Conquer Club

I'll start this off with a breakdown of the starting deployment for different game types- please add this to the 1st post
There are 21 total 'non-important' regions for open deployment (this doesn't include the starting bases)

2 or 3 players: 7 regions each
4 players: 5 regions each
5 players: 4 regions each
6 players: 3 regions each
7 players: 3 regions each
8 players: 2 regions each

DiM wrote:

Winged Cat wrote:NP-4 still seems screwed - and that's not a matter of "things aren't perfectly symmetric", but a matter of AS-6 being able to easily thwart any land advances NP-4 tries.

I see your point about not overconnecting and not making things too symmetric, so...maybe remove AS-6/PA-1? That should resolve the problem, and make NP-4 more of a contender for the PA spots (if SP-1 and SA-2 aren't on their toes about it).

np-4 is not screwed.
remember that besides a human/alien base a player will also start with several other terits on the map.
so even if you get np-4 you'll still be able to deploy in af-1 for example and from there attack the dna lab in sp-3.

if the human/alien bases were the only starting positions then you're right, np-4 would be a pretty bad starting point.
but it's not so as i said before you can just use your other terits to get dna labs or nuke silos and from np-4 simply focus on getting tech lvl 1

While I see what DiM is saying- that the starting positions are not as important as they seem because players begin with other regions- the argument isn't conclusive to my mind for two reasons:
(1) The starting positions are meant to be a clear center of strength, as they are unassailable until late game and have an autodeploy
(2) The map isn't that big at all in terms of deployable regions for the drop; only in smaller games would I side with DiM's argument. In larger games, a player could lose most or all of his non-base regions before he even gets to take his turn.

So, as far as gameplay mechanics are concerned, my only major worry is that NP-4, and to a lesser extent NP-3 and AS-6, have a noticeable disadvantage in terms of options.

In order to combat any idea that I am arguing for symmetry or as it has been stated "making every starting position the same", I am in no way proposing that all of the starting positions have the same surroundings. What I am arguing for is balance which has been confused by many people for symmetry. Actually, all game balance means is that no single player has a marked disadvantage (or is likely to have one at any rate- some allowances are made for bad drops) or advantage over another based solely upon the drop. If one starting position has strengths and weaknesses that another doesn't, that's great! So long as ultimately all players have a roughly even shot.

As for the techs, the starting positions are symmetrical and therefore perfectly balanced. So it only stands to reason that it would be nice to let the starting positions be dissimilar on the 'real world' part of the map, just to allow for variety (and thus replayability). I approve.

However, the variety must not just hand out more options to some players and fewer options to others. The non-important regions would be a compensating factor, except that there are just too few of them and the bases are too strong in comparision. With the single exception of AS-1, every single non-important region on the map is adjacent to a base. Those bases with fewer adjacent territs are limited not only in their attack options, but also their opportunities for spoils and for reinforcing allies in team games.

So, bottom line, I really think that at the bare minimum NP-4 needs one other adjacent non-important region.

----------------

OK, other than that my only concerns are for gameplay clarity... and it looks like there aren't any. Well done

-- Marshal Ney

P.S. Krap I don't want to take back the clarity thing, but I forgot this- for the victory conditions in the legend, it isn't entirely crystal clear that there are 4 possible ways to win. By adding and "OR" in between the two sets on either side, this should be explicit.

DiM wrote:

natty_dread wrote:How about making the one-way arrows a different colour than the other connections?

i'm afraid that would confuse people.
the arrows should be enough to show the direction of attack.

I disagree... I feel differentiating them more would improve gameplay clarity. Right now the one-way routes are easy to confuse with the regular ones, since they look quite similar.

How about just a slight variation, like a slight gradient on the arrowhead, from red to yellowish perhaps?

natty_dread wrote:

DiM wrote:

natty_dread wrote:How about making the one-way arrows a different colour than the other connections?

i'm afraid that would confuse people.
the arrows should be enough to show the direction of attack.

I disagree... I feel differentiating them more would improve gameplay clarity. Right now the one-way routes are easy to confuse with the regular ones, since they look quite similar.

How about just a slight variation, like a slight gradient on the arrowhead, from red to yellowish perhaps?

that could work. does anybody share the same thoughts as natty?

MarshalNey wrote:NP-4 needs one other adjacent non-important region.

will do.

