Conquer Club

bonobo`s son wrote:

militant wrote:my only concern is the 1 army bonnus for moscow.In thebegining of a 1vs1 game even 1 army is crucial and it would sway the game from the offset. I would prefer for it to be removed.I cant wait to play it.

I agree whith this but I think that it must begin as a neutral territory so nobod can get that bonus in the 1st round.

I didnt think off that, but it is a good idea. It should begin with 7 armies so that it cant be gained without a bonus already or forting all your armies to a bordering country and then attacking moscow.

bonobo`s son wrote:

militant wrote:my only concern is the 1 army bonnus for moscow.In thebegining of a 1vs1 game even 1 army is crucial and it would sway the game from the offset. I would prefer for it to be removed.I cant wait to play it.

I agree whith this but I think that it must begin as a neutral territory so nobod can get that bonus in the 1st round.

It does start neutral, but only with a neutral of three, which I think is fine.

--lanyards

I counted 57 territories, so how many territories would a player in a 2 player game start with?

militant wrote:I counted 57 territories, so how many territories would a player in a 2 player game start with?

Each would start with 19 if you counted correctly. That is good because the first person can't make the second person start with 1 less army by taking one territory. So the first person to take their turn doesn't have an advantage.

--lanyards

lanyards wrote:

militant wrote:I counted 57 territories, so how many territories would a player in a 2 player game start with?

Each would start with 19 if you counted correctly. That is good because the first person can't make the second person start with 1 less army by taking one territory. So the first person to take their doesn't have an advantage.

--lanyards

The first player would get six armys for holding 19 territories, so he would have a possible nince armes to attack with he only needs to take two to put his opponenet at a disadvantage. Also that would be morew than enough to take moscow. Would it be possible to include another two territorys or increasing the moscow neutral armies. If each player started with 20 territories then they would have to take three which would be more difficult.

I doubt this map is being made with 2 player games in mind. It seems a bit awkward to alter gameplay to be good with an already usually flawed game type without thinking about the other settings and how they might be affected.

Coleman wrote:I doubt this map is being made with 2 player games in mind. It seems a bit awkward to alter gameplay to be good with an already usually flawed game type without thinking about the other settings and how they might be affected.

I disagree that 1vs1 games are flawed, every game type has a element of luck but there is definatly a lot of stratergy required to win.

militant wrote:

lanyards wrote:

militant wrote:I counted 57 territories, so how many territories would a player in a 2 player game start with?

Each would start with 19 if you counted correctly. That is good because the first person can't make the second person start with 1 less army by taking one territory. So the first person to take their doesn't have an advantage.

--lanyards

The first player would get six armys for holding 19 territories, so he would have a possible nince armes to attack with he only needs to take two to put his opponenet at a disadvantage. Also that would be morew than enough to take moscow. Would it be possible to include another two territorys or increasing the moscow neutral armies. If each player started with 20 territories then they would have to take three which would be more difficult.

I believe it's official that militant is paranoid with the theory that someone might get a 1+ bonus one turn in. I think you should keep the bonus the way it is.

Also, I like the new portrait.

-W123

militant wrote:

bonobo`s son wrote:

militant wrote:my only concern is the 1 army bonnus for moscow.In thebegining of a 1vs1 game even 1 army is crucial and it would sway the game from the offset. I would prefer for it to be removed.I cant wait to play it.

I agree whith this but I think that it must begin as a neutral territory so nobod can get that bonus in the 1st round.

I didnt think off that, but it is a good idea. It should begin with 7 armies so that it cant be gained without a bonus already or forting all your armies to a bordering country and then attacking moscow.

Like lanyards said, it does start neutral. Four or five seems like a good number to me, now that I think about it.

I like 3 neutral for it, but that's just my opinion. If it's 4 or 5 then it's more obvious to the player that you are messing with them and that it didn't just happen to be neutral.

Coleman wrote:I like 3 neutral for it, but that's just my opinion. If it's 4 or 5 then it's more obvious to the player that you are messing with them and that it didn't just happen to be neutral.

How would a 4 or 5 army neutral be messing with a player, if they came to the foundry anyway they would know, also it is there to aid gameplay and not give a advantage to the first person to take a turn.

