Conquer Club

ender516 wrote:

1. Extremadura (Badajoz, March 1812) [Ex]
2. Ex: Extremadura (Badajoz, March 1812)

definitely the second one

Yes the Abbreviation should be first then the territory name! So my vote is the second one.

Kabanellas wrote:I think that Malta starting neutral troops should be reduced to 1. No point in letting it act as a wall of protection to the player starting in Sicily.

2 is hardly a wall.

My initial impressions is that Sweden is overvalued. It should be a 1 or have a connection added to Vilno.

Great work all!!!!! Thank you!

2 option re: abbreviation for me too. and thanks to ender for making it possible to incorporate the name of the battle and date. I also think it adds something to the game - and maybe even teaches something to those not very familiar with the Napoleonic Wars.

You guys did a fantastic job on this map. Well done.

Okay, here is version 1.11 of the XML, which incorporates the abbreviations and fixes Hessen's position on the small map:

Napoleonic_Europe_1812.V1.11.xml

The order of all the elements in the XML is unchanged, so it should be a drop-in replacement.

ender516 wrote:Okay, here is version 1.11 of the XML, which incorporates the abbreviations and fixes Hessen's position on the small map:

Napoleonic_Europe_1812.V1.11.xml

The order of all the elements in the XML is unchanged, so it should be a drop-in replacement.

I didn't check every one, but it looks good!

Small map. I had troops in BU. Wanted to fort them to my pard in HE (Hessen). In order to fort them I had to bring up Bavaria. Does BU = bavaria? If it doesn't then you have a bug.

jefjef reinforced Hessen (Jena, October 1806) with 3 troops from Bavaria

FYI: Small map Hessen troops are still in the battle site sabers and not in the circle.

I have a few questions about the Russian Winter.

Are those territories required for the Russia bonus?

Is it minus 2 for each Russian Winter territory you own?

I thought it was supposed to be a diminishing neutral, doesn't that make more sense?

jefjef wrote:Small map. I had troops in BU. Wanted to fort them to my pard in HE (Hessen). In order to fort them I had to bring up Bavaria. Does BU = bavaria? If it doesn't then you have a bug.

jefjef reinforced Hessen (Jena, October 1806) with 3 troops from Bavaria

FYI: Small map Hessen troops are still in the battle site sabers and not in the circle.

What you are reading as Bu is in fact Bv. It's the italic script font that is messing you up. (Look at the legend and compare Bavaria and Belgium to see the difference between "v" and "u".) Bv, as the legend says, is Bavaria. As discussed earlier, to avoid this type of confusion, the abbreviations have been incorporated into the XML, so that the territory will soon show in the dropdown and the log as "Bv: Bavaria". I say soon because I have in my hand [doing my very best Neville Chamberlain imitation] a note from MrBenn indicating that he has forwarded my updated XML to lackattack for upload. Peace in our time! (This update fixes the Hessen troop location as well.)

P.S. Please don't beat my metaphor to death and compare MrBenn or lackattack to Uncle Adolf. Maybe I would have been safer with a David Letterman slant: I have in my hand tonight's top 10 list from the home office in Wahoo, Nebraska! Top 10 fixes needed to forge the Napoleonic Europe 1812 map....

The Bison King wrote:I have a few questions about the Russian Winter.

Are those territories required for the Russia bonus?

Is it minus 2 for each Russian Winter territory you own?

I thought it was supposed to be a diminishing neutral, doesn't that make more sense?

Yes, those territories are required for the Russia bonus, but since they are not border territories, and the winter does not affect the capital, Moscow, you might not want or need to leave troops on them anyway.

Each Russian Winter territory that you hold has two troops removed from it when your turn begins. It is essentially a negative autodeploy, and it stops when you have only one troop in place. This is the same as the Dust Bowl territories in the map of the same name.

I am not sure what you mean by a diminishing neutral. A territory can be declared neutral with a starting number of troops. If it is made a "killer" neutral, then when it is held by a player at the beginning of his or her turn, it reverts to neutral with the original number of troops on it. It will not change the number of troops on it if it is still neutral, so if you have a killer neutral with 10 initial troops, and someone whittles it down somewhat, it will not revert to 10 at any time until someone actually conquers it. Similarly, a killer neutral territory bombarded to one neutral troop will stay that way. Neutralizing another player's troops will prevent the reset to 10 neutral troops.

Ok cool I understand. That's how I thought it worked, I haven't held any of those territories yet so it was hard to say.

I have been notified by MrBenn and lackattack, and have seen for myself, that the update with the abbreviations and the Hessen correction is now live.

cool map...This may have been said already but...


I attacked from a to b and was only able to see the attackers dice... It appears the tert names are to long for there respective boxes... Probably an easy fix since not all names take up the entire space..

danfrank wrote:cool map...This may have been said already but...


I attacked from a to b and was only able to see the attackers dice... It appears the tert names are to long for there respective boxes... Probably an easy fix since not all names take up the entire space..

