Conquer Club

Perhaps something New World-esque, with the name superimposed on the region?

I for one am all for the minimap being either shrunk or (re)moved, because then there just might be enough room to maneuver for 2 entrances to each castle?

I don't support the new entrances idea. This is a new map, it needs a new style. With 2 entrances, it's a larger version of Feudal War. But with one, it forces you to change your strategy.

I think without the minimap then it would be confusing - and also it lends character and harks back to the original...

C.

I agree on keeping the minimap, It keeps the feudal character of the map. Taking it away would simple leave a big chunk of blue for the sea, no amount of title or sig size increases is going to stop the bright blue taking your attention. Also many people don't need the minimap to play once they are experienced on the map. However new players or players playing the map for the first time will more often than not need the minimap to get them started.

On the note of enterances, Since opinion on this is pretty split I have made the decision that I do not want to have 2 enterances per castle, I am happy to stick with the one since it is how I envisioned the map in the first place.

Now the only gameplay issue that has been brought up is the advantage that can be gained is the drop leaves someone paired with a neutral. This leaves that player no challenge in scraping up another bonus castles while others have to fight each other to gain another castles.

My suggestion to this would be bump up the neutrals on a neutral castles. However this means that I would have to use starting neutrals for the castles to be asigned. This also means that 2 player games would mean that each player starts with 4 castles each, rather than starting with 2 castles and the rest neutral (All to do with the XML, bug yeti_c if you don't understand;)) . What do people think of this?

As stated before - I would prefer 2 player games to be much more open - i.e. 2 castles each - would be awesome in the fog...

I don't think being paired with a neutral castle is too big a deal - if someone is and they grow strong - they'll just get picked on by someone else...

If it's FOW then no-one knows which castle(s) are neutral - and you could be walking into a trap.

C.

yeti_c wrote:I don't think being paired with a neutral castle is too big a deal - if someone is and they grow strong - they'll just get picked on by someone else...

A good point, although 3,4 (maybe 5) player games could still lead to a large advantage that may make you strong enought to make retaliation difficult? Maybe not?

gimil wrote:

yeti_c wrote:I don't think being paired with a neutral castle is too big a deal - if someone is and they grow strong - they'll just get picked on by someone else...

A good point, although 3,4 (maybe 5) player games could still lead to a large advantage that may make you strong enought to make retaliation difficult? Maybe not?

Maybe in a 3 player - but - there will be 2 players with neutrals in 3 player (or none) - (Or 1 player with 2 neutrals - but they won't have enough armies to capitalise on that I don't think...

I'm not sure it's an issue...

C.

yeti_c wrote:

gimil wrote:

yeti_c wrote:I don't think being paired with a neutral castle is too big a deal - if someone is and they grow strong - they'll just get picked on by someone else...

A good point, although 3,4 (maybe 5) player games could still lead to a large advantage that may make you strong enought to make retaliation difficult? Maybe not?

Maybe in a 3 player - but - there will be 2 players with neutrals in 3 player (or none) - (Or 1 player with 2 neutrals - but they won't have enough armies to capitalise on that I don't think...

I'm not sure it's an issue...

C.

Ok I can live with that. If his neutral thing isn't an issue then we can stick with not using starting positions.

Hey... I have an idea :

Beside in the Castle everybody start with 1 (or 2) extra region(s) outside. I think this will add more variations to the games

Geger wrote:Hey... I have an idea :

Beside in the Castle everybody start with 1 (or 2) extra region(s) outside. I think this will add more variations to the games

It's a nice idea but its not really the feudal way. and with the XML features we have it wouldn't really be possible without starting positions, which we have agree we won't be using.

what is our current preference for the number of starting castles each in 1v1?

ian.

iancanton wrote:what is our current preference for the number of starting castles each in 1v1?

ian.

2 castles each. with the last 4 neutral. Good to see you back ian

t-o-m wrote::D

One thing that ive already told you, i dont like the way that there's only one entrance to each castle

yeah it becomes a bottle necked and a player can easily stack armies there


i like it like that

imperial dynasty castle appears to have a unique advantage: it is one kingdom territory closer to the nearest village, xeu, than anyone else. this affects barbarian's chances negatively, since xeu is the closest village to barbarian castle. the other three villages are each contested by two equidistant castles.

imperial dynasty castle's edge can be removed by expanding the area of id2 and id4, so that id3 no longer adjoins id7.

other than the above, the arrangement of the kingdoms looks more symmetrical than in the original feudal war map.

ian.

iancanton wrote:imperial dynasty castle appears to have a unique advantage: it is one kingdom territory closer to the nearest village, xeu, than anyone else. this affects barbarian's chances negatively, since xeu is the closest village to barbarian castle. the other three villages are each contested by two equidistant castles.

imperial dynasty castle's edge can be removed by expanding the area of id2 and id4, so that id3 no longer adjoins id7.

other than the above, the arrangement of the kingdoms looks more symmetrical than in the original feudal war map.

ian.

Thanks Ian. I will do that for you

Anything else before you can get a gameplay stamp in here?

I just noticed that Xeu 1 doesn't have an army...

[bigimg]http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c64/Gimil_01/FeudalEpic-3.png[/bigimg]

There you go ian.

that looks better! now i'm trying to think of a method to minimise the handicap to anyone who has the bad luck to start with both might and feudal, which are a long way from the three southern villages.

we're pretty close to a stamp, though. the map is a beautiful redevelopment of the original masterpiece.

ian.

iancanton wrote:that looks better! now i'm trying to think of a method to minimise the handicap to anyone who has the bad luck to start with both might and feudal, which are a long way from the three southern villages.

Shouldn't be to much of an issue. there is still plenty of single terrs to build on to gain some extra bonus.

I know this must be a pain to fix, but I think the territory borders are much too squiggly. The occasional squiggle is OK, but this is way overboard.

gimil wrote:

iancanton wrote:that looks better! now i'm trying to think of a method to minimise the handicap to anyone who has the bad luck to start with both might and feudal, which are a long way from the three southern villages.

Shouldn't be to much of an issue. there is still plenty of single terrs to build on to gain some extra bonus.

I agree. Someone with Might and Feudal would be guaranteed a village, and could defend it all with two territories.

InkL0sed wrote:

gimil wrote:

iancanton wrote:that looks better! now i'm trying to think of a method to minimise the handicap to anyone who has the bad luck to start with both might and feudal, which are a long way from the three southern villages.

Shouldn't be to much of an issue. there is still plenty of single terrs to build on to gain some extra bonus.

I agree. Someone with Might and Feudal would be guaranteed a village, and could defend it all with two territories.

these are valid points, therefore i am happy to accept the territory layout as it stands. i'd like to see might and feudal brought more into the game by reducing the starting neutrals on tri 12 and ga'h 8 to 2 each, which will also bring rebel and warlords closer to tri. this helps might, feudal, rebel and warlords slightly, which compensates for them being further from the xeu bonus than the other 4 castles are.

ian.

Ok ian. Consider it done

[bigimg]http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c64/Gimil_01/FeudalEpic-4.png[/bigimg]

There you go ian.

it must be time for this.



ian.