Conquer Club

oaktown wrote:

Incandenza wrote:I suppose it's worth noting that I was pretty much ready to stamp this sucker before we started discussing an extra terit in el salvador, so in my mind this map is exceptionally close.

Ugh, and there I was saying that we should keep El Salvador as a two territory region but code the two territories as opposing starts so nobody could pick it up on the drop in a 1v1. The odds of picking up one of the three territory regions would then be less than 2.6%.

oaktown wrote:IanCanton, however, opposed keeping it as such because the odds of a player getting all of El Salvador in a 2v2 game are 10% - which they aren't, it's actually about 5%.

oak, i didn't say that. i said at least one of the four small bonuses, not just el salvador.

iancanton wrote:using 2 start positions instead of a neutral means that u must let player 1 have a near-10% chance of dropping one of the four small bonuses in a 2v2 game.

2v2, though popular, is by no means the most common format on small maps such as this one.

lgoasklucyl wrote:The two territ +1 is perfectly fine if coded as start positions to avoid one person dropping it in 1v1.

lgoasklucyl wrote:So: Code starting positions, no neutrals?

oaktown wrote:i think that keeping El Salvador as-is and coding two starts is the best solution.

Incandenza wrote:I would be perfectly satisfied with coding starts in El Sal and calling it a day. No neutrals, no third terit in El Sal, just a nice little +1.

i think we've reached a consensus.

ian.

iancanton wrote:i think we've reached a consensus.

Indeed!


I have a bunch of work due today (and yesterday), but the next version will be out a.s.a.p with a bunch of minor changes for the sake of shoving something out there

lgoasklucyl wrote:\:D/ Indeed!


I have a bunch of work due today (and yesterday), but the next version will be out a.s.a.p with a bunch of minor changes for the sake of shoving something out there

Well, given the entertaining level of consensus in the thread, I would imagine that your next draft will be anteceded by a gameplay stamp, unless something really reaches out and punches me in the nose.

If I've got this right, then we're just waiting on an update to be able to give this map a Gameplay stamp?

Bring it on

MrBenn wrote:If I've got this right, then we're just waiting on an update to be able to give this map a Gameplay stamp?

Bring it on

You would be correct.

Incandenza wrote:

MrBenn wrote:If I've got this right, then we're just waiting on an update to be able to give this map a Gameplay stamp?

Bring it on

You would be correct.

I'm sorry on the delay

I've been jammed up big time between two jobs (one unpaid ) and some manual labor junk I've been doing on the side.

A few weeks ago I tried to work out the next version, but has some infuriating pshop problems and decided to put it down before I threw something out the window.

I'll get back on this asap I have some time today/tonight, so hopefully I can figure pshop out.

As there has been no update since May and the mapmaker has been busy (real life) I'll be putting out the next update. I'm just using this space to note some of the suggestions made in the past three months...

ship's wheel behind sea terits to link things together
make sea army counts easier to read
San Juan/Limon border moved west
Río needs accent, canal does not. Bahía and Panamá also need accents
limon/san jose border to the west as well: san jose becomes guanacaste
Quiche (in Guatemala) isn't really indicative of that region. I think what you are looking for is "Las Verapaces"
Looks like we're losing Xela and making a coast region that takes some land from guate
Belize city to include the Cayes maybe, but reiong to remain three territories

IgoasklucyI had also made comments about redoing the small map, and working on cleaning up the territory borders - which look OK to me, but if I'm redrawing them I may rework them all as stroked paths so they're easy to change in the future.

The only thing I mentioned with regards to territory borders was the one proposed switch in Costa Rica. Other than, I feel the borders are up to par.

lgoasklucyl wrote:The only thing I mentioned with regards to territory borders was the one proposed switch in Costa Rica. Other than, I feel the borders are up to par.

fair enough - as I said, I think the borders look fine, but there's been discussion over the past months about moving a lot of them - Belize, Guatemala, etc.

