Conquer Club

Herakilla wrote:i just wanna make the drought clear, since it says "over" some people (like me) would take the for a division meaning you have (# of drought)/(# of normal) or does it actually mean the difference of drought minus normal with negatives being 0?

It means the difference.

eg. You occupy 10 territories: 4 of them are non-drought and 6 are drought regions, then you get a bonus of +1 armies at the beginning of your turn. You occupy 2 additional drought areas above the amount of drought areas. Standard +3, -2 (droughts) = +1.

If it's really not clear enough, then let's try to clarify a little more. The one thing I don't want is for a new player to see this map and be confused.

This is a great-looking map, RJ, and I like the small gameplay tweak.

My one concern, and I'm not even sure if it can be solved, is that with a third of the map as drought territories, it's going to be a real bummer for people who get 4 drought territories and 2 normal ones on the drop in a 6p game. You actually mentioned this a couple of pages back, but no one picked up on it:

RjBeals wrote:I'm also thinking about starting positions. and what if I play a 4 player game. Each player is deployed on 9 territories (36 total on map). What if like 5 or 6 of mine were the drought. I would start out in the hole already.

I really don't want neutrals starting. I may have to go with the straight negative bonus for number of drought areas owned.

At least when someone gets a great drop (tons of planes in Pearl Harbor, for instance), there's motivation on behalf of the other players to rob the lucky guy of his various bonuses. But if someone in dust bowl starts with a terrible drop, it's not like everyone's going to balance that out by offering up normal territories so the unlucky guy can at least get 3 armies/turn. Instead, if the other players are smart, they'll kill off the unlucky guy's remaining normal territories, and he's hosed by round 2.

Plus I'm assuming that the xml isn't going to seize up when presented with a situation where a player is getting negative armies.

Incandenza wrote:This is a great-looking map, RJ, and I like the small gameplay tweak.

My one concern, and I'm not even sure if it can be solved, is that with a third of the map as drought territories, it's going to be a real bummer for people who get 4 drought territories and 2 normal ones on the drop in a 6p game. You actually mentioned this a couple of pages back, but no one picked up on it:

RjBeals wrote:I'm also thinking about starting positions. and what if I play a 4 player game. Each player is deployed on 9 territories (36 total on map). What if like 5 or 6 of mine were the drought. I would start out in the hole already.

I really don't want neutrals starting. I may have to go with the straight negative bonus for number of drought areas owned.

At least when someone gets a great drop (tons of planes in Pearl Harbor, for instance), there's motivation on behalf of the other players to rob the lucky guy of his various bonuses. But if someone in dust bowl starts with a terrible drop, it's not like everyone's going to balance that out by offering up normal territories so the unlucky guy can at least get 3 armies/turn. Instead, if the other players are smart, they'll kill off the unlucky guy's remaining normal territories, and he's hosed by round 2.

Plus I'm assuming that the xml isn't going to seize up when presented with a situation where a player is getting negative armies.

You make a fair point (RE negative armies) although it won't be the XML that seizes up - it will be the server that might...

I will check with Lack...

C.

This looks unfair - three armies for one territory? Six for eight? ???

ok ok... so you're saying my map sucks.. fine! I'll redo everything and post back next week...

Edit.. That was a joke you know.. and a pretty immature one (sorry).

Now Incandenza this has always been in the back of my mind, but I kind of have been overlooking it. I guess it needs to be settled before the map goes any further. The more I think about this, the more I think we should go for a straight negative bonus based on how many droughts you hold. You get like 2 for free, but if you occupy 3, then you start loosing incrementally. I really love mibi's idea that we've run with so far, but there is not enough territories to start all the droughts neutral, which would be the only fair way for this playing twist to work.

Ah well - Unless someone can think of a different way, I'll revise the legend again, back to the original structure.

unriggable wrote:This looks unfair - three armies for one territory? Six for eight? ???

What is this in reference to?

C.

V8 definitely cleared up the attack routes question. Thanks.

RjBeals wrote:Now Incandenza this has always been in the back of my mind, but I kind of have been overlooking it. I guess it needs to be settled before the map goes any further. The more I think about this, the more I think we should go for a straight negative bonus based on how many droughts you hold. You get like 2 for free, but if you occupy 3, then you start loosing incrementally. I really love mibi's idea that we've run with so far, but there is not enough territories to start all the droughts neutral, which would be the only fair way for this playing twist to work.

But if you go with a straight negative bonus, that unlucky guy who gets 4 drought and 2 normals in the drop is still screwed.

Is adding territories totally off the table? 'cause it seems like one way you could do this is to add 6 more normal territories, then have six drought territories start with neutral ones. That way only six drought territories are assigned on the drop, drastically lessening the chances of someone getting hosed.

Or you could raise the threshold for army loss, so you only start accruing penalties if the number of drought territories you have is more than your normal territories +1 (i.e. 3 normal terits and 4 droughts, no penalty, but 3 normals and 5 droughts, -1, and so on) It's a clunkier explanation, but I'd rather have a clunky explanation than know that I have a 1/6 chance of having no hope at winning.

BTW - negative bonuses will not break the server...

The Almighty Lack told me personally!

C.

What about making the draught territs start neutral? That would solve the problem...

RjBeals wrote:ok ok... so you're saying my map sucks.. fine! I'll redo everything and post back next week...

