Conquer Club

ZeakCytho wrote:One problem with groups of 2 - in games of fewer than 6 players, say, a 3 player game, you risk two players dropping next to each other and a third being isolated. This gives the 3rd player a major advantage. I'd opt for 6 roughly equidistantly placed starting positions.

I think just letting the player start with a capital is fine. Give a bunch of neutral 1s to the rest of his country so it's easy to take over, and then a big wall of neutrals right outside, so it takes time to break out.

Edit: I forgot to say, I agree with everything else you said.

Thanks ZeakCytho. Those are very valid points. I have added a lot of neutrals in the short path to avoid players accesing each other too soon. I also plan to place very few neutrals in homeland territories. Maybe 1 as you suggest are too few. But definitely not more than 4.

SuicidalSnowman wrote:I think from what we have seen with other maps on this site, having each player start with their capital works pretty well. I would say stick to this, rather than starting with a full country.

I also think ZeakCythlo raises a good point about three player games in reference to starting positions.

I would personally like to see the neutral territories be more about impassables and less about large numbers of neutral armies. We are already planning on using neutral armies in the tech tree, so let's go for something else on the map proper.

Definitely, having a high number of neutrals in non-homeland territories will make each player "more distant" from each other. I plan to include a short route (the blue territories) but following your comment it would be a territory with A LOT of neutrals.

Thanks for your comments.

Wow, great idea. Will look harder later, but this is a fantastic way to develop gameplay.

I'm sure this was an [Advanced Draft] before the tom-gate affair...

Thanks so much MrBenn

Meanwhile Tacktix works in the pretty one, I will continue updating this ugly layout for gameplay design.

Can you put this on some sort of blank landscape to give it a map feel

This week I am a bit busy, but will try to do it during the weekend.

I took some time to look at it in depth.

First of all, remind me, can you gain double bonuses for researching a second player's tech (say, after eliminating them)?

Secondly, I know previously we debated very seriously about the different possible tactics. Would it be possible to turtle up and do research? Will it be possible to simply forgo the tech and stomp your enemy? Something in between?

The current map might lend itself to the turtle and research strategy as there is little to be gained in the middle. In fact, I think the middle seems slightly uninviting in its current guise. Perhaps having so few choke points will help.

I think it is absolutely necessary to have the proposed connections in the center area. I assume the mines will start with neutrals, and this central point will allow you to be fairly equidistant from all the starting points.

Just some thoughts...

Thanks for your detailed comments, SuicidalSnowman. this week I am busy but I will answer as soon as possible.

OliverFA wrote:

ZeakCytho wrote:One problem with groups of 2 - in games of fewer than 6 players, say, a 3 player game, you risk two players dropping next to each other and a third being isolated. This gives the 3rd player a major advantage. I'd opt for 6 roughly equidistantly placed starting positions.

I think just letting the player start with a capital is fine. Give a bunch of neutral 1s to the rest of his country so it's easy to take over, and then a big wall of neutrals right outside, so it takes time to break out.

Edit: I forgot to say, I agree with everything else you said.

Thanks ZeakCytho. Those are very valid points. I have added a lot of neutrals in the short path to avoid players accesing each other too soon. I also plan to place very few neutrals in homeland territories. Maybe 1 as you suggest are too few. But definitely not more than 4.

Would it be possible to hardcode starting positions for 3, 4, and 5 player games.


The layout is good, but it's symmetrical nature makes it somewhat boring. An asymmetrical map layout like Age of Realms or Feudual War would be better.

MrBenn wrote:I've always thought that the tech-trees could look something more like this:

(Albeit a lot less cartoony)

Very "Megalomania"...

C.

Alright, I'm getting some actual Work done on this map now, and I recently finished the title of R&C. I'm using it as a "theme piece" to help me visualize the rest of the map. I'll be posting a preliminary draft with all the other elements ON the map but not pretty in keeping with this title. That way we can move forward with more comments as to theme, gameplay appropriateness, and the like. I plan to incorporate some of the feedback we got to the initial layout, so expect something slightly different from the diagram above.

