Conquer Club

Industrial Helix wrote:I think you should call Myanmar "Imperial Myanmar" to imply Myanmar took over those territories rather than looking like you couldn't find a better name for the white region.

First of all thank you for all your ideas in your post. Yes I was going to change the name once I knew people liked the idea of those white areas as a bonus. I think I'll keep the bonus as Myanmar, and change the name on the map itself to the capital. This will help to not make the legend area cluttered up.

I think Xizang ought to be called Tibet as that is what it is most commonly known as. And there should be mountains in the areas where there are arrows to show there is not a regular border there. Also, reduce its value to 2 or 1 as it also borders chongqing and is easily defensible. Personally, given Tibet's unwarlike nature, I think it ought to be 1. The idea that player can base in Tibet and conquer Asia is unsettling...

Yes changing the name to the Tibet can be done. If I add in mountains where the arrows are, wouldn't that create a major choke point? Maybe if I remove the trees between Kunming and Nyingchi that may help. I think I can effectively reduce Tibet's bonus to +2 instead of the +1 as if it is just +1 for 4 territories, Tibet probably wouldn't be occupied all that much.

Reduce Han to 5 I think... very easily defensible. Plus it has Beijing next to it. I know that area should be rich in resources, but I think at +6 and exclusive access to Beijing, this might be excessive.

Okay you have a valid point here. Since Beijing is an autodeploy of +2 I could probably reduce Han down to +4? With Han having exclusive access to Beijing whoever holds Han would also hold Beijing, that would in effect give that person the +6 for Han. Would this work?

Manchuria ought to be more like +3 or 4.

I think it can be reduced to 4 as it does have to defend itself from all every direction.

Little known Carto fact... Russia shares a border with North Korea. Primorsky ought to have a coastal strip touching North Korea. Personally, I think this is integral. Korea has always been a giant crossroads between the Far Eastern powers: Japan, China and Russia.

This I did know, and in my earlier versions I did have that little peninsula there but I took it out for gameplay to help reduce Russia's borders. I can put it back there if needed.

Shouldn't Bayangor in Mongolia be Ulaan Baatar?

While I was drawing up the borders I had to combine a few provinces in Mongolia so that it wasn't cramped and clean. So that is probably why.

Other than that, I think this map is near ready for Graphics... I'm sure a couple issues will arise but I'm hoping this one is close.

Speaking of Graphics, two things really bother me on this otherwise attractive map:

1) The jungle lines... could you thinking them up in a few areas to make them look more like jungles rather than strings of trees? Check out Baltic Crusades, middle Ages or Austro-Hungarian Empire to get an idea of what I mean.
2) Absence of Japan. It's fine and dandy to have it nonplayable, but looking at Korea and not seeing Kyushu there is jarring.

1) (I knew this was coming) Yes I'll thicken them up a bit, not a problem!
2) Yea it is a little barren over there isn't it? okay I'll put it in on the next update.

Any other game play critics... er... I mean citiques??

Wait, if the arrows in Tibet don't indicate one way attack... ah, I think I might not have been clear... Keep the one way attacks but show the arrow going through the mountains.

For Mongolia, UlaanBaatar would fit just fine in there plus its the capital of Mongolia.

For Myanmar, I think adding a "Republic of" or a "Imperial" or "Greater" really goes a long way to create a story and show that something has happened in this place. I highly encourage you to do this, I think it will be better for the map's sense of storyline.

Industrial Helix wrote:Wait, if the arrows in Tibet don't indicate one way attack... ah, I think I might not have been clear... Keep the one way attacks but show the arrow going through the mountains.

For Mongolia, UlaanBaatar would fit just fine in there plus its the capital of Mongolia.

For Myanmar, I think adding a "Republic of" or a "Imperial" or "Greater" really goes a long way to create a story and show that something has happened in this place. I highly encourage you to do this, I think it will be better for the map's sense of storyline.

Done, done and done!! Working on the update now!

Okay here is the new update with the changes IH suggested which really do make sense.

I also redrew a couple of borders so there won't be any second guessing. I also adjusted Chu's bonus from 9 down to 6 for the same reason Han bonus was reduced - cities directly tied to Chu. Indo-China's bonus was also lower to 5 from 7 for the same reason. Changed out the trees for smaller ones and added more in.

Well without further ado, here's the next version!!

[bigimg]http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/3450/fracturedchinav1j.png[/bigimg]

Edit: I'll get that little bit of Japan in there later, I just wanted to get the game play clarifications done first.