Also wrightfan123, i am play a lot of 2 player games and know from experiance a 1 army advatage can make a big difference.

Coleman wrote:I like 3 neutral for it, but that's just my opinion. If it's 4 or 5 then it's more obvious to the player that you are messing with them and that it didn't just happen to be neutral.

I think 3 would be bang on - any more is too many - it's only 1 per turn...

C.

yeti_c wrote:

Coleman wrote:I like 3 neutral for it, but that's just my opinion. If it's 4 or 5 then it's more obvious to the player that you are messing with them and that it didn't just happen to be neutral.

I think 3 would be bang on - any more is too many - it's only 1 per turn...

C.

I agree, who would use their armies to take down a 4 or 5, only to be getting 1 army back each turn. It would ruin the point in taking Moscow.

Also, why is Western Republics worth 3 armies? In the earlier versions, you had to defend 4 territories and it was worth 2, now you have to defend 3 territories and is worth 3 armies.


--lanyards

lanyards wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

Coleman wrote:I like 3 neutral for it, but that's just my opinion. If it's 4 or 5 then it's more obvious to the player that you are messing with them and that it didn't just happen to be neutral.

I think 3 would be bang on - any more is too many - it's only 1 per turn...

C.

I agree, who would use their armies to take down a 4 or 5, only to be getting 1 army back each turn. It would ruin the point in taking Moscow.

Also, why is Western Republics worth 3 armies? In the earlier versions, you had to defend 4 territories and it was worth 2, now you have to defend 3 territories and is worth 3 armies.


--lanyards

I would say 4-5 is a little high, i think 3 should just about do it for a +1 bonus

I think its been balanced pritty well (western republic)

I've got confirmation that the Lenin picture is free to use. Any other suggestions, guys?

pepperonibread wrote:I've got confirmation that the Lenin picture is free to use. Any other suggestions, guys?

Here is one:

Quench.

--lanyards

My topic title is updated, Coleman...

pepperonibread wrote:My topic title is updated, Coleman...

I know, you are a good map maker... I'm mostly annoyed with those that were doing a good job up until now and then started to neglect it recently.

So are we in agreement for 3 neutrals? Or are you still insisting on more?

Coleman wrote:

pepperonibread wrote:My topic title is updated, Coleman...

I know, you are a good map maker... I'm mostly annoyed with those that were doing a good job up until now and then started to neglect it recently.

So are we in agreement for 3 neutrals? Or are you still insisting on more?

No problem, I was just joking around. 3 neutrals is good for me.

for fun maybe you would like to make some kind of animation where the faces are of the ones youve used in development of this map?

Just something id like to see

just to keep in mind this isnot an actual suggestion to slow down production

gimil wrote:for fun maybe you would like to make some kind of animation where the faces are of the ones youve used in development of this map?

Just something id like to see

just to keep in mind this isnot an actual suggestion to slow down production

You mean like cycling between Lenin and Stalin's face?

pepperonibread wrote:

gimil wrote:for fun maybe you would like to make some kind of animation where the faces are of the ones youve used in development of this map?

Just something id like to see

just to keep in mind this isnot an actual suggestion to slow down production

You mean like cycling between Lenin and Stalin's face?

yeah

but just for fun

gimil wrote:

pepperonibread wrote:

gimil wrote:for fun maybe you would like to make some kind of animation where the faces are of the ones youve used in development of this map?

Just something id like to see

just to keep in mind this isnot an actual suggestion to slow down production

You mean like cycling between Lenin and Stalin's face?

yeah

but just for fun

How about I add Coleman's avvie in there too?
Just let me get a start on this essay I'm supposed to be doing...

pepperonibread wrote:

gimil wrote:

pepperonibread wrote:

gimil wrote:for fun maybe you would like to make some kind of animation where the faces are of the ones youve used in development of this map?

Just something id like to see

just to keep in mind this isnot an actual suggestion to slow down production

You mean like cycling between Lenin and Stalin's face?

yeah

but just for fun

How about I add Coleman's avvie in there too?
Just let me get a start on this essay I'm supposed to be doing...

sounds dandy

Am I being compared to soviet dictators? That's kind of nifty.