So, I actually am doing some work on this map, a little bit at a time. I'll post something this week, I swear.

perhaps you could make the location of the canal more obvious or just help the players locate it. (not everyone knows where it is)

i couldn't find it at first look until i started using my brain to realise which canal it was

i like the colour scheme in which the colours go well with each other, and even the sea. however, the compass' style seems different from that of the map. and it's in a rather weird location too.

do you wanna indicate that there are only 2 colours of the steering wheel?

/tannoy for oaktown

I have just one suggestion, that the sea ways would be marked with arrows or something similar.
As I understand it it is a one way attack from the ports to the sea route?

I'm gunna commandeer this project back soon

[Moved]

It would appear that development of this map has stalled. If the mapmaker wants to continue with the map, then one of the Foundry Moderators will be able to help put the thread back into the Foundry system, after an update has been made.

yeah, real life came between me this map... if the competition-winning artist wants to continue I'll lend a hand, but I don't see myself picking up the graphics any time soon.

oaktown wrote:yeah, real life came between me this map... if the competition-winning artist wants to continue I'll lend a hand, but I don't see myself picking up the graphics any time soon.

Yeah. Mid this week I may have time, though I'd need to sift through whatever suggestions we're going to work with first as it's been so long.

This map looks fun and has lots of promise. Hope to see it out soon.


--Andy

It's so close to a gameplay stamp that it's breathing hard...

Version Nine:

Changelog:
-Río accent added
-Canal accent removed
-Islas de Bahia accent added
-Panamá added
-Quice -> Las Verapaces
-Changed RAAN and RAAS. Wrote out the whole thing for one and portion for the other (RAAN and RAAS respectively), so we can see what they look like/choose that way. RAAN is correct but enormous, RAAS is incorrect(ish) but much, much smaller.
-Xela -> Quetzaltenango
-Moved around some territ names in Costa Rica/adjusted the border to a more appropriate position.
-Touched up some colors (mostly in Costa Rica); more work still needs to be done here.

To Do:
-I would really like to redo the map that is the key entirely (to make it neat like RJ did), though am unsure exactly how to approach this.
-Make it easier (more noticeable) that there are territs in the sea. I think the key to this is going to be drawing attention to the SW corner where the key is. Perhaps adding some sort of extra decoration down there will make it more noticeable.
-Other stuff.

[bigimg]http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/4547/camapsmallerv9.jpg[/bigimg]

Wow, where did this come from? Looking good!

The colours of the sea routes & ports are not very clear. They're not easy to tell apart even with normal vision, so colour blind people will probably have an even harder time telling them from each other...

Also, why only +1 for holding canal + both sea routes? If you think those 3 territories as a continent, you have 3 borders to defend to keep it. I think you should at least make it +2 to make it worthwhile...

natty_dread wrote:Wow, where did this come from? Looking good!

The colours of the sea routes & ports are not very clear. They're not easy to tell apart even with normal vision, so colour blind people will probably have an even harder time telling them from each other...

Also, why only +1 for holding canal + both sea routes? If you think those 3 territories as a continent, you have 3 borders to defend to keep it. I think you should at least make it +2 to make it worthwhile...

'
Thanks! =)

Distinguishing sea routes is definitely going to be important, though I'm unsure yet exactly how to make them too much clearer. A color change may be necessary, but I think the most important thing is helping draw attention to the fact that there are actually territs in the sea. Either way, work does need to be done there.

I think the Canal bonus is good as is (+1) because of the inherent advantage to holding the sea routes. Not only are you obtaining a +1 bonus, but you also have two territs that can move all over the map. I'm pretty sure that's why we decided on a +1.

Well, you have a point there. Let it stay as +1.

Another way would be to give a +1 autodeploy to each sea route. Although there's no way to make those dependent on holding canal...

I'd say a colour change for the sea routes / ports would be the best solution. And don't worry about people not knowing sea routes to be territories, there will be troop numbers there... that usually gives it away

natty_dread wrote:I'd say a colour change for the sea routes / ports would be the best solution. And don't worry about people not knowing sea routes to be territories, there will be troop numbers there... that usually gives it away

You'd be surprised how oblivious people can be... and then proceed to take it out on the map-maker(s) because the individual was too damn lazy to read the key.