Conquer Club

lt_oddball wrote:But don't you think you'll get in troubles with the placement of troop numbers in all these small mid european provinces ?
Maybe you should blow up the central european map (as if you'd look upon a midsized ball/globe ..ireland/portugal/egypt/etc viewed at an angle).

Kabanellas wrote:
as for the battle sites, that might be a huge of a turn off actually. Didn't thought of it that way . And I'm not having any bright ideas atm on how to solve it.....

Raskholnikov wrote:Number of players Initial deployable troops Total deployable territories Available battle fields
2 22 44 3
3 15 45 4
4 11 44 3
5 9 45 4
6 8 48 7
7 7 49 8
8 6 48 7


This should take care of it.
This is not the type of game where neutrals will always stay neutral. The bonus incentive is simply too great, even at 1 v 1. The more players, the less of an issue it becomes.

Kabanellas wrote:well, like Incandenza said, there's a huge chance of having lucky drops on them. There are 14 available to be distributed by the starting players.....

lt_oddball wrote:

Kabanellas wrote:well, like Incandenza said, there's a huge chance of having lucky drops on them. There are 14 available to be distributed by the starting players.....

That can be resolved by making most of those neutrals.. the more neutrals with less participating players.
Simpel ?

Incandenza wrote:I'm hoping there's an elegant solution here beyond "make a bunch of 'em neutral", as I'm not a huge fan of starting neutrals (primarily due to the types of games I play, in team games if a terit starts neutral, 9 times out of 10 it'll stay that way).

mibi wrote:This image is sweet... too bad the map is so convoluted.

AndyDufresne wrote:

mibi wrote:This image is sweet... too bad the map is so convoluted.

Unfortunately I find myself in agreement! But I've never been a fan of maps with a lot of gameplay. But I know that quite a few people do enjoy such maps.

But sometime I hope to see a map with a similar visual style, but cleaner and slimmer.


--Andy

lt_oddball wrote:That can be resolved by making most of those neutrals.. the more neutrals with less participating players.
Simpel ?

mibi wrote:I like complex maps, and have made some of my own. I just dont understand the bonuses and legend in this one, particularly the bottom left portion.

yeti_c wrote:Prussia/Rhine colourisation - whilst I can just about understand it - it is a significant departure from the rest of the map - and makes it look very cluttered.
I do like the colours here – but I suppose I could try to make that orange a bit browner.

Corsica - Is this part of France or is it hatched - it's impossible to tell.
Part of France, the absence of hatching seems quite legible here imo

Corsica one way attack seems to go under Italy?!
I do not intend to draw the real naval course, it’s just a scheme translating the intention.

Naval Battles - are given as "+1 per pair" but there doesn't seem to be any visible pairing on the map?
we’ll change it to ‘ +1 for every 2’

Egypt - What does the hashing mean here?
the hatching means that Orient (Egypt+Palestine) is an add on to the Ottoman bonus

"K of" - Suggest dropping anything that has "K of" - as it adds to confusion and clutter and doesn't really tell anyone anything.
We prefer the use of the ‘Kingdom’ word to mark the difference between Italy (the region) and Kingdom of Italy (the bonus zone).

Abbreviations - Don't like them in general... anyway of rationalising them?!
I don’t have any bright ideas

Legend - as stated by others - it's very complex and perhaps overly complicated? Is there a better way of mentioning the outlying territories instead of naming each and every one?
like I’ve explained before, it’s done accordingly to the ‘Third Crusade’ style which doesn’t seem to be raising any problems......

Gibraltar on way attack is easily missable - if Malta was further away from the legend it would be better.
I’ll take a closer look at it

Lisbon - Didn't the brits land in Lisbon and fight their way into spain and france? (My Duke of Wellington history is a bit rusty?!)
not that rusty. Well, Wellington landed well near Mondego which is below Porto and then advanced towards Lisbon.

UK as a whole - no fighting actually took place in the UK - but as they provided a large amount of troops to the war they can't be removed either - but it does raise the point that perhaps the map is of too large a scale and is encompassing a lot of things that weren't really part of the war?!
That could be a problem if we were naming this map ‘Napoleon Invasions’. Rather than that this map aims to show Europe’s political dynamics by 1812. In a time where Napoleon’s power was at its peak and his undeniable presence and influence was felt throughout the continent.

Kabanellas wrote:Also, I think we got a way to deal with the lucky drop bonus over those battle sites. What if a player only get that bonus if he/she also owns a capital?

Evil DIMwit wrote:

Kabanellas wrote:Also, I think we got a way to deal with the lucky drop bonus over those battle sites. What if a player only get that bonus if he/she also owns a capital?

That could work. It concentrates a lot of power in the capitals, though: victory conditions and auto-deploy and required for battle. That may not be a bad thing if it reflects the Napoleonic era accurately. How much did they rely on capitals?

Raskholnikov wrote:Actually I disagree. Capitals were absolutely critical. every time when Napoleon got close to Vienna or Berlin peace treaties were proposed by the Austrians or Prussians. When Vienna or Berlin fell to Napoleon, Austria and Prussia actually switched sides and became French allies. When the Allies got close to Paris, Napoleon was forced to resign, in 1814, rather than have the Allies sack the capital. The very reason why Napoleon marched to Moscow is because he thought that taking Moscow would force the Russian emperor to seek for peace. The reason Alaxander did not is Russia's incredible depth and his abilitry to endlessly retreat east - which was Napoleon's undoing. This is reflected on the map though the Russian Winter and the territories to the East of Moscow. But as a general rule, it was quite clear that at the time, capitals were the nervous nodes which determined the fate of their countries. Even when Napoleon came back from Elbe, in 1814, he first had to ride to Paris and take control over the reigns of power there as Louis XVIII fled the capital for exile before the Emperor could again raise an army. So I am totally comfortable with the power vested in capitals. I think that the solution of not starting to get battle bonuses until one control a capital is both very elegant in terms of gameplay and very accurate historically. Great idea Kab - and as far as I know, unique for CC maps.

Therefore we should add to the legend:

"Must have a capital to get land/naval bonuses."

yeti_c wrote:Just a small point - Belgium has a battleground that I'm pretty sure you are referring as Waterloo (as referenced earlier in this topic)...

Of course Waterloo happened in 1815...

C.

lt_oddball wrote:Having said that:
From the WW2 europe map it became evident that on the long run the "german" central player hardly ever wins the game (in a 8 player field).
Some stronger bonusses were given to the central zones to compensate for it..(but not enough it seems).
So in this map too , the natural advantage players are russia and england and turkey.. and some supporting bonus should be given to the central states (prussia, vienna, france) or some deterioration modifiers for the periphery states.
That could be simple: a point less bonus on the turkish, russian, British territories or/and more for the prussian/habsburg/france territories.