Conquer Club

Having re-examined your starting positions diagram (spot-on to help show the gameplay by the way ), I would go for the option to increase the neutral value on the monsters. Having them as starting positions would increase player 1s advantage massively (starting with lots of +2 bonuses). In many game formats, players will have the auto-deploy on the wizard, the standard 3 troops (I assume) +1 for 3 monsters. Therefore the wizards have 3 just like monsters - players have 4 to deploy - they can either attack from the monsters, which involves meeting other players - or go for a runebound monster from a wizard with 7 v 3 (or 2).

Let's consider the monsters neutral is 2 - players can typically attack 7 v 2, with the majority gaining the bonus. In round 2, player 1 then has the normal 3 +1 + 2 to deploy - an opportunity to hit someone else's runebound monster and deny them the +2 (then fort from wizard to runebound monster to protect their own bonus). Therefore, a likely first player advantage if the neutral is 2.

If the neutral is set to 3 then we have a similar scenario, although a higher probability that some players wont get the dice to take the runebound monster. Therefore, still a likely first player advantage if the neutral is 2.

If the neutral were higher, say 5, players would most likely wait another round before taking it. The more rounds it takes to take the runebound monster bonus, the less player 1's advantage is likely to be (as other players will have had chance to build a force, probably on their wizard).

Ideally, I would suggest runebound monsters have a relatively high neutral. With the wizard auto-deploy, they will still be an attractive proposition when after a couple of rounds. Players would then be taking a big risk attacking the runebound monster first round - with no fog they may not have enough to safely defend, and in a card game they might not get the dice to take the runebound monster and therefore not get a card. Players are then more likely to deploy elsewhere to attack first go, or build their wizard and not attack. This would delay player 1s advantage to at least round 2 where the other players will have more chance of counteracting.

Basically, all this is about reducing Player 1s advantage - the principal which attracts many strategically-minded players to maps like New World, Feudal and Peloponnesian War because players dont meet for several rounds.

Here, by increasing the runebound monsters neutral value could be very interesting - it will delay players meeting on the critical territories (i.e. the runebound monsters) but hasten them meeting on less critical territories - i.e. the 'normal' monsters.

Personally, I would set them as neutral 6, maybe more. The value comes down to your preferred gameplay style. And of course, it is something that can be easily amended in Beta without disruption to on-going games.

What do you think?

By the way, I can smell the stamping ink It will very soon be time to knock on a graphics assistants door.

I believe that 8 for shields and 6 for runebound will work. Here is a sample of what the starting forces would look like. Grey circles are neutral, red and blue are player starts.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2510/393 ... 1bf2_o.png



I have updated the xml to match.

http://www.bigottergames.com/downloads/monsters11.xml

==D==

I like it - superb diagram, makes things really easy to work-out.

All that's needed now for gameplay is to somehow squeeze in a mention that there is 'no normal territory bonus' (as discussed earlier - assuming you are sticking with this - which I think works well with the monster-bonus-build system).

I'm getting the stamper out of the drawer in anticipation

DJ Teflon wrote:All that's needed now for gameplay is to somehow squeeze in a mention that there is 'no normal territory bonus' (as discussed earlier - assuming you are sticking with this - which I think works well with the monster-bonus-build system).

A few posts back I think we agreed upon a minimum +3 (standard bonus)

==D==

It just needs to be mentioned on the map.

OK here is an updated map with additional text under he bonus area.

Map Maker - http://www.conquerclub.com/mapmaker/index.php
XML - http://www.bigottergames.com/downloads/monsters11.xml (v0_13_11)
Small - http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/393 ... 3366_o.png (v0_13_11)
Large - http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2455/393 ... ba3d_o.png (v0_13_11)

SMALL (v0_13_11)



LARGE (v0_13_11)

[bigimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2455/3937534169_0bca35ba3d_o.png[/bigimg]

"Minimum Monster bonus" +3?

Suggests there is a normal territory reinforcements, and a + X for Y monsters bonus which is a minimum of 3 - so players get a minimum of 6 each round (+ Wizards & runebound monsters etc)

DJ Teflon wrote:"Minimum Monster bonus" +3?

Suggests there is a normal territory reinforcements, and a + X for Y monsters bonus which is a minimum of 3 - so players get a minimum of 6 each round (+ Wizards & runebound monsters etc)

How would you suggest I word it ... the bonus is +1 for every 3 monsters with the minimum being +3 just like the standard bonus you recieve on the classic map but were only counting monsters in this.

My understanding is this:

# reinforcements for territories = 3 - regardless of how many territories held

Build-your own style Bonus of +1 for every 3 monsters (independent of # territories).

