Conquer Club

Version 16

Changes:
-added neutrals in France, Saladin’s, Almohads and Seljuks.
-moved Muslim bonus from the Starting Points to adjacent regions.

Notes :

-Damascus territories only give 3 bonus because when holding them along with Saladin’s Dominions you’ll have an extra 2 bonus troops from the Muslim Bonus layer, making a total of 5 troops

-The circle in Jerusalem is a conceptual thing, stating the importance of the city in this scenario/map – A circle that points out the epicentre of the game.

-I’d very much like to keep a grade of red in Jerusalem Kingdom to Jerusalem City. It makes sense both conceptually and graphically. I do find them perfectly distinct from one another, but if you really think that it’s important to change it I’ll do it.

-as for the Saladin’s bonus, I really think that this bonus shouldn’t be smaller than its Almohad neighbour. I don’t think that game-play will be compromised by it, actually it will make that very demanding area more sustainable.

[bigimg]http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/Third_Crusade_V16.jpg[/bigimg]

iancanton wrote:jerusalem city needs to be a more distinct colour from the surrounding kingdom, since it isn't part of it. a more random shape than a circle might help too.

Very good idea, we can use David's Star to outline the city instead of the circle!

iancanton wrote:the number of starting regions is, i believe, 52 plus 8 start positions if saladin has a neutral. this is 17+4=21 each in 1v1 and 13+2=15 each in 2v2. these are both bad numbers for the player or team that plays second, but an extra neutral region in poland will solve this easily.

Currently there are 53 startable, accordingly to Kab. So here is the territory bonus layout

52 or 53 startable plus 8 start positions.

in 1vs1 =
each will start with 17+4=21 countries. Bad

in 1vs1vs1 =
each will start with 17+2=19 countries. Good

in 2vs2 =
each will start with 13+2=15 countries. Really bad.

54 startable plus 8 start posistion:

in 1vs1 =
each will start with 18+4=22 countries. Good

in 1vs1vs1 =
each will start with 18+2=20 countries. Very Good

in 2vs2 =
each will start with 13+2=15 countries. Really bad.

51 startable plus 8 start posistion:

in 1vs1 =
each will start with 17+4=21 countries. Bad

in 1vs1vs1 =
each will start with 17+2=19 countries. Good

in 2vs2 =
each will start with 12+2=14 countries. Very good.

For 5 and more players, territory count it irrelevant.

AndrewB wrote:

iancanton wrote:jerusalem city needs to be a more distinct colour from the surrounding kingdom, since it isn't part of it. a more random shape than a circle might help too.

Very good idea, we can use David's Star to outline the city instead of the circle!

Well, it's known as the City of Gold. It would be appropriate for the territory to appear as a glowing golden circle rather than a plain red one.

Could we get the probabilities of a drop bonus, i.e. first turn bonus, in a table?

00iCon wrote:Could we get the probabilities of a drop bonus, i.e. first turn bonus, in a table?

There will be no probability with all those neutrals now.

V17 ready!

V 16 changes:
-added neutrals in France, Saladin’s, Almohads and Seljuks.
-moved Muslim bonus from the Starting Points to adjacent regions

V17 changes:
-changed Jerusalem shape to a David’s Star – Wonderful idea Andrew, thank you
-also changed its colour to golden yellow, following Evil’s suggestion – and I like it!
-dropped Saladin’s bonus from 4 to 3 (still not sure about this, but made a more direct connection to Jerusalem to compensate it)
-changed Muslim bonus a bit, now holding 2 crescents will only give a 1 bonus troop, that way I could drop those starting neutrals to 2.
-added one more crescent in Damascus – makes sense that this large territory gives some bonus even if not hold by Saladin’s Domains owner. Also, Damascus was one of Saladin’s capitals.
- distributable regions are now 51 – neutrals added to Bessarabia and Damascus (crescent), making the region count drop by 2
-raised Holy Roman Empire bonus to 7

[bigimg]http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/Third_Crusade_V17.jpg[/bigimg]

Calculator
Everything’s seem to be working pretty fine, only Two Scilies and Tripoli are asking for a slightly increase in bonus. I’m not sure if that’s really needed....