MarshalNey wrote:for the victory conditions in the legend, it isn't entirely crystal clear that there are 4 possible ways to win. By adding and "OR" in between the two sets on either side, this should be explicit.

where exactly should i add the word "OR" ?

DiM wrote:where exactly should i add the word "OR" ?

"Hold all Human Tech Level 3 to Win, or Hold All Nuke Silos and Any Alien Base to Win" (added text in italics)

Similarly for the other side,
"Hold all Alien Tech Level 3 to Win, or Hold All DNA Labs and Any Human Base to Win" (added text in italics)

DiM wrote:that could work. does anybody share the same thoughts as natty?

It couldn't hurt, and now that I look closely the arrows are hard to tell apart...

-- Marshal Ney

MarshalNey wrote:

DiM wrote:that could work. does anybody share the same thoughts as natty?

It couldn't hurt, and now that I look closely the arrows are hard to tell apart...

-- Marshal Ney

Yes, perhaps some slight coloration would help.

-Sully

V12:
*instead of adding the "OR" that marshal suggested i preferred to clearly delimit the objectives. they should be perfectly clear now.
*added another terit at the North Pole called NP-4 near the old NP-4 which is now called NP-5.
*also tweaked the connections in that area and now NP-5 (ex-NP-4) has more connections and it's no longer secluded.
*added a blue-ish tint to the arrows. (to be honest i'm not too fond of any of the connections so i'll probably scratch everything at a later point and redraw them. but for gameplay assessing purposes i think they're ok.

[bigimg]http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250/DiM-topia/allyourbasearebelongtousL-V12.jpg[/bigimg]

This looks really good. I like having the attack routes spelled out.

Still need to find something more fitting than "non-important" territories. Not only does it sound sort of silly, but its vague and subjective. The casual player won't know how to interpret what is important or not.

Could go with something like uninhabited or quarantined or dead zone. Or the opposite, like civilians or safe zone.

Better yet, maybe just give each of the non-important territories a single color code (either in the space or a halo) and have the legend say "any ____ zone" or "any ____ terit".

While I somewhat agree with lostalimbo about the 'non-important' distinction, I'm at a loss at any easy way to describe them, other than using the color-coding that limbo suggested.

Anyway, everything else looks good to me so I'm sending this to the CAs for one last look...

Last call for any gameplay concerns before a stamp!

-- Marshal Ney

fair points. that's why i coloured the terits and the legend. it should all be clear now.

V13:
*renamed "non-important" terits to "civilian zones"
*coloured the terit names on the map
*coloured text in the legend

[bigimg]http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250/DiM-topia/allyourbasearebelongtousL-V13.jpg[/bigimg]

Nice! The only thing(s) I really have is to delete the NA-4 -- PA-2 connection, and add connections NA-1 -- NA-2 and NA-2 -- PA-2.

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:Nice! The only thing(s) I really have is to delete the NA-4 -- PA-2 connection, and add connections NA-1 -- NA-2 and NA-2 -- PA-2.

-Sully

done

V14:
*deleted the NA-4 -- PA-2 connection, and added connections NA-1 -- NA-2 and NA-2 -- PA-2.
*changed the one way arrows on the map.

[bigimg]http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250/DiM-topia/allyourbasearebelongtousL-V14.jpg[/bigimg]

Just noticed this little thing: The connection from SP-1 to SP-4 is a one-way attack... thus, there shouldn't be the little note in the lower righthand corner saying, "To SP-1", and the regular connection line should be a continued arrow.

Btw, the one-way attack arrows look really good.

Another thing that just struck me was that you could add a 1-way connection between AS-6 and AU-2 to give those poor humans in that base another attack option without messing with the map's dynamics. Sorry for the last-minute stuff, dunno why I just noticed it now.

-- Marshal Ney

Jeez, Marshal, you're so inconsiderate!

Jk, love ya

-Sully

MarshalNey wrote:Btw, the one-way attack arrows look really good.

Seconded.

DiM, you mentioned you might work on the tech level arrows too? Those are the last things I see that could use some TLC.

Particularly the blue ones because they are somewhat stretched and obscured. I could see some second guessing the nature of their connection. They look a lot different than the white arrows.

Other thoughts...

