Conquer Club

VERSION 12
Changes:
-Fixed the number of borders per hex group (I think)

3 hex - 1 border
6 hex - 2 borders
9 hex - 3 borders
12 hex - 5 borders
15 hex - 6 borders

-Edited legend to read territories instead of territory.

Does Conquer Club support .svg files? i reckon the pixellation on the thin straight lines should be gone.

00iCon wrote:Does Conquer Club support .svg files? i reckon the pixellation on the thin straight lines should be gone.

they are pixelated because I drew them with pixels. here is a previous explaination below.

Beko the Great wrote:Hello all!
First of all I'd like to congratulate you for this excelent idea, and this huge map. I'm really eager to play it!
Then, just a note, I see the borders too pixelated and not coherent with the rest of the design (such as bees and honey). Maybe smooth this a bit

Cheers! And good luck with this!

Thanks
As far as the borders go, I needed to make them pixelish to fit everything. If I add aliasing to them to smooth them out, they all get wider, That starts to crowd out other things.
Plus then they all do not look even (some are more fuzzy and some are less) Basically all the lines would look like the Impassables and the impassables would need to get thicker. Not enough room.

thenobodies80 wrote:probably all games will be based on a "attack your opponents 3 hex regions in despite of any real game strategy.

exactly. this is my only real quibble with the gameplay on the map: from turn one, strategy becomes a one-dimensional series of ever-more-desperate assaults on the 3-hex bonuses that someone else is holding. we have so many bonus zones already that there's simply no need to have any 3-hex zones at all, especially the ones at the edges such as a1 and r15 (though i don't especially like them, the ones in the middle aren't so bad). even if every 3-hex zone is merged with a larger neighbour, there are still plenty of zones to share out in an 8-player game. if there are no 3-hex zones, then i think start positions will be unnecessary.

there are arguments for and against a region (region, not territory, to be consistent with the cc site instructions) bonus limit of 10 or 15. 12 is a good compromise.

there has been a consistently-clear vision of keeping the storage cells as a method of movement and nothing else. this keeps things simple with a minimum of explanation, which is to be applauded.

surprisingly, the 888s look pretty good and not nearly as squashed as i had imagined. do test for 8888, since this is equivalent to 888 with a colour code, which will be common in unlimited-fort games here. it looks as if there will be room, though the right-hand edge is close. to avoid doubt, testing 8888 is not a standard requirement for the graphics stamp and, not being a graphics expert, i'm posting the 8888 comment only as a player.

ian.

The layout is just from trying to get 49 bonus groups made up of 3,6,9,12 and 15 hexes. I don't want teh map tyo be symetrical. IS classic, is World 2.1? These are good because there are better strategic points. The upper left has more lower end bonuses, easier to get (after 15 rounds) but worth less than the lower right.

Here was my original intent for the # of groups (BTW killer. The first post needs to get updated. Teh number of bonuses groups is wrong. I must have messed up earlier)

3 hex - 16 groups - 48 hexes - 33% of the bonus groups - 14% of the hexes - Total Map bonus for all (16) - Total Map bonus % (9)
6 hex - 14 groups - 84 hexes - 29% of the bonus groups - 24% of the hexes - Total Map bonus for all (42) - Total Map bonus % (23)
9 hex - 9 groups - 81 hexes - 18% of the bonus groups - 24% of the hexes - Total Map bonus for all (45) - Total Map bonus % (23)
12 hex - 6 groups - 72 hexes - 12% of the bonus groups - 21% of the hexes - Total Map bonus for all (42) - Total Map bonus % (23)
15 hex - 4 groups - 60 hexes - 8% of the bonus groups - 17% of the hexes - Total Map bonus for all (40) - Total Map bonus % (22)
5 Storage Areas - 5 clusters

The 3's make up the least number of total hexes (14%) and only 9% of the total bonus. Ideal I would want more 3 hex groups to balance out the numbers (my goal was to have all of the % the same but the size did not allow and organizing as well of the borders).

I hope this explains better what i was trying to do. I did not just randomly decide the number and size of the groups. I did a bunch of math and prep work to figure out how many general hexes I could use. And then I did more to figure out what was the best number of storage nodes there were so the number of regular hexes came out to a divisible number of the proper 3,6,9,12 and 15 groups.

I did not try to make a symmetrical map. My goal is to make a very unsymmetrical map in an very organized way.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDEA:
What if we meet half way? We can keep the map as is (same number of bonus groups) but increase the number of borders for 3 or 4 of the 3-HEX groups in the north.
That will keep the map layout and will also make those 3-HEX groups less attractive and hopefully eliminate the issues that thenobodies80 and iancanton have brought up.