Edit.. That was a joke you know.. and a pretty immature one (sorry).

Now Incandenza this has always been in the back of my mind, but I kind of have been overlooking it. I guess it needs to be settled before the map goes any further. The more I think about this, the more I think we should go for a straight negative bonus based on how many droughts you hold. You get like 2 for free, but if you occupy 3, then you start loosing incrementally. I really love mibi's idea that we've run with so far, but there is not enough territories to start all the droughts neutral, which would be the only fair way for this playing twist to work.

Ah well - Unless someone can think of a different way, I'll revise the legend again, back to the original structure.

How about a this...

If you hold more than 3 drought territories then you have to balance them with non drought territories...

i.e. 1 2 or 3 droughts give no (negative) bonus 4 gives -4 -> unless you have normal territories to balance it out...

I think the odds of starting with more than 3 droughts is pretty low - and also this makes it less of a penalty when you're getting low on territories...

C.

^^^
I like that!

It's looking good, good, RJ.

Just a few random things

• The description below the title...I'd maybe consider a slight revision to say

  ...central U.S. Storms blackened...The worst hit area/region became known...

• Impassible Borders (incapable of suffering pain) --> Impassable Borders (not allowing passage through/over)
• I recall you already noted "between."
• That water south of New Mexico looks familar...is it perhaps the Mediterranean?
• Yeti's last suggestion may just work also, in regards to the Dust areas...

Keep up the good work, RJ!


--Andy

It's the Gulf of Mexico surely!?

C.

UPDATE 9

AndyDufresne wrote:Just a few random things

• The description below the title...I'd maybe consider a slight revision to say

  ...central U.S. Storms blackened...The worst hit area/region became known...

• Impassible Borders (incapable of suffering pain) --> Impassable Borders (not allowing passage through/over)
• I recall you already noted "between."
• That water south of New Mexico looks familar...is it perhaps the Mediterranean?
• Yeti's last suggestion may just work also, in regards to the Dust areas...

I didn't even mean to make the water look so close to my Italy map - good catch. Although I'm not changing it I incorporated all your suggestions above. I reworded the drought area to reflect what Yeti suggested. I think it will work and is a fair way to drop armies. I also worked on some shading in the states areas. And I was trying to dress up the legend with a frame. Not sure if it works or not. I may fool with it some more...

I dunno. How often are you going to hold 4 or more drought regions but not hold an equal number (or more) non drought regions. If I'm holding a bonus region, then I'll be holding at least 3 non drought regions (also maybe change region to territory?).

I just don't think it will come into play that often except for odd scenarios.

edbeard wrote:I dunno. How often are you going to hold 4 or more drought regions but not hold an equal number (or more) non drought regions. If I'm holding a bonus region, then I'll be holding at least 3 non drought regions (also maybe change region to territory?).

I just don't think it will come into play that often except for odd scenarios.

Well it will come into play when the other play tries to screw you by taking your non drought regions.

but they have to go through your drought regions to get there so that'll counteract it. There's only 3, 4 or 5 non drought territories per bonus continent.


I just think that if I'm holding a good number of drought regions, in all likelihood the game is pretty close to being over, and the drought negative bonus won't come into play except for a round or two at most (if at all).

Maybe I should just decrease the bonus, and take away the drought penalty's? The drought region still holds a function as that's where you pass through to attack other states.. ?

To make it fair, all the droughts should start neutral, then the good penalties would come into play. To try and make if fair for game start drops, it makes it kind of took the risk of penalty away too much.

I would be one of the first to say that dropping the drought penalty altogether would be nice. It does still serve the purpose of being the only avenue between the states, and I would love to see a new map that doesn't have a fancy penalty/bonus gimmick built in. It is a wonderful looking map and if it were to simply be state bonuses, and nothing else I don't see why it would be bad.

Optimus Prime wrote:I would be one of the first to say that dropping the drought penalty altogether would be nice. It does still serve the purpose of being the only avenue between the states, and I would love to see a new map that doesn't have a fancy penalty/bonus gimmick built in. It is a wonderful looking map and if it were to simply be state bonuses, and nothing else I don't see why it would be bad.

In a way I kind of agree - and i think a lot of cc members would also. There's few maps that come out of the foundry nowadays with a straight forward bonus. If I do drop the penalty - should I tone done the "dark" drought area so it's only slightly darker?

I will be sad to see the drought penalty go. It gives the map character and makes the drought a part of the game, rather than just something visual.

RjBeals wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:I would be one of the first to say that dropping the drought penalty altogether would be nice. It does still serve the purpose of being the only avenue between the states, and I would love to see a new map that doesn't have a fancy penalty/bonus gimmick built in. It is a wonderful looking map and if it were to simply be state bonuses, and nothing else I don't see why it would be bad.

In a way I kind of agree - and i think a lot of cc members would also. There's few maps that come out of the foundry nowadays with a straight forward bonus. If I do drop the penalty - should I tone done the "dark" drought area so it's only slightly darker?

If you did tone it down, I would do it only slightly. I like the way it looks right now. I would play it as is all the time, no questions asked.

Optimus Prime wrote:I like the way it looks right now. I would play it as is all the time, no questions asked.

Me Too - I want to play now !

I almost wish the drought could be an option. I like how historically correct it is with it negating, but it's alot of complication and i'm normally not a big fan of negative bonuses.