Conquer Club

Or we could name the advanced researches something like "Advanced X" so it would be easier to identify them

OliverFA wrote:Or we could name the advanced researches something like "Advanced X" so it would be easier to identify them

lol Oliver, there is always that obvious solution which I'm surprised we didn't come up with previously. I think it'd be nicer to stick with the current names, unless we get some others having confusion over the which techs match with others. Mostly I'm thinking that "Advanced Army" doesn't sound as great as "Mobilized Army", though the variation for the other techs is nice too, IMO. Your suggestion I think would eliminate any problems if there are any with the colouring or tech names in the future.

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:I say let's see how it plays in beta, and then if it needs to be changed, then we can do it at that time.

Are we at the point then that Oliver should get started on the XML? I think the only possible graphical tweak that's remaining at this point is finding another colour for either N or W homeland territories which is different from the other? That shouldn't affect the XML development at all, AFAIK.

Oliver can start the XML now.

As for this:

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:

OliverFA wrote:Or we could name the advanced researches something like "Advanced X" so it would be easier to identify them

lol Oliver, there is always that obvious solution which I'm surprised we didn't come up with previously. I think it'd be nicer to stick with the current names, unless we get some others having confusion over the which techs match with others. Mostly I'm thinking that "Advanced Army" doesn't sound as great as "Mobilized Army", though the variation for the other techs is nice too, IMO. Your suggestion I think would eliminate any problems if there are any with the colouring or tech names in the future.

I think leaving them alone would be better IMHO. Besides Advanced Conscription just doesn't sound right. Secret and Open Conscription sound better. But I will wait and see, if others have problems then we can look into the matter at that time.

So ... I have been so busy on my own maps I haven't stopped by in a while ... here is a little food for thought

I am still confused by the layout a bit. You have basic researches that would imply that there are advanced researches for each of them when in fact there are only 3 that have advancements. I sort of feel that you should have all of the basic ==> advanced grouped together at the bottom in the square boxes and move all of the ones with the black text to the control knobs and label them "special researches", placing the labs between them and making the labs themselves a different icon.

I can't find anywhere in the text where someone can assault and conquer your researches and i don't think that the top secret facility would be effective at bombarding neutrals on your researches as those are trapped troops and people would simply put the troops on labs where they can be moved. I would completely drop TFS and add an autodeploy to labs of 3. This will give players 3 troops in the research area that are useful there every turn as well as the capital bonus that you can choose to use in research or conquer.

I would actually change the wording so that basic and special researches are adjacent to labs and basic and adjacent researches are adjacent so that in nuke games you can recapture your lab or heaven forbid but in the case you lose your lab and basic research you could work your way back from an advanced research to the lab. This would simulate rebuilding the lab. Alternately you could link your capital to the lab only if you do not hold the lab by using conditional borders.

Basic and Advanced Research
=B= Standing Army: +3
=A= Mobilized Army: +12 stacks with standing?

=B= Secret Conscription: +1 for every 3 regions
=A= Open Conscription: +2 for every 3 regions modified here to stack... you could do both in actuality

=B= Mining: +2 per mine
=A= Deep Mining: 2x Mining bonus (this is a BIG bonus as you take mines but i like it as it gives the map side a serious bonus to go after)

Special Research
- National Pride: +6 Lab X and Homeland X
- Propaganda - +2 per Capital held
- Sabotage --bombards--> Mines
- Doomsday Device --bombards--> All Land Regions

Misc
- Top Secret Facility ---bombards--> all of it's homeland researches. i.e. SW Top Secret Facility can only bombard any SW research I would drop this

Anyway that's my 13 cents worth...

I love where you guys are going with this and look forward to playing it.

=D13=

I love the basic / advanced researches reorgazination by Dolomite. Nice idea!

About the XML, this week I am on holidays, but next week I am back at work, so I will start then.

I like your thoughts dolomite!! Anyone else have any comments, suggestions, rebutals etc!? I'll wait a few days before I do anything. Oliver you can still get the layout of the XML started and done, just hold off on the co-ordinates and such.