Does that sound good? I will post an update with this idea tonight.
WM

Personally I would go for the 6 hex groups. I could probably get one on Round 1 with a good drop. They're worth 3 times a 3 hex group with only 2 borders. I think the bonuses are fairly balanced already, even if somebody drops a 3 hex group (what's an extra +1 when everybody's getting +12 anyway?).

john9blue wrote:Personally I would go for the 6 hex groups. I could probably get one on Round 1 with a good drop. They're worth 3 times a 3 hex group with only 2 borders. I think the bonuses are fairly balanced already, even if somebody drops a 3 hex group (what's an extra +1 when everybody's getting +12 anyway?).

3Hex and 6Hex will all have starting positions to eliminate a dropped bonus.

VERSION 13 (lucky number 13 maybe???)

Changes:

-This is the exact same map as #12 but the 3Hex groups of: A1 / C14 / H9 / I1 now have 2 borders instead of just one
-This will lower their value but keep the number of 3Hex groups the same.

If GP and GFX are deemed acceptable and the map gets stamps, i will begin to work on the Large and killer can start the XML.

I'm happy with this version, just a question:

Do you have already decided what will be exactly the SP?

wm

thanks for the explanation behind ur thinking.

in general, i especially dislike small bonuses at the edge of the board because players tend to hide in the corners in multiplayer games. if the easier bonuses are in the middle, then this not only encourages players to venture into the middle, but gives a chance to a player who doesn't have much at a corner or edge. given that all but one of the 3-hex bonus zones are within easy reach of a honey storage cell, the concept of being in a corner isn't so pronounced.

however, version 13, opening up the 3-hex zones, is promising, particularly in conjunction with the existing progressive bonus structure. put no more than 3 start positions (or 4 if u're doing 4 sets instead of 3) in each of the 6-hex zones, to retain some asymmetricity and increase the attractiveness of some of them relative to the 3-hex zones.

it's looking good now.

ian.

My idea for SP in 2 player games was that each 3HEX group have 1 for each player and 1 nuetral. Then 1/2 of the 6HEX groups would each get 2 of player 1,2 and neutral. The rest of the map would be random.

For 3 player games, all 3HEX would be divided among the players. Then 1/2 of the 6HEX groups would each get 2 of player 1,2 and 3. The rest of the map would be random.

How does that sound?

WidowMakers wrote:My idea for SP in 2 player games was that each 3HEX group have 1 for each player and 1 nuetral. Then 1/2 of the 6HEX groups would each get 2 of player 1,2 and neutral. The rest of the map would be random.

For 3 player games, all 3HEX would be divided among the players. Then 1/2 of the 6HEX groups would each get 2 of player 1,2 and 3. The rest of the map would be random.

How does that sound?

It sounds good.

btw yes, 13 is your lucky number



Nobodies

Make it into an animated gif and have the bees flap their wings once in a while... that'd be so cool

natty_dread wrote:Make it into an animated gif and have the bees flap their wings once in a while... that'd be so cool

I already made Conquer man an animated gif. I may mess around with it later but now the large map is going to be worked on.

That animated stuff is distracting, I vote "HELL NO" for that.

LARGE VERSION 1

To-Do:
1) Need to finish the Hex lettering

Questions of comments?

I don't see any glaring problem. Looking great WM!!

thanks isaiah

Any other suggestions?
I will try to get the hexes named soon

WM

I have a thought for ya, Once the sea of armies are in place, the map will have a bright glowing effect going on. I think to temper that a little, you should tone down the saturation on the colors that you have going now. It is going to be somewhat of an assault on the eyes as it is. I am sure that once you get those 888's up, you will see what I am getting at.
Also, maybe you can play with the contrast on the bees. I think that you might be able to sharpen them up a bit. Also if you increase the size of the drop shadow on them it will help in this respect as well.

porkenbeans wrote:I have a thought for ya, Once the sea of armies are in place, the map will have a bright glowing effect going on. I think to temper that a little, you should tone down the saturation on the colors that you have going now. It is going to be somewhat of an assault on the eyes as it is. I am sure that once you get those 888's up, you will see what I am getting at.
Also, maybe you can play with the contrast on the bees. I think that you might be able to sharpen them up a bit. Also if you increase the size of the drop shadow on them it will help in this respect as well.

Sounds good. I will give it a shot. Most likely just put a light white layer over to soften the colors a bit.

My only thought of consequence is that you possibly don't need to use a pixel font on the large map?

MrBenn wrote:My only thought of consequence is that you possibly don't need to use a pixel font on the large map?

I think it looks bad to have two similar but different feeling maps.

Version 2 LARGE

-Finished the hex labeling
-made the image softer

Large V2

Small V14

So much cleaner and clearer to read! What else is there to say, but Gr this!

Much better Widow.
Here is another suggestion for ya, Pull the distance back on the drop shadow. Up on the size and opacity.
Also, the honey cells seem to have an outer glow going on. It is adversely effecting some of the surrounding territs drop shadows.