You know, in that last post I made I wanted re-stress my desire of having Russia border Korea. Here's my logic in thinking this: 1) It makes historical (or future historical sense). Manchuria would need a third power to exist (historically Japan, in this case Russia). So Manchuria knocking out Russia's border doesn't make sense to me. 2) Korea is the superhighway of the armies of the East, the Sicily of Asia. You're not an Asian state of repute unless you invade Korea at least once. So it makes sense for Korea to have more borders than just Manchuria. 3) Russia is really quite defensible, not that you want it to be impossible to hold, so I don't think having Korea there would hurt its defensibility. 4) A majority of players will be taking the Korea and expand to Manchuria route and then making a play for the game. Having Russia as a quick shot to Korea lessens the strength of this strategy and gives a would-be corner of the map a little more fluidity. 3) If you include the Russia/Korea border, I'd say you can leave Korea t +3.

Okay IH I was going to put that border back in for the latest update and it looks like I forgot about it in my haste Rest assured that it will be in on the next one!

isaiah40 wrote:Okay here is the new update with the changes IH suggested which really do make sense.

I also redrew a couple of borders so there won't be any second guessing. I also adjusted Chu's bonus from 9 down to 6 for the same reason Han bonus was reduced - cities directly tied to Chu. Indo-China's bonus was also lower to 5 from 7 for the same reason. Changed out the trees for smaller ones and added more in.

Well without further ado, here's the next version!!

[bigimg]http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/3450/fracturedchinav1j.png[/bigimg]

Edit: I'll get that little bit of Japan in there later, I just wanted to get the game play clarifications done first.

Japan Should Be With Korea Or A City Bonus (Like Taiwan Hong Kong Macau and Shanghai are)

Plus I Side With IH with the Russia Border It Gets Rid Of Noob Strategies

Also You NEED To Update The Small Map

Nyingchi Or Whatever It Is Should Go To Myanmar

It would be nice to reduce some of the overlapping in the legend, such as the word "OF" in "Republic of Myanmar" and Xinjiang's brown splotch over the word "INDIA". Not cray about the trees. They look strange, given the general style of the rest of the map. Granted it's a graphics comment, but it should be noted.

Industrial Helix wrote:You know, in that last post I made I wanted re-stress my desire of having Russia border Korea. Here's my logic in thinking this: 1) It makes historical (or future historical sense). Manchuria would need a third power to exist (historically Japan, in this case Russia). So Manchuria knocking out Russia's border doesn't make sense to me. 2) Korea is the superhighway of the armies of the East, the Sicily of Asia. You're not an Asian state of repute unless you invade Korea at least once. So it makes sense for Korea to have more borders than just Manchuria. 3) Russia is really quite defensible, not that you want it to be impossible to hold, so I don't think having Korea there would hurt its defensibility. 4) A majority of players will be taking the Korea and expand to Manchuria route and then making a play for the game. Having Russia as a quick shot to Korea lessens the strength of this strategy and gives a would-be corner of the map a little more fluidity. 3) If you include the Russia/Korea border, I'd say you can leave Korea t +3.

This makes sense so it is Done!!

24Keyser wrote:Japan Should Be With Korea Or A City Bonus (Like Taiwan Hong Kong Macau and Shanghai are)
Also You NEED To Update The Small Map
Nyingchi Or Whatever It Is Should Go To Myanmar

I htink I'll keep Japan out of this one as there is a lot going on already. I'll update the small map once we are in graphics an FF as that's where a lot of graphical changes will be made. As for Nyingchi going into the Myanmar bonus, nah I think it makes India a little harder to hold but not impossible.

Victor Sullivan wrote:It would be nice to reduce some of the overlapping in the legend, such as the word "OF" in "Republic of Myanmar" and Xinjiang's brown splotch over the word "INDIA". Not cray about the trees. They look strange, given the general style of the rest of the map. Granted it's a graphics comment, but it should be noted.

Reduced some of the overlapping, left some of the others (this is a fractured map ya know ). We'll work on those things in the graphics shop!

So here is the new and slightly improved version!

[bigimg]http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/6447/fracturedchinav1k.png[/bigimg]

Looks good! I'm anxious to see how the one-way borders will affect the gameplay in Beta.

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:Looks good! I'm anxious to see how the one-way borders will affect the gameplay in Beta.

-Sully

They should work out pretty well. Just waiting for the sticky, then graphics stamp (2 months) and then XML stamp(2 months (which Gilligan will be doing the XML)), then Beta (2 months), then Quenched (1 month). All in all this should be done in about 7 more months

I think Manchuria and Xinjiang's bonuses are each overvalued by 1. The other land bonuses look good.
The cities, I think, are also overvalued. Auto-deploy 1 is already pretty powerful -- look at Europe 1914 -- and 2, I think, is overkill.