I was afraid these long names would catch up with us. The "easy" fix is to shorten the names, probably by dropping the battle information. But considering the kind comments we have had about the battle info, I would like to explore other avenues. Not having a turn to play right now, I can't see the layout of the names with the cubes, and my imagination is failing me. I will check this out soon, and see if some rearrangement can be made either to give extra room to the text, or to fold the line, or to truncate the text only as necessary.

By the way, what size screen are you using?

I have to say, I'm not sure about the bonus structure on the map. Poland is worth 2 and is usually surrounded by several neutrals meaning it's not terribly hard to hold, whereas spain is worth 2, and is incredibly hard to control. Naples & Sicily is another one worth +2 and usually easy to hold. Because the map is so complex and there are so many bonuses, I'm sure there can be a number of arguments on this. I do think some long term beta testing would be useful to level the bonuses correctly.

Either way the map is quite an accomplishment; I respect it and the work even if I can't quite say I like it yet.

ender516 wrote:

danfrank wrote:cool map...This may have been said already but...


I attacked from a to b and was only able to see the attackers dice... It appears the tert names are to long for there respective boxes... Probably an easy fix since not all names take up the entire space..

I was afraid these long names would catch up with us. The "easy" fix is to shorten the names, probably by dropping the battle information. But considering the kind comments we have had about the battle info, I would like to explore other avenues. Not having a turn to play right now, I can't see the layout of the names with the cubes, and my imagination is failing me. I will check this out soon, and see if some rearrangement can be made either to give extra room to the text, or to fold the line, or to truncate the text only as necessary.

By the way, what size screen are you using?

1024 by 768 either 13 or 15 inch.. What i notice though is that maps like feudal epic are snug around terts like rebel 2 the box is tight with the only space being between the L and 2 on this map names like madrid have an extensive amount of dead space after the D so to say.. from a map like feudal to this one i thought the BOX would be on a name basis.. Make sense ? Instead of one fixed box say 30 characters wide for all names .. Even one like madrid thats 6..

+3 for the Ottoman seems like a really low bonus. It's really hard to hold, considering all the territs. Spain too. I like Poland being 2 (too many territs around it to be 1) and Sweden and Denmark should be +1s.

danryan wrote:I have to say, I'm not sure about the bonus structure on the map. Poland is worth 2 and is usually surrounded by several neutrals meaning it's not terribly hard to hold, whereas spain is worth 2, and is incredibly hard to control. Naples & Sicily is another one worth +2 and usually easy to hold. Because the map is so complex and there are so many bonuses, I'm sure there can be a number of arguments on this. I do think some long term beta testing would be useful to level the bonuses correctly.

Army of GOD wrote:+3 for the Ottoman seems like a really low bonus. It's really hard to hold, considering all the territs. Spain too. I like Poland being 2 (too many territs around it to be 1) and Sweden and Denmark should be +1s.

You need to take in account the capital auto deploy bonus + the additional battle site bonuses that go with owning those regions. So holding Spain or ottoman is worth more than you think they are.

danryan wrote:I have to say, I'm not sure about the bonus structure on the map. Poland is worth 2 and is usually surrounded by several neutrals meaning it's not terribly hard to hold, whereas spain is worth 2, and is incredibly hard to control. Naples & Sicily is another one worth +2 and usually easy to hold. Because the map is so complex and there are so many bonuses, I'm sure there can be a number of arguments on this. I do think some long term beta testing would be useful to level the bonuses correctly.

Either way the map is quite an accomplishment; I respect it and the work even if I can't quite say I like it yet.

Dan, remember that if you hold Spain you'll be receiving 2 (zone bonus) + 1 auto deployed in Madrid, and you'll be quite close of making a +2 with the battle sites....

We could eventually raise the zone bonus from Spain a bit..... but I'm a little afraid about the exponential capabilities of this place on the map (taking more battle sites,Portugal,Naval bonus.... It can easily turn out to be a huge bonus corner)

There are some bonus that are posing some problems:

The Kingdom of Naples - I suggest linking Naples to Rumelia and Piedmont to Rome and also reducing this bonus from 2 to 1

The Kingdom of Sweden - I suggest reducing this bonus from 2 to 1

Kabanellas wrote:The Kingdom of Naples - I suggest linking Naples to Rumelia and Piedmont to Rome

I wouldn't do that because all your sea connections implies a naval battle site
lowering the bonus is enough

Yea. Either do the connections or lower the bonus.

In the drop down menu, Saxony is abbreviated as Sw. That abbreviation should be for the Swiss Confederation. I don't know if the Swiss confederation is abbreviated correctly.

mviola wrote:In the drop down menu, Saxony is abbreviated as Sw. That abbreviation should be for the Swiss Confederation. I don't know if the Swiss confederation is abbreviated correctly.

I will try to fix that tonight. With luck, MrBenn and lackattack can turn it around as quickly this time as last. However, if there are other changes (bonuses and such), perhaps I should wait and give them some more reasons to fix this.