[bigimg]http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/TTC_calc.png[/bigimg]

Looks awesome, Kab, great job!

Kabanellas wrote:Damascus territories only give 3 bonus because when holding them along with Saladin’s Dominions you’ll have an extra 2 bonus troops from the Muslim Bonus layer, making a total of 5 troops

that's fair enough.

AndrewB wrote:

00iCon wrote:Could we get the probabilities of a drop bonus, i.e. first turn bonus, in a table?

There will be no probability with all those neutrals now.

not exactly none! about 10% in 2-player or 3-player because of poland.

AndrewB wrote:51 startable plus 8 start posistion:

in 1vs1 = each will start with 17+4=21 countries. Bad

in 1vs1vs1 = each will start with 17+2=19 countries. Good

in 2vs2 = each will start with 12+2=14 countries. Very good.

if we put 2 neutrals on one of the poland regions, then each player starts with 20 regions for 1v1 (very good), 18 for 1v1v1 (bad) and 14 for 2v2 (very good). of these, 1v1v1 is least important because the two losing players will often team up against the leading player.

it's now easy to tell that jerusalem is a different colour!

can u reduce all of the 3-neutrals (except wales) to 2? this will make things easier for the norman kingdom and tripoli.

ur spreadsheet suggests +7 for the byzantine empire. i agree with increasing it to that because there's no one-way expansion from there, unlike from the western empires. the other bonuses that u have on the map are fine.

ian.

Ian, wouldn’t Normand Kingdom and Edessa be a too easy catch with just 2 neutrals, for a bonus of 2?

As for that 3 region zone (Poland) do you really think it’s necessary to plant another neutral region over there? I can recall a few maps with 3 region bonus that don’t have any neutrals (World 2.1, Eastern Hemisphere...)

The Byzantine Empire has that 1 auto-deploy in Constantinople that will raise the count to 7. It’s not completely the same i know... but at least that 1 will be easier to protect

As for the Saladin’s bonus, are you completely settled with those 3 bonus troops and not 4. Well, if it’s ok for you it’s ok for me

Kabanellas wrote:Everything’s seem to be working pretty fine, only Two Scilies and Tripoli are asking for a slightly increase in bonus. I’m not sure if that’s really needed

Kabanellas wrote:Ian, wouldn’t Normand Kingdom and Edessa be a too easy catch with just 2 neutrals, for a bonus of 2?

possibly true. i'm thinking that this is a good way to avoid increasing their bonus, since i agree with u that a bigger bonus isn't needed. if u're happy with 3 neutrals and +2 bonus, then so am i.

Kabanellas wrote:As for that 3 region zone (Poland) do you really think it’s necessary to plant another neutral region over there?

on many maps where player 1 starts with a minimum deployment of 7 troops, a 10% chance of dropping a +1 bonus makes very little difference to the existing first-mover advantage. in this case, he has a 95% chance of winning 1 region from player 2 to reduce player 2's deployment, plus a 10% chance of starting with the +1 poland bonus to create a +2 first-mover advantage. the main reason for the extra neutral is to reduce player 1's deployment to 6 troops for 20 regions, so that he must take 3 regions from player 2 if he wants to cut player 2's deployment. this simple change, one extra neutral region in poland, therefore turns our map from one that is worse than average for 1v1 games to one of the very best for its size (it's good for 2v2 in both cases). the stamp will follow immediately!

Kabanellas wrote:The Byzantine Empire has that 1 auto-deploy in Constantinople that will raise the count to 7. It’s not completely the same i know... but at least that 1 will be easier to protect

accepted.