Something about "...AND YOU'RE DEAD" reads clunky to me. Some alternatives:
LOSE YOUR BASE AND LOSE THE RACE?
LOSE YOUR BASE AND LOSE THE WAR?

While I love the detail in the header/title space, I think it could use more of a lead-in than "Research. Fight. Survive". A map like this feels like a movie, but you haven't set the scene yet.

I'd keep it brief, so as not to cover up your work, but something like:

An alien race with designs to colonize Earth faces fierce opposition from the native humans. It will take more than firepower to win this war as both sides race to advance their tech and eliminate the enemy.

That's my $.02 anyway

MarshalNey wrote:Just noticed this little thing: The connection from SP-1 to SP-4 is a one-way attack... thus, there shouldn't be the little note in the lower righthand corner saying, "To SP-1", and the regular connection line should be a continued arrow.

my bad. i somehow missed that will be fixed in the next version.

MarshalNey wrote:Btw, the one-way attack arrows look really good.

thanks.

MarshalNey wrote:Another thing that just struck me was that you could add a 1-way connection between AS-6 and AU-2 to give those poor humans in that base another attack option without messing with the map's dynamics. Sorry for the last-minute stuff, dunno why I just noticed it now.

-- Marshal Ney

will add.

lostatlimbo wrote:DiM, you mentioned you might work on the tech level arrows too? Those are the last things I see that could use some TLC.

Particularly the blue ones because they are somewhat stretched and obscured. I could see some second guessing the nature of their connection. They look a lot different than the white arrows.

yeah i know those arrows need some work but i'm really puzzled about them. i'd love to find a solution where they don't overlap the text but i'm afraid that's not possible so i guess i'll have to work with this situation and make them as visible as possible. hopefully i'll fix this issue on next version.

lostatlimbo wrote:Something about "...AND YOU'RE DEAD" reads clunky to me. Some alternatives:
LOSE YOUR BASE AND LOSE THE RACE?
LOSE YOUR BASE AND LOSE THE WAR?

i'll go with the second one.

lostatlimbo wrote:While I love the detail in the header/title space, I think it could use more of a lead-in than "Research. Fight. Survive". A map like this feels like a movie, but you haven't set the scene yet.

I'd keep it brief, so as not to cover up your work, but something like:

An alien race with designs to colonize Earth faces fierce opposition from the native humans. It will take more than firepower to win this war as both sides race to advance their tech and eliminate the enemy.

not sure about this. i kinda like it the way it is now and i don't really have the place for that story.

unless anyone else has any other thoughts on the gameplay mechanics or clarity, I'm going to stamp this the instant a new draft with the proposed changes comes out. So fair warning

-- Marshal Ney

V15:
*reworded the losing condition
*corrected the 1-way attack arrow from sp-1 to sp-4 and changed the label on it too.
*added arrow from as-6 to au-2
*increased visibility of the green/blue arrows in the legend.

[bigimg]http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250/DiM-topia/allyourbasearebelongtousL-V15.jpg[/bigimg]

Kaboom!


This map has met or exceeded the Foundry gameplay standard, but of course further gameplay discussion is welcome. The focus, however, has moved on to graphics, so let's see what you pesky humans can come up with to make this map even more sleek.

-- Marshal Ney

Not sure I understand the meaning of the title. Is it something the aliens would say?
Wouldn't it be better to name it "Humans vs Aliens", "Battle of Earth" or something that (no offence ) makes more sense???

MarshalNey wrote:Kaboom!


This map has met or exceeded the Foundry gameplay standard, but of course further gameplay discussion is welcome. The focus, however, has moved on to graphics, so let's see what you pesky humans can come up with to make this map even more sleek.

-- Marshal Ney

yay

Gillipig wrote:Not sure I understand the meaning of the title. Is it something the aliens would say?
Wouldn't it be better to name it "Humans vs Aliens", "Battle of Earth" or something that (no offence ) makes more sense???

seriously you've never heard of this internet meme?

anyway read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us

MarshalNey wrote:Kaboom!


This map has met or exceeded the Foundry gameplay standard, but of course further gameplay discussion is welcome. The focus, however, has moved on to graphics, so let's see what you pesky humans can come up with to make this map even more sleek.

-- Marshal Ney

Hooray! Thanks, Marshal!

-Sully

I've heard of the internet meme...

I've also heard it was funny back in 1997