Conquer Club

The thing with this map is:

I'm still unsure of the direction I want to take this graphically. Some people dislike the current style, some like it, etc. I don't have a solid idea of what I want to do with it graphically right now.

So I'm just waiting for gameplay input for now, if there's anything more on the gameplay side that needs doing, before diving in to the whole graphics thing.

Gameplay-wise, I don't really see what could be changed. It's a pretty basic layout. Surely TaCktiX wouldn't need MarshalNey for this one, would he?

-Sully

Since MarshalNey is having major modem problems, I have moved here.

So looking at this I think that there could be another impassable between Northwest and West to make NW a little easier to hold. As it is now I believe it would be impossible to do so. I'm thinking between Brent and Westminster/Kensington/Hammersmith would be a good place for one. I know there really isn't any RL impassables around there, but for gameplay yes.

Southeast could be raised to +4 while East could be lowered to +4. Southeast, I can hold off until Beta to see how it plays, but for East I think you could lower it now to +4.

isaiah40 wrote:So looking at this I think that there could be another impassable between Northwest and West to make NW a little easier to hold. As it is now I believe it would be impossible to do so. I'm thinking between Brent and Westminster/Kensington/Hammersmith would be a good place for one. I know there really isn't any RL impassables around there, but for gameplay yes.

NW is already pretty easy to hold though, it's only 3 territories. I'm not sure if it should be any easier, in the context of the other bonuses.

isaiah40 wrote:Southeast could be raised to +4 while East could be lowered to +4. Southeast, I can hold off until Beta to see how it plays, but for East I think you could lower it now to +4.

Why?

isaiah40 wrote:Since MarshalNey is having major modem problems, I have moved here.

So looking at this I think that there could be another impassable between Northwest and West to make NW a little easier to hold. As it is now I believe it would be impossible to do so. I'm thinking between Brent and Westminster/Kensington/Hammersmith would be a good place for one. I know there really isn't any RL impassables around there, but for gameplay yes.

Hm, I don't think the argument could be made that this makes West any easier to hold, and I certainly think you overestimate the difficulty of holding it. Nonexistent impassables should not be put in unless imperative to gameplay, and I don't see how it might be, honestly.

isaiah40 wrote:Southeast could be raised to +4 while East could be lowered to +4. Southeast, I can hold off until Beta to see how it plays, but for East I think you could lower it now to +4.

Hm, this also puzzles me. Now, I'll agree that both are bordering between two values, but I heartily disagree that both East and Southeast are equal in worth! East has 4 borders and 1 more territory than Southeast. The three options I see here are East +5 and Southeast +3 (as it is now), East +5 and Southeast +4, and East +4 and Southeast +3. With three territories aside from their border territories, it's hard to know if the bonus should be raised for them (as it increases the difficulty of getting the bonus), or not (since they don't affect the difficulty of keeping the bonus).

-Sully

How about adding gridlocks as impassables here and there?

It would help towards the big city feeling and is also a way to add a little graphical detail in there.

natty_dread wrote:NW is already pretty easy to hold though, it's only 3 territories. I'm not sure if it should be any easier, in the context of the other bonuses.

It may only be 3 territories, but look at how many territories can attack it. All of West which has 5 territories and Camden from North for a total of 6 territories which can attack NW. Now if I were playing this I would not go for NW for this reason, it is almost impossible to hold because you have to build up on ALL 3 territories to protect it. If you don't want to add in any impassables there, then I suggest increasing the bonus value to at least +3.

isaiah40 wrote:Southeast could be raised to +4 while East could be lowered to +4. Southeast, I can hold off until Beta to see how it plays, but for East I think you could lower it now to +4.

natty_dread wrote:Why?

I can wait and see how these are during Beta.

isaiah40 wrote:It may only be 3 territories, but look at how many territories can attack it. All of West which has 5 territories and Camden from North for a total of 6 territories which can attack NW. Now if I were playing this I would not go for NW for this reason, it is almost impossible to hold because you have to build up on ALL 3 territories to protect it. If you don't want to add in any impassables there, then I suggest increasing the bonus value to at least +3.

Well, I have a feeling +3 would be too strong for it. Let's not forget NW has good expansion potential. It seems to me if I'm to make NW any better, it'll become like Australia, a no-brainer bonus everyone will go for.

I could go for an impassable between Hounslow / Hillingdon. It wouldn't reduce the borders of NW, but it would reduce the amount of territories that can assault it.

isaiah40 wrote:I can wait and see how these are during Beta.

No no, if you have a reasoning for the suggestion I'd like to hear it. Maybe you've thought of something I've missed.

natty_dread wrote:Well, I have a feeling +3 would be too strong for it. Let's not forget NW has good expansion potential. It seems to me if I'm to make NW any better, it'll become like Australia, a no-brainer bonus everyone will go for. I could go for an impassable between Hounslow / Hillingdon. It wouldn't reduce the borders of NW, but it would reduce the amount of territories that can assault it.