Wow - that looks amazing Tack. I can't wait to see what you come up with on the actual map!

(edit) The only thing that worries me is the size of it. I think you're going to need as much space as possible for the map and the instructions. You may need to scale the title down a bit.

Don't worry, that's an intentional doublescale of what it'll be on the map. I have a few edits I want to do with the title in advance, as well.

TaCktiX wrote:Alright, I'm getting some actual Work done on this map now, and I recently finished the title of R&C. I'm using it as a "theme piece" to help me visualize the rest of the map. I'll be posting a preliminary draft with all the other elements ON the map but not pretty in keeping with this title. That way we can move forward with more comments as to theme, gameplay appropriateness, and the like. I plan to incorporate some of the feedback we got to the initial layout, so expect something slightly different from the diagram above.

I know that mine is not an objective opinion, but I cannot help saying that this artwork is awesome!!! Good work TaCktiX!

Alrighty, I wasn't fully satisfied with the title, so I made some further edits. Here's version 2 before I endeavour upon a full map.



Also, I've got us a minisig, Oliver. Check my current.

Whoa. That's absolutely beautiful!

Pile of awesome.

I think there needs to be a new version before this can move on...

EDIT: POST 1000!

sailorseal wrote:I think there needs to be a new version before this can move on...

EDIT: POST 1000!

Sorry for not providing information lately about what is going on. I am preparing the second version of the layout incorporating all the good suggestions that have been written in the thread (not completely symetric, try not to force a particular game style, include neutrals number so it can be commented if they are too much or too few) but real life is making it a bit difficult. Hope to have it ready soon for you to see and evaluate.

Thanks again for all yuour support.

I know it took a little bit, but at last here is the second version of the layout:



I have made the following changes:

- Removing symetrism. (as Emperor Metalman suggested)
- Including neutral's numers.

Things that still need to be done:

- Defining neutral continents
- Deciding bonuses for capitals/homelands/neutral continents
- Redesigning neutral territories and connections (if needed)

Ok, now commenting the layout:

Homelands A and C stay as they were in version 1. The other 4 homelands have been changed to break symetrism. I have tried to make each one a bit different from the others. Homeland F has its capital protected after a long and narrow country. D it's the contrary. Its capital is very close to the rest of the map, which makes it vulnerable but at the same time allows the player to protect the full homeland just by holding the capital. E has a wide border, which makes it difficult for his player to protect. A player starting in E homeland is encouraged to expand quickly, because is difficult for him to get entrenched. B is just a variation from C.

In response to SuicidalSnowman concerns, I have kept neutrals number low on purpose, the idea is to try to make both options (fortifying in your homeland and expanding through the map) viable options. If players decide to conquer instead of research, they will be able to do it because the number of neutrals is low. I am also considering the idea of adding up to 9 more neutral territories to provide some more land, but I decided to leave this for v3 of the layout. The only modification made to the central neutral (green) area was to add the connections proposed by Suicidal Snowman. If needed, I will add more modifications in v3.

Also, I remind you that players will not be able to conquer other players techs and double their bonus. That would go against the tech concept.

BTW - I've worked out how to ensure that you only get 1 set of research bonuses regardless of whether or not you are attacking down more than 1 tech tree...

Write up follows...

First up we need some helper continents...


Then - when we define the bonus continents - instead of using a set capital and lab - we just query that they have at least 1 of them...



C.

Love the idea.I would add some sort of fortifications for the capitals or some sort of defense mechanism.

I think the new layout gives everyone a fair shake at each others base right from the start, while also giving each player a way to defend. Well done.

As part of the ongoing review of maps in the drafting room, and as there is not currently a complete draft image for this map, I will unsticky this thread.

I am still very much in support of the map concept, and am looking forward to seeing the working draft develop