The only thing I don't really like about Dolomite comments is about the Top Secret Facility. It is supposed to be a way to invest in researching. With your normal deploy you can choose either to go militar or go scientific, but the TSF is only scientific, and that's its purpose. I agree about all the other comments, and specially about the basic / advanced researches layout as I previously said.

I will start the XML without the coordinates, but will do next week as also previously said

OliverFA wrote:The only thing I don't really like about Dolomite comments is about the Top Secret Facility. It is supposed to be a way to invest in researching. With your normal deploy you can choose either to go militar or go scientific, but the TSF is only scientific, and that's its purpose. I agree about all the other comments, and specially about the basic / advanced researches layout as I previously said.

I will start the XML without the coordinates, but will do next week as also previously said

I only dropped it because I don't see any real use for it as it is... and because the layout is easier with only 4 knobs at the top. If you change the layout a bit and place the doomsday devices somewhere else rather than the knob at the top you could put TFS there again and Doomsday device elsewhere like at top of map or below the key as a bomb icon so that it seems more special than just some knob. Maybe a red button row across the top ... you need to pust the red "candy like" button to use doomsday device ... its thematic that way.

=D13=

Just noticed this... and I am sure it has been discussed and resolved already ... but ....

At the tip of the mountains in the SW area of the map... there is a single territory that is a choke point "WC1" all other mountain ranges have 2 territories that are required to be held to make the choke point.

I also noticed that player "W" and player "SW" are separated by 2 territories, "SE" and "E" by 2 territories but "NE" and "N" by 4 territories.

Their capitals are separated oddly as well with player "W" and player "SW" separated by 7 territories, "SE" and "E" by 8 territories but "NE" and "N" by 9 territories.

Mines look evenly spaced although the map is basically broken into 3 segments. The N/NE segment has 17 mines. The W/SW has 8 mines and the E/SE has 11 mines. With each of the 3 segments having 2 choke points it would be possible to get a decided advantage if you held the N/NE sector and could grab all 4 choke points. In team games, 17 mines is 34 forces with "mining" and it is doubles with "deep mining" to 68. a team that drops N/NE would be hard to stop I believe.

That's another 13 cents worth

=D13=

isaiah40 wrote:I like your thoughts dolomite!! Anyone else have any comments, suggestions, rebutals etc!? I'll wait a few days before I do anything. Oliver you can still get the layout of the XML started and done, just hold off on the co-ordinates and such.

I really like dolomite's layout suggestion, I think it will make the research section of the map much easier to read. The one thought I had is if the basic researches are going to border the labs, then it shouldn't be a one way arrow showing the connection. Likewise with the advanced researches. I also just realized this causes some difficulty with graphically excluding the TSF and Doomsday from bordering the labs.

It sure would be a lot easier to have exclusions from nukes in the XML. Hopefully features like this won't be such a distant dream with the new owner of the site... I have my doubts, based on all past experience, but hopefully the XML update frequency will change.

dolomite13 wrote:Just noticed this... and I am sure it has been discussed and resolved already ... but ....

At the tip of the mountains in the SW area of the map... there is a single territory that is a choke point "WC1" all other mountain ranges have 2 territories that are required to be held to make the choke point.

I also noticed that player "W" and player "SW" are separated by 2 territories, "SE" and "E" by 2 territories but "NE" and "N" by 4 territories.

Their capitals are separated oddly as well with player "W" and player "SW" separated by 7 territories, "SE" and "E" by 8 territories but "NE" and "N" by 9 territories.

Mines look evenly spaced although the map is basically broken into 3 segments. The N/NE segment has 17 mines. The W/SW has 8 mines and the E/SE has 11 mines. With each of the 3 segments having 2 choke points it would be possible to get a decided advantage if you held the N/NE sector and could grab all 4 choke points. In team games, 17 mines is 34 forces with "mining" and it is doubles with "deep mining" to 68. a team that drops N/NE would be hard to stop I believe.