Ok, let's take a look at Fractured China. I had to increase Manchuria to +4 because of Beijing being able to attack and Jilin being able to attack all 4 territories, with a total of 5 territories to defend against. Now transfer that over to here. You have 3 territories to defend against 6 with Ealing being able to attack all 3. Instead of an impassable between Hounslow and Hillingdon, put it between Ealing and Harrow. This way you should be able to keep the bonus at +2. If no impassable is added I would strongly suggest increasing the bonus to +3, as I had to do for Manchuria.

natty_dread wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:I can wait and see how these are during Beta.

No no, if you have a reasoning for the suggestion I'd like to hear it. Maybe you've thought of something I've missed.

Okay here is my reasoning. East has 7 territories to defend against 4 territories for +5, this is a little high IMO because Southeast has 6 territories to defend against 5 territories for +4. See the difference? It seems a little backwards to me. My suggestion is to just swap the bonus values around, at the same - IMO - you can leave Southeast at +4 and see what happens during Beta as it seems like a good number.

Also looking at this again, I think you might want to consider making one of the Northwest territories start as a 3 neutral to eliminate the possibility of someone dropping that bonus, either Brent or Hillingdon would work if you place the impassable per my suggestion. You will still have a good number of territories so no worries there.

Hm, I was rather disappointed you failed to address my previous post, but no matter:

isaiah40 wrote:

natty_dread wrote:Well, I have a feeling +3 would be too strong for it. Let's not forget NW has good expansion potential. It seems to me if I'm to make NW any better, it'll become like Australia, a no-brainer bonus everyone will go for. I could go for an impassable between Hounslow / Hillingdon. It wouldn't reduce the borders of NW, but it would reduce the amount of territories that can assault it.

Ok, let's take a look at Fractured China. I had to increase Manchuria to +4 because of Beijing being able to attack and Jilin being able to attack all 4 territories, with a total of 5 territories to defend against. Now transfer that over to here. You have 3 territories to defend against 6 with Ealing being able to attack all 3. Instead of an impassable between Hounslow and Hillingdon, put it between Ealing and Harrow. This way you should be able to keep the bonus at +2. If no impassable is added I would strongly suggest increasing the bonus to +3, as I had to do for Manchuria.

There are a few factors you forget, such as the number of bonus areas, in the case of Fractured China. I think I have to go with natty on this one. Since NW is the only small bonus area, it will be sought after. In the case of Fractured China, there is a multitude of small(ish) bonuses, so there's more leeway.

isaiah40 wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:I can wait and see how these are during Beta.

No no, if you have a reasoning for the suggestion I'd like to hear it. Maybe you've thought of something I've missed.

Okay here is my reasoning. East has 7 territories to defend against 4 territories for +5, this is a little high IMO because Southeast has 6 territories to defend against 5 territories for +4. See the difference? It seems a little backwards to me. My suggestion is to just swap the bonus values around, at the same - IMO - you can leave Southeast at +4 and see what happens during Beta as it seems like a good number.

Hm, I think you are looking at things from the wrong perspective. How many territories border the bonus area is largely irrelevant, or enough such that it wouldn't affect the difficulty of holding the bonus area in any significant way. Regardless of whether Southeast has 6 territories bordering it or 3, I still only have to guard 3 border territories. See my point?

isaiah40 wrote:Also looking at this again, I think you might want to consider making one of the Northwest territories start as a 3 neutral to eliminate the possibility of someone dropping that bonus, either Brent or Hillingdon would work if you place the impassable per my suggestion. You will still have a good number of territories so no worries there.

The neutral 3 I agree with, but, again, I don't think the impassable is necessary.

-Sully

One thing we (and every mapmaker) should remember is, that bonuses don't exist in a vacuum.

Sure... taken as is, northwest has 3 borders / 3 territories. But here's the thing, bonuses are seldom held on their own, they are combined with other territories and other bonuses. So let's say there's an impassable between Hillingdon & Hounslow, and you hold NW, then also take Ealing: Suddenly, you can hold NW with only 2 borders. That's 4 territories and 2 borders. Taking in consideration W is a hard to hold, middle/end-game bonus, it's not likely anyone will contend you for Ealing. This also gives you good expansion potential to both W and N.

So I would still posit that if anything needs to be done to NW, adding an impassable between Hounslow/Hillingdon is entirely sufficient.

isaiah40 wrote:Ok, let's take a look at Fractured China.

I don't think it's a comparable example. It's much larger and totally different type of map.

isaiah40 wrote:Okay here is my reasoning. East has 7 territories to defend against 4 territories for +5, this is a little high IMO because Southeast has 6 territories to defend against 5 territories for +4. See the difference? It seems a little backwards to me. My suggestion is to just swap the bonus values around, at the same - IMO - you can leave Southeast at +4 and see what happens during Beta as it seems like a good number.