In which case I would suggest deleting the 'minimum monster bonus' bit and, somewhere else, preferably below the other bonus stuff if possible, simply adding "No other territory bonus" - this tends to be the norm on other maps with no territory bonus.

[spoiler= An Example][/spoiler]

What if I said something like "Standard territory bonus is applied only to monsters"? That way it holds to the +1 for every 3 minimum bonus +3

==D==

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3517/398 ... d03f_o.png



http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2500/398 ... 8f45_o.png

[bigimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2500/3981428377_c23a388f45_o.png[/bigimg]

That works... but how about something like "+1 for every 3 Monsters held ONLY, min +3"

Only other question I have is, if you only hold territories that aren't monsters, do you not get a territory bonus?

RedBaron0 wrote:That works... but how about something like "+1 for every 3 Monsters held ONLY, min +3"

Thats what it said the the previous version and I was asked to remove that for a different set of text.

RedBaron0 wrote:Only other question I have is, if you only hold territories that aren't monsters, do you not get a territory bonus?

Nope just for monsters. The powerstones, spells, shields, and wizards are not counted for the territory bonus.

==D==

Just noticed the text for shields says they reset to 10 every turn I believe we decreased that to 8 so I need to update the text this evening when I get home.

==D==

Opps my bad, I totally missed that. The only thing I added was "ONLY" Never mind then your wording should be sufficient. I think the ways you can attack and bombard are going to be confusing at first as people learn to play this map, but everything is well explained in the legend. (assuming it gets read) Certainly unique gameplay, looks like a winner

RedBaron0 wrote:Opps my bad, I totally missed that. The only thing I added was "ONLY" Never mind then your wording should be sufficient. I think the ways you can attack and bombard are going to be confusing at first as people learn to play this map, but everything is well explained in the legend. (assuming it gets read) Certainly unique gameplay, looks like a winner

Thanx, I am looking forward to getting my but kicked on this map =)

==D==

OK I made every change that was asked for... how about that GP stamp?

SMALL

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3513/399 ... e262_o.png



LARGE

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/399 ... c41c_o.png

[bigimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3994742476_7cab24c41c_o.png[/bigimg]

Sorry for the dealy.

[spoiler= Rant at my employer to explain delay]IT fascism by my employer (wireless and LAN connections firewalled and no admin rights to install modem router drivers - they provide the laptop to connect remotely to their network for work - idiots)[/spoiler]

Ok, so,

"Standard territory bonus only applied to monsters".

Does this mean players get 4 for 12 monsters, 5 for 15 etc? I assume there is either no standard deploy, or a standard deploy of 3 and 1 for 12 monsters, 2 for 15 monsters plus?

I'm sure you have it figured out xml-wise, so here is the stamp:



Congrats

DJ Teflon wrote:Sorry for the dealy.

Ok, so,

"Standard territory bonus only applied to monsters".

Does this mean players get 4 for 12 monsters, 5 for 15 etc? I assume there is either no standard deploy, or a standard deploy of 3 and 1 for 12 monsters, 2 for 15 monsters plus?

I'm sure you have it figured out xml-wise, so here is the stamp:

Congrats

Thanx...

The xml works out to create the same bonus as the standard deploy of 3 and +1 at 12 +2 at 15 etc... =) ... now its time to set my eyes on the next stamp

=D=

Just wondering when someone might stop by for a Graphics Review I would love to get the last two stamps and get this baby into Beta =)

==D==

I think how this map looks is fab. However could we see an image of the small with army numbers on top? I have a sneaking suspicion that the circles on the small may be to..small for the army numbers.

Cheers,
gimil

gimil wrote:I think how this map looks is fab. However could we see an image of the small with army numbers on top? I have a sneaking suspicion that the circles on the small may be to..small for the army numbers.

Cheers,
gimil

Here are maps a few versions ago with 88 and 888 applied the circles on the existing map are the same size.

=D=

88's Applied

small - http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2591/367 ... ed13_o.png



large - http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2508/367 ... 5398_o.png

[bigimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2508/3677653020_8d3a755398_o.png[/bigimg]

888's Applied

small - http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2471/367 ... e6f7_o.png



large - http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2561/367 ... 0fdf_o.png

[bigimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2561/3677652508_4b86bd0fdf_o.png[/bigimg]

looks good to me mate.

It pains me to say it again, but I still don't get the impression that there is a great deal of support for this map....

MrBenn wrote:It pains me to say it again, but I still don't get the impression that there is a great deal of support for this map....

I have been working on the map for more than a year. I have been very patient and made every change asked of me. I believe the map is ready for the final forge.

I would be happy if people would stop by and say that they want to play this map it would make the past year of effort seem like it was all worth it.

==D==

i would love to play on this map. i think it would be a great one to put through. it looks like so much fun!