I remembered you had a quote on your "Fractured America" map, so I found two Chinese Proverbs that could apply:

If only you stand together no one can hurt you . If you all disagree the whole time and insist on going your separate ways, the first enemy you meet will be able to destroy you.

When there is order in the nation, there will be peace in the world.

Evil DIMwit wrote:I think Manchuria and Xinjiang's bonuses are each overvalued by 1. The other land bonuses look good.
The cities, I think, are also overvalued. Auto-deploy 1 is already pretty powerful -- look at Europe 1914 -- and 2, I think, is overkill.

Well I did use the spreadsheet and those are he numbers it spat out at me. Though it wouldn't hurt me if I lowered them by one. Yes I can lower the city autodeploy to +1.

The spread sheet is more a guide than strict rules...

Industrial Helix wrote:The spread sheet is more a guide than strict rules...

Right. Things vary based upon surrounding regions and other gameplay features.

Well, the spread sheet tells you what is fair based on the surroundings of a certain area. But if perhaps you have a place that is historically rich, Hong Kong for example, you might want to up the bonus a tad. Or if its a place historically useless... Gobi Desert, well then lower the bonus, even if it is easily defensible. Bonus should reflect some real world value in addition to their connections.

Also... I think +2 Autodeploy is something reasonable for this map. I mean, we're looking at some of the richest places in the world here. The +1 Auto is somewhat powerful, but its also slow. I mean, when I take Berlin in Europe 1914, I just sit on it and rarely use it offensively. Auto +1's are good for creating a block of men on the map, but not so much for a quick move. I think having +2 Autodeploy is a sort of advantage this map has in that it separates it from nearly all the other autodeploy maps on CC. Furthermore, the +2 illustrates the power of the 'capitalist' cities in this world of broken China. It shows how strongly their influence spreads. I vote for keep them.

Industrial Helix wrote:Well, the spread sheet tells you what is fair based on the surroundings of a certain area. But if perhaps you have a place that is historically rich, Hong Kong for example, you might want to up the bonus a tad. Or if its a place historically useless... Gobi Desert, well then lower the bonus, even if it is easily defensible. Bonus should reflect some real world value in addition to their connections.

Also... I think +2 Autodeploy is something reasonable for this map. I mean, we're looking at some of the richest places in the world here. The +1 Auto is somewhat powerful, but its also slow. I mean, when I take Berlin in Europe 1914, I just sit on it and rarely use it offensively. Auto +1's are good for creating a block of men on the map, but not so much for a quick move. I think having +2 Autodeploy is a sort of advantage this map has in that it separates it from nearly all the other autodeploy maps on CC. Furthermore, the +2 illustrates the power of the 'capitalist' cities in this world of broken China. It shows how strongly their influence spreads. I vote for keep them.

Okay so for instance, Mongolia since it is historically useless, could I in reality lower it down to say +5 instead of the +6? I used the +2 autodeploy on the cities because of the population that you can conscript from to try and hold and/or unite the country, at least that was my line of thinking. I like the +2 autodeploy myself as it lends to helping the Chinese gov regain control

Okay here's a quick update with a couple of changed bonus values lower along with the small map.

Large
[bigimg]http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/3845/fracturedchinav1l.png[/bigimg]

Small

Small point:

Impassables
Would it be better to say 'Forests' instaed of 'Trees'?
Plus, worth mentionning the wall north of Beijing?


Great work so far.

DJ Teflon wrote:Small point:

Impassables
Would it be better to say 'Forests' instaed of 'Trees'?
Plus, worth mentionning the wall north of Beijing?


Great work so far.

Small points but well worth the mentioning! Yes I'll change Trees to Forests and add in Great Wall!

isaiah40 wrote:
Okay so for instance, Mongolia since it is historically useless,

Discounting Ghengis Khan and the largest Empire in terms of land and population the world has seen, 800 years before the dawn of modern technology... then yes, quite historically useless.

isaiah40 wrote:could I in reality lower it down to say +5 instead of the +6? I used the +2 autodeploy on the cities because of the population that you can conscript from to try and hold and/or unite the country, at least that was my line of thinking. I like the +2 autodeploy myself as it lends to helping the Chinese gov regain control

But since those 800 years it has become quite useless and is more like a cookie fought over by two children named China and Russia.

So yeah, lower it by 5 because its little more than hilly tribal areas... but still of a value because of its location. It's a balancing act between gameplay borders and the regions represented.

Industrial Helix wrote:So yeah, lower it by 5 because its little more than hilly tribal areas... but still of a value because of its location. It's a balancing act between gameplay borders and the regions represented.

Now you did mean to lower it TO +5 not lower it BY 5 right? If so then consider it done!!

Ah yeah, lower it to 5.

I was figuring that. Any other comments, concerns, suggestions? If not then maybe we can move on?