In my experience, the amount of territories that can assault a bonus is no where near as significant as the amount of borders, expansion potential, and (to a lesser degree) size. Southeast has 3 borders, while East has 4. Southeast has 6 territories while East has 7. Both have access to City, which is heavily contested by 2 other areas (4 bonuses connect to it in total).

East has no real expansion potential, aside from the city. Neither does it have any easy means of reducing the border count. Southeast is similar, but I'd say it has a marginal chance of being able to expand to Southwest. A marginal one.

At most, I could see increasing Southeast to +4 and leaving East at +5.

isaiah40 wrote:Also looking at this again, I think you might want to consider making one of the Northwest territories start as a 3 neutral to eliminate the possibility of someone dropping that bonus, either Brent or Hillingdon would work if you place the impassable per my suggestion. You will still have a good number of territories so no worries there.

What is the probability of someone dropping it, without neutrals?

Fair points. I would agree on Southeast at +4, leave East as it is, and place that impassable. As for the drop probability, IMHO - and what I do - is to add the neutral there anyways. This will prevent anyone from dropping it.

Well, the thing is... this is a small map, and London already has to start neutral. And for a small map like this, 32 would be a much better starting territory count than 31...

Adding the neutral would affect mainly 4 and 8 player games... currently 4 player games start with 8 territories each and 1 neutral, with 1 extra neutral they'd start with 7 territories each and 5 neutrals. 8 player games - granted, this map may not be optimal for such large games either way - currently they start with 4 starters and 1 neutral, with the extra neutral they'd start with 3 starters and 9 neutrals.

So, my main concern is the 4 player games, since I see this map optimal in size for 4-player dubs games, but I'd also like to maintain playability for 8 player games as well. So if the probability of dropping that bonus is minor... well, I'd rather have that probability than break the main gameplay targets of the map.

Anyway, could there be an alternate solution? What about starting positions - if we code each NW territory as a starting position, this would eliminate the drop possibility in 2-3 player games... It would also mean each player would start with 11 territories in 2 player games.

As someone who hates neutrals placed onto a map, starting positions would deal with the problem without adding the extra neutral. That should always be the way to go it possible.

Natty's got the right idea!

-Sully

[bigimg]http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/4704/londonn1.png[/bigimg]

Still missing bridges & legend...

Is this style more fitting for a city map?

Also, gp stamp?

Moar updatz

[bigimg]http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/4704/londonn1.png[/bigimg]

Alternative blue background

[bigimg]http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/6206/londonn1a.png[/bigimg]

With army numbers

[bigimg]http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3526/londonn1n.png[/bigimg]

I love the new blue version. It is simplistic yet beautiful. would it be possible to work the background image so Big Ben's face is on the blue background? as Oppose to being hidden behind the green continent? Its the only major thing that is really bothering me.


Cheers,
gimil

gimil wrote:I love the new blue version. It is simplistic yet beautiful. would it be possible to work the background image so Big Ben's face is on the blue background? as Oppose to being hidden behind the green continent? Its the only major thing that is really bothering me.


Cheers,
gimil

Nopes, sorry. The image is cropped from the right, ie. there's no extra on the left side, so I can't move the image to the right.

The only option would be to move it up, but then the tower would be cut off by the edge of the image, and I really don't want to do that.

Anyway, I'm not totally sure if I want to go with the blue version. I kinda like the saturation contrast on the grey version. Let's hear some more opinions on that...

Meanwhile, can I get the GP stamp now?

Ok so here's some bg options...

100% grey
[bigimg]http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/4704/londonn1.png[/bigimg]

30/70
[bigimg]http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/9755/londonn1c.png[/bigimg]

50/50
[bigimg]http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6697/londonn1b.png[/bigimg]

100% blue
[bigimg]http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/6206/londonn1a.png[/bigimg]

natty_dread wrote:Nopes, sorry. The image is cropped from the right, ie. there's no extra on the left side, so I can't move the image to the right.

The only option would be to move it up, but then the tower would be cut off by the edge of the image, and I really don't want to do that.

Anyway, I'm not totally sure if I want to go with the blue version. I kinda like the saturation contrast on the grey version. Let's hear some more opinions on that...

Meanwhile, can I get the GP stamp now?

I understand what you mean. Its a shame, that the main focal point of the background is slightly hidden.

I would personally really like the blue version to go through (in my opinion). To me it pulls all the colours of the map together nicely. The desaturated version is good as well but it is (to me) not as wow as the blue.

Nice try on trying to get a Graphics Stamp . But you don't have a gameplay stamp and you ain't finished yet since you don't even know what your final background colour is.


Cheers,
gimil

Double post...

The 50/50 version also looks good..as it also pulls all the colours together.