Conquer Club

pepperonibread wrote:Awww... I saw Andy's name, and I thought it was the quench...

patience makes saints

I did this days ago, but now I have the image. Good job.

Coleman wrote:

I did this days ago, but now I have the image. Good job.

its beautiful!

small correction. "the southern U.S."

incarnadine1589 wrote:small correction. "the southern U.S."

Not sure what you are quoting. I'd consider the south Alabama and the like. This is central...

Since andy never done his real work last night, I thought i better give you something to keep your mind ticking.

Where's Oaky gone - reckon this is ready for the Q!!

C.

yeti_c wrote:Where's Oaky gone - reckon this is ready for the Q!!

C.

Andys call as always, i predict he'll do it when hes next online:)

this map looks beautiful but before its quenched i wish to raise some gameplay concerns. I understand (and like) the decay in the central drought region. But I believe players are going to be confused when they think they have continents but actually do not unless they also hold the portion of this central area that makes up part of their continent - I don't think the mini map is enough of an explanation of this.

Also i'm somewhat concerned that the state bonuses are not fully taking on board the number of bordering terrs. - just for clarification these are the bonuses

+6 Texas terrs bordering it: 5 decay regions: 3
+5 Oklahoma terrs bordering it: 4 decay regions: 2
+4 New Mexico terrs bordering it: 5 decay regions: 2
+4 Colorado terrs bordering it: 5 decay regions: 2
+3 Kansas terrs bordering it: 5 decay regions: 2
+2 Nebraska terrs bordering it: 2 decay regions: 1

I would suggest the following instead of the above but i believe this needs some consideration and comments prior to quench

+6 Texas terrs bordering it: 5 decay regions: 3
+4 Oklahoma terrs bordering it: 4 decay regions: 2
+5 New Mexico terrs bordering it: 5 decay regions: 2
+5 Colorado terrs bordering it: 5 decay regions: 2
+5 Kansas terrs bordering it: 5 decay regions: 2
+2 Nebraska terrs bordering it: 2 decay regions: 1

i realise these bonuses seem very high but from a gameplay perspective with decay in the mix I believe they are fairer than the ones above

Hmmm - but now you're not taking into account "actual" territories...

C.

yeti_c wrote:Hmmm - but now you're not taking into account "actual" territories...

C.

I'm aware of that but in terms of gameplay I would rank actual terrs. as the least important of this maps 4 variables:

i would rank them in this order

decay regions

bordering terrs

border terrs (texas 3 nebaska 1 others 2)

actual terrs

as i said though mine is only one comment / opinion on this but i believe this should be ironed out before a quench is considered.

So we have... (currently)

Texas
Bordering it = 5 Decay Regions =3 Territories = 8 Bonus = +6
Oklahoma
Bordering it = 4 Decay Regions =2 Territories = 7 Bonus = +5
New Mexico
Bordering it = 5 Decay Regions =2 Territories = 6 Bonus = +4
Colorado
Bordering it = 5 Decay Regions =2 Territories = 6 Bonus = +4
Kansas
Bordering it = 5 Decay Regions =2 Territories = 5 Bonus = +3
Nebraska
Bordering it = 2 Decay Regions =1 Territories = 4 Bonus = +2

Right - so Texas is hardest...

New Mexico & Colorado are the same.

Nebraska is easiest.

Kansas is harder to hold - but easier to gain than Oklahoma...

I think you might want to have it like this

Texas
Bordering it = 5 Decay Regions =3 Territories = 8 Bonus = +6
Oklahoma
Bordering it = 4 Decay Regions =2 Territories = 7 Bonus = +4
New Mexico
Bordering it = 5 Decay Regions =2 Territories = 6 Bonus = +4
Colorado
Bordering it = 5 Decay Regions =2 Territories = 6 Bonus = +4
Kansas
Bordering it = 5 Decay Regions =2 Territories = 5 Bonus = +4
Nebraska
Bordering it = 2 Decay Regions =1 Territories = 4 Bonus = +1