Kabanellas wrote:As for the Saladin’s bonus, are you completely settled with those 3 bonus troops and not 4. Well, if it’s ok for you it’s ok for me

let's stick with +3 for now and, if it doesn't look right, then u can change it later!

ian.

iancanton wrote:on many maps where player 1 starts with a minimum deployment of 7 troops, a 10% chance of dropping a +1 bonus makes very little difference to the existing first-mover advantage. in this case, he has a 95% chance of winning 1 region from player 2 to reduce player 2's deployment, plus a 10% chance of starting with the +1 poland bonus to create a +2 first-mover advantage. the main reason for the extra neutral is to reduce player 1's deployment to 6 troops for 20 regions, so that he must take 3 regions from player 2 if he wants to cut player 2's deployment. this simple change, one extra neutral region in poland, therefore turns our map from one that is worse than average for 1v1 games to one of the very best for its size (it's good for 2v2 in both cases). the stamp will follow immediately!

you're right, I miscalculated

Version 18

-added 1 neutral in Poland
-also changed the arrow pointing Jerusalem's legend for the symbol itself - it looks better, I think....

[bigimg]http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/Third_Crusade_V18.jpg[/bigimg]

i notice that edessa's neutral is 2, while the two sicilies' neutral is 3, presumably because sicily is next to the tunis starting position.

since the map now passes the foundry's tests for gameplay, it's time for u to move a few pixels for the graphics team!



ian.

iancanton wrote:i notice that edessa's neutral is 2, while the two sicilies' neutral is 3, presumably because sicily is next to the tunis starting position.

since the map now passes the foundry's tests for gameplay, it's time for u to move a few pixels for the graphics team!

Thanks a lot Ian!!!

The neutral in Edessa is 3, the same as in Two Sicilies. Only Tripoli has 2 neutral troops and that's because the calculator asks for 2 bonus troops and I'm only giving 1 - so I had to compensate

Starting graphics discussion

which option to Jerusalem's legend do you prefer, arrow or symbol ?

Arrow


Symbol

symbol for sure.. don't need arrows cluttering up this beautiful map.

ditto that on the symbol, much better.

I think the arrow will help players new to the map.
On a different point, I think the addiditon of manual deployment is going to work great with this map. Will it affect the troops on the starting points?

I hope not ... but that's a good question, though

Well, i think the symbol is the way to go. To be honest, all CC players must have a reasonably good knowledge of geography to know that where Jerusalem is so I think it should click right away in any players mind that the gold six pointed star in the Israel area is Jerusalem. I really dont think that the arrow is necessary. The thing I don't get is why the Islamic symbol and the shield are down there as well.

Industrial Helix wrote:Well, i think the symbol is the way to go. To be honest, all CC players must have a reasonably good knowledge of geography to know that where Jerusalem is so I think it should click right away in any players mind that the gold six pointed star in the Israel area is Jerusalem. I really dont think that the arrow is necessary. The thing I don't get is why the Islamic symbol and the shield are down there as well.

As I read it, the crescent and star indicate that Jerusalem is part of the "Muslim bonus", and the shield indicates that holding Jerusalem doubles the Knights Templar bonus.

yes Helix, Ender is right. Jerusalem has its own Muslim Crescent part of the Muslim bonus, and a Shield that gives 1 autodeployed troop and if combined with the Knights Templar bonus gives extra bonus.

It's perfect, what more do we need? Do you want us all to PM the moderators?

LOL Icon! great idea, massive support sounds good to me

the truth is that the graphic aspects of this map were widely and openly debated since the very beginning of its creation, leaving not much stuff to discuss at this point.... I'll just post the (updated) small version tomorrow, and ask for a final opinion on that.

thanks all for the support.

Ah ahhh... yeah, that makes sense. I had another stupid question that was resolved by reading the rules again. They're complicated, but in a real good way. It's like Battle for Iraq, once you get a good sense of the rules its a fantastic map to play.

I'm racking my brain for another graphical improvement. I've been typing them out and then seeing its not a problem. I think you're really on solid ground as far as the graphics are concerned. They've really looked great from the start. I expect you'll be getting the stamp very soon. Great work!

I actually rather like the arrow. You already have a lot of floating text that doesn't refer to anything so the arrow fits better with the reality of "In lieu of being able to fit this text and these symbols on the little territory, I put them off to the side."

Either way I really hope this map doesn't fall into two months of nitpicking now. The graphics are good to go if you ask me.