That's another 13 cents worth

=D13=

I believe the asymmetry is intentional, though I have noted certain issues in the past with the mining. I think the general consensus so far has been to get the map to beta and sort out the imbalances at that point once we have a chance to see how it actually plays out. Personally I agree, since there's so many unknowns with the gameplay until we're actually able to play it. I do, however, suspect the mines are going to need to get reworked so the segments with less territories have more mines and vice versa. This way there will be a balance between having a high mine count for mining and a high territory count for conscription techs. Still, I'd like to see the map get to beta before we start messing with everything, since we'll have a better idea of how much to adjust everything once there's been some games played and feedback received.

Just to throw it out there, I think everyone agrees Sabotage is going to be overpowered the way it is now. What if we made it so you could only bombard mines in the same segment that you own a capital? The only problem I could see with the idea is figuring out how to explain the different segments in very few words.

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:Just to throw it out there, I think everyone agrees Sabotage is going to be overpowered the way it is now. What if we made it so you could only bombard mines in the same segment that you own a capital? The only problem I could see with the idea is figuring out how to explain the different segments in very few words.

You can't do conditional bombardments (I know, I tried)

So maybe having sabotage be a "killer" territory so people don't just camp it with a ton of troops and clean out every mine every turn would help. Maybe Killer 20. This would let the mining and deep mining bonuses be more useful early in the game before players can afford to use sabotage to clean out the mines.

=D13=

dolomite13 wrote:

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:Just to throw it out there, I think everyone agrees Sabotage is going to be overpowered the way it is now. What if we made it so you could only bombard mines in the same segment that you own a capital? The only problem I could see with the idea is figuring out how to explain the different segments in very few words.

You can't do conditional bombardments (I know, I tried)

So maybe having sabotage be a "killer" territory so people don't just camp it with a ton of troops and clean out every mine every turn would help. Maybe Killer 20. This would let the mining and deep mining bonuses be more useful early in the game before players can afford to use sabotage to clean out the mines.

=D13=

Probably better just to leave it as is for now and figure it out after the map gets to Beta then. It may work out to be a useful tech the way it is but just need to get a bump in neutral value to make sure it doesn't come into play too early.

Give me some time to get another update done. Hopefully I can get one up this weekend before I head out on vacation for a week to welcome my son-in-law back from Afghanistan.

Sorry, but I won't be able to get an update posted until after the 11th of Sept. Too many things going on right now.

No probs Isaiah. Hopefully I'll be able to advance with the XML next week so there will be progress anyway.

And yes, I trully believe sabotage is a fun-killer

With the tides of change come additional requirements. Since this map began its journey under the assumption that 8 being the maximum amount of player, I won't ask the map be totally reworked to accommodate this, however, please note that a player cap may need to be imposed should it be discovered and/or deemed that the map can't handle player amounts over 8.

Also note that there are 5 new army colors, 4 totally new and a different shade of green for player #2. Please take this into account when doing graphics testing. All HEX codes are as follows:

Red: FF0000
Green: 006400
Blue: 0000FF
Yellow: FFFF00
Pink: FF00FF
Cyan: 00FFFF
Orange: FF9922
Silver: C0C0C0
Purple: 9400D3
Lime: 00FF00
Amber: CD5C5C
Olive: 688E23

RedBaron0 wrote:With the tides of change come additional requirements. Since this map began its journey under the assumption that 8 being the maximum amount of player

Actually this map has a limit of 6 players

=D13=

Then isaiah doesn't have to worry then. Just threw it out there to everyone. He'll just have to worry about the different shade of green then.

I'm back from my vacation, so I will attempt to get an update sometime this weekend.

isaiah40 wrote:I'm back from my vacation, so I will attempt to get an update sometime this weekend.

I'm looking forward to seeing the new update. I think reorganizing the left will do a lot for making it clear which researches match with others.

Oliver, has there been any progress on the XML yet?

Very excited to see this moving through...

isaiah40 wrote:I'm back from my vacation, so I will attempt to get an update sometime this weekend.

Hey isaiah, how's the next update coming?

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:I'm back from my vacation, so I will attempt to get an update sometime this weekend.

I'm looking forward to seeing the new update. I think reorganizing the left will do a lot for making it clear which researches match with others.

Oliver, has there been any progress on the XML yet?

Sorry, I've been more busy than I anticipated, but should be able to release something soon