I think that Texas is so hard to get and hold that it needs to have at least a +2 gap abover anything else - not least because a +1 gap is no bonus because it loses 3 (assuming that people always have armies on the borders which therefore decay)

C.

yeti_c wrote:
I think you might want to have it like this

Texas
Bordering it = 5 Decay Regions =3 Territories = 8 Bonus = +6
Oklahoma
Bordering it = 4 Decay Regions =2 Territories = 7 Bonus = +4
New Mexico
Bordering it = 5 Decay Regions =2 Territories = 6 Bonus = +4
Colorado
Bordering it = 5 Decay Regions =2 Territories = 6 Bonus = +4
Kansas
Bordering it = 5 Decay Regions =2 Territories = 5 Bonus = +4
Nebraska
Bordering it = 2 Decay Regions =1 Territories = 4 Bonus = +1

I think that Texas is so hard to get and hold that it needs to have at least a +2 gap abover anything else - not least because a +1 gap is no bonus because it loses 3 (assuming that people always have armies on the borders which therefore decay)

C.

i was thinking the same about texas ( i was actually going to suggest a +7 for it to give it that advantage)

at first glance +1 seems a bit low for Nebraska but when you compare it to the others what you suggested makes sense

obviously we need to hear from the map maker but i reckon your suggested bonuses sound equitable yeti.

rebelman wrote:

yeti_c wrote:
I think you might want to have it like this

Texas
Bordering it = 5 Decay Regions =3 Territories = 8 Bonus = +6
Oklahoma
Bordering it = 4 Decay Regions =2 Territories = 7 Bonus = +4
New Mexico
Bordering it = 5 Decay Regions =2 Territories = 6 Bonus = +4
Colorado
Bordering it = 5 Decay Regions =2 Territories = 6 Bonus = +4
Kansas
Bordering it = 5 Decay Regions =2 Territories = 5 Bonus = +4
Nebraska
Bordering it = 2 Decay Regions =1 Territories = 4 Bonus = +1

I think that Texas is so hard to get and hold that it needs to have at least a +2 gap abover anything else - not least because a +1 gap is no bonus because it loses 3 (assuming that people always have armies on the borders which therefore decay)

C.

i was thinking the same about texas ( i was actually going to suggest a +7 for it to give it that advantage)

at first glance +1 seems a bit low for Nebraska but when you compare it to the others what you suggested makes sense

obviously we need to hear from the map maker but i reckon your suggested bonuses sound equitable yeti.

Yeah I wasn't sure about +1 - perhaps +2 would be better... as then you don't lose what you gain... and every Risk map should have an Australia!!!

C.

I'm willing to change the bonus values, as long as we are all okay with them. I do not want to go down to a +1 bonus with a -1 decay though..



So I kind of compromised.

Nebraska..2
Colorado...4
Kansas......4
New Mex...4
Oklah........4
Texas........6

I still lean towards my original bonus structure as it just seems more fair. Kansas has fewer territories, so why shouldn't the bonus be smaller - and Oklah has more territs and borders, so you would think the bonus should be slightly higher. But straight +4's down the center may work... I'll wait for a few others to give some opinions. Thanks rebelman for the comments.

on another thread yeti mention the potential confusion over what makes up continents had already been raised, discussed and addressed. I have reviewed all 26 pages and see no mention of this serious gameplay concern. I find it hard to believe the issue has been addressed as the problem still exists in the latest version of the map. could the map maker or someone direct me to where in the thread this was discussed and explain how its "addressed" as the more I look at this map the more serious a problem i envisage this to be (especially for non BOB users) and it should be easy enough to solve. - only some minor changes to the legend required.

oklahoma is the only cont that does have a normal border country which makes it easier to defend (no reinforcement nececarry) so maybe that one should be looked at in a other way

rebelman wrote:I believe players are going to be confused when they think they have continents but actually do not unless they also hold the portion of this central area that makes up part of their continent - I don't think the mini map is enough of an explanation of this.

