Conquer Club

That is by far one of the easiest to read small maps we've had in a long time. I love it.

Optimus Prime wrote:That is by far one of the easiest to read small maps we've had in a long time. I love it.

Thanks Prime..
I'm working on the xml now. Any other minor graphical adjustments can still be made if anyone cares to comment.

I was just about to ask why Texas is a +6, then I noticed the drought areas are a -1, making Texas a +3?

I like the map, keep it going!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHECK OUT MY MAP "the Texan War"

Gilligan wrote:I was just about to ask why Texas is a +6, then I noticed the drought areas are a -1, making Texas a +3?

Well it's still a +6. You have 6 armies to place at the beginning of your turn. You don't have to put them on the drought areas, or even in Texas. However, your 3 drought areas will each lose 1 army.

just a small thing. 'no mans land' should that not be 'no man's land'?

but my actual concern is that NML borders two non-drought regions from two different continents, i thought this was a bit odd seeings as NML is the only one that does, a way to fix this would be to add an impassible border between NML and woodward?

Telvannia wrote:just a small thing. 'no mans land' should that not be 'no man's land'?

but my actual concern is that NML borders two non-drought regions from two different continents, i thought this was a bit odd seeings as NML is the only one that does, a way to fix this would be to add an impassible border between NML and woodward?

'no man's land' is correct and will fix the spelling. But why are the borders a concern? I could easily extend Oklahoma's border up so it's impassible. But just not sure why?

RjBeals wrote:But why are the borders a concern? I could easily extend Oklahoma's border up so it's impassible. But just not sure why?

it is not a problem. I mentioned it because you might have not wanted that to happen (the fact it was the only one made me think that) and just missed that one when checking.

I think the way it is makes Texas that much harder to keep - a good thing. Texas bonus may even need a boost up to +7.

RjBeals wrote:I think the way it is makes Texas that much harder to keep - a good thing. Texas bonus may even need a boost up to +7.

a bonus of 7 being able to be defended by 2 territories, decay or no decay is not a good idea in my eyes. Unless i hold it

Telvannia wrote:

RjBeals wrote:I think the way it is makes Texas that much harder to keep - a good thing. Texas bonus may even need a boost up to +7.

a bonus of 7 being able to be defended by 2 territories, decay or no decay is not a good idea in my eyes. Unless i hold it

3 Territory's. All 3 drought regions needed to defend texas.

RjBeals wrote:

Telvannia wrote:

RjBeals wrote:I think the way it is makes Texas that much harder to keep - a good thing. Texas bonus may even need a boost up to +7.

a bonus of 7 being able to be defended by 2 territories, decay or no decay is not a good idea in my eyes. Unless i hold it

3 Territory's. All 3 drought regions needed to defend texas.

for some reason i forgot that the drought region was part of the continent

but i still think 7 might be a bit high...

I like +7.

How do the drought areas lower to 1 army?

I know there will be a territory bonus of -1 in each drought territory but what happens when the territory has only 1 army at the beginning of the turn?

1-1=0=turn to neutral.

Or am I missing something?

WM

I think it was mentioned that a territory can't decay beyond 1. So if 1 army remains, the decay kind of becomes a moot point. At least I recall reading that somewhere in this thread I think...


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I think it was mentioned that a territory can't decay beyond 1. So if 1 army remains, the decay kind of becomes a moot point. At least I recall reading that somewhere in this thread I think...


--Andy

That's correct Andy - I had confirmation of this from teh almight Lack.

C.

New Version
Replaced the text State name bonus with a graphical representation. Also added some slight color to each of the states to make them stand out a bit more. Not too much though - in fact you man not even notice unless you look at both previous version next to this most recent version.


Previous Version

I like the new better. Removes any random confusion about the drought areas being part of the states they are in.

Oklahoma and New Mexico seem too bright compared to the rest of the map.

I GOT SERVED wrote:Oklahoma and New Mexico seem too bright compared to the rest of the map.

I did that on purpose, so the states would contrast more. I tried to keep very muted colors, so it wouldn't take away from the "dust" feel. If we think it's too bright than, I can change.

In order to have dark, we must have light

I like the graphical way of displaying the state bonuses...

Thanks Rictus.

I think the legend looks good; and is an original way of showing the state bonuses.

The drought region in it doesn't quite look right though, imo... I think that it either needs to be a shade or two darker darker, or you could give the border the same style as on the map??

If you notice the thick borders are impassible, so that's why they aren't the same inside the drought region, the drought region is the only way to move around between states.

I meant the border to the drought area part of the legend...

The map is fine