MrBenn wrote:1. Reduce the state bonusses, on the premise that each state has fewer drought than non-drought regions, and so will not be affected by the negative/balance rule.

ehh..

MrBenn wrote:2. And/Or, is it possible to lose 1 army from each drought region in a fully occupied state?

Isn't that the same as just reducing the state bonus by 2?

MrBenn wrote:Oh, and my final thought is that Boise and Dallhart should start neutral, as you can only attack other drought regions from these two terrs.

I didn't want any territories neutral to start. But the more I think about it, the more it's looking like it's the only fair way to keep the penalties, but not have it hurt you at all on the initial drop.

If we keep the drought area's neutral to start, that would give 24 active starting territories. (36 total - 12 drought = 24 active). Thats the same as doodle earth. I guess that would work actually.

Then we could do whatever we want to the drought penalties, and a lousy opening drop wouldn't be a factor..

Thoughts?
(thanks for the input MrBenn - much appreciated)

UPDATE 10


Drought Starts Neutral.
That makes 24 active territories for starting deployment.

PUT ON YOUR THINKING CAPS - LOOK AT THE MAP AND CONSIDER DIFFERENT SCENARIOS....

what would make a good penaltY?

You get 2 drought regions for free, after that you get -1 for each. So if you occupy 4 droughts, you get a -2 penalty. This would counter the high state bonuses. Should this be revised though? Is that too tough? If this is the case, there would be a lot of attacking in the non-drought state areas, in preparation to take and hold the whole state. You would continue getting the +3 bonus until you're ready to enter the drought areas.

Yeti - Can we make a +1 the minimum bonus though? I don't think a 0 bonus is fair at all... Is that possible in the XML?

I don't like the drought region starting neutral.

Coleman wrote:I don't like the drought region starting neutral.

Neither do I, I think it will lead to some stagnant gameplay as players build up and build up in the states and wait to have enough to run the tables.

Let me think for a few minutes and get back to you......

Coleman - you can remove the poll.

Thanks Optimus for thinking on this. I can't seem to nail down the best way. I really wanted to stay away from neutrals as well - what a waste of territories, But I just couldn't think of a better way.

I've had a better idea...

Make the drought areas -1 territory bonus...

This means at the start of the turn they lose 1 army each...

But you will always get 3 to display...

If you only have 1 army on the territory then you don't lose any...

Yes you could be unlucky and start with lots of them - but you will still have 3 to deploy to play with...

Thoughts?

C.

RjBeals wrote:Yeti - Can we make a +1 the minimum bonus though? I don't think a 0 bonus is fair at all... Is that possible in the XML?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean - but I'm pretty sure you can't!!

C.

yeti_c wrote:I've had a better idea...

Make the drought areas -1 territory bonus...

This means at the start of the turn they lose 1 army each...

But you will always get 3 to display...

If you only have 1 army on the territory then you don't lose any...

Yes you could be unlucky and start with lots of them - but you will still have 3 to deploy to play with...

Thoughts?

C.

Very cool. I like! Could you do that with the xml?

RjBeals wrote:

yeti_c wrote:I've had a better idea...

Make the drought areas -1 territory bonus...

This means at the start of the turn they lose 1 army each...

But you will always get 3 to display...

If you only have 1 army on the territory then you don't lose any...

Yes you could be unlucky and start with lots of them - but you will still have 3 to deploy to play with...

Thoughts?

C.

Very cool. I like! Could you do that with the xml?

Yep - negative territory bonuses haven't been used before - but positive ones have - examples - Queg in Midkemia...

C.

I wish I'd thought of that.

Coleman wrote:I wish I'd thought of that.

It just came to me really - I'm sure this had been discussed in another topic - and it seemed to be the best idea cos it still left the players with the +3 to deploy regardless of if they lose 12 up front!!

C.

I asked Lack what would happen if you had a negative bonus on a territory with 1 army...

lackattack wrote:it will never decay below 1

I was looking for my sent PM - but it had disappeared!!

C.

yeti_c wrote:Make the drought areas -1 territory bonus...This means at the start of the turn they lose 1 army each...But you will always get 3 to display...If you only have 1 army on the territory then you don't lose any...Yes you could be unlucky and start with lots of them - but you will still have 3 to deploy to play with...

Okay - I like this. That way my inflated state bonuses will come in handy, to keep building up your borders, where men keep dying of thirst! I wonder If I should bump Nebraska back up to a +3 instead of only +2.

Good job Yeti_C.