Rebelman, your concern is not really same as the one previously brought up, but it's close. Read the quotes below from Pg. 22

oaktown wrote:by dropping the state names (Kanses, Colorado, etc) cleanly in the middle of a territory it is unclear which territories are a part of the that state, since the dust bowl territories are a different color. Only Nebraska gives users an indication that the state includes the dustbowl.

rjbeals wrote:By looking at the legend, and seeing the dark state borders, I feel it's very clear which territories are included in the states. I would guess that 99% of people who are smart enough to use a computer, and to understand the rules of risk, and make it to this site, would know that the USA is divided by states, and the blurb in the legend identifies the area as the southern plains of the USA.

Incandenza wrote:To expand, I agree with rj rather than oaktown on the borders, as I feel that between the minimap and the dashed border lines, the map seems pretty well covered when it comes to indicating continent borders. The continent names are fine where they are.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure why you think people will be confused by this. Maybe I'm too close to the map, so it doesn't stick out to me. What would the simple fix be in the legend?

Lone.prophet wrote:oklahoma is the only cont that does have a normal border country which makes it easier to defend (no reinforcement nececarry) so maybe that one should be looked at in a other way

You've not read the legend correctly - all the states border through the Dustbowl areas...

C.

... i agree, it really is pretty strraightforward, especially with the mini-map in the legend that refers directly to the states and outlines them for you.
In addition, the big state letters over the county (or whatever, i.e. territory) names, is an obvious distinction.

As asl80 said, the mini-map on the legend makes it quite clear where the state borders are. The only thing that could be done to make it clearer, is to include a 'dusty' are on the mini-map; but I think it is fine how it is.

With regards to the bonuses, I think htey are adequate how they are currently on the map. Colorado/Mexico/Kansas are all very similar, but Kansas is easier to hold, as you can stack troops in Wichita. If it goes to a vote, mine is to keep the bonus the same.

yeti_c wrote:

Lone.prophet wrote:oklahoma is the only cont that does have a normal border country which makes it easier to defend (no reinforcement nececarry) so maybe that one should be looked at in a other way

You've not read the legend correctly - all the states border through the Dustbowl areas...

C.

Actually, upon inspection, this isn't the case. The border between No Mans Land (Texas-Drought) and Woodward (Oklahoma-Normal) is dotted. The legend only states that "Armies can only move between states through dotted lines", not through the drought region.

I read through the bonus suggestions, but I think Oklahoma should stay at +5 because Boise City is bordered by 4 other states.

Night Strike wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

Lone.prophet wrote:oklahoma is the only cont that does have a normal border country which makes it easier to defend (no reinforcement nececarry) so maybe that one should be looked at in a other way

You've not read the legend correctly - all the states border through the Dustbowl areas...

C.

Actually, upon inspection, this isn't the case. The border between No Mans Land (Texas-Drought) and Woodward (Oklahoma-Normal) is dotted. The legend only states that "Armies can only move between states through dotted lines", not through the drought region.

I read through the bonus suggestions, but I think Oklahoma should stay at +5 because Boise City is bordered by 4 other states.

You might be right here - I suspect that this isn't purposeful?

RJ?

C.

^^ hehe thats what i said it gives oklahoma a big adventage i think in defending

Lone.prophet wrote:^^ hehe thats what i said it gives oklahoma a big adventage i think in defending

Lone.prophet wrote:oklahoma is the only cont that does have a normal border country which makes it easier to defend (no reinforcement nececarry) so maybe that one should be looked at in a other way

I still must be missing something.

The legend & map are both correct. The Woodward / No Mans Land dotted border was intentional. During the initial game play development, we talked about making the drought regions the only means of moving through states, but went with the dotted lines instead (as a suggestion from a forum member). There's nothing that says you can only attack through drought regions.

How does that make Oklahoma easier to defend as no reinforcements necessary? You still have to defend / reinforce 3 borders in Oklahoma, you just only get a -1 in the 2 drought areas at the start of your turn.