Conquer Club

WidowMakers wrote:
So here is a quick list of issues brought up since the poll:

2) Territory bonus capped at 10 - Still up for discussion

...

Stay tuned for a new map V3 and then we can get back into the nit picking of specifics.

But since items 2,3,5,6,7 can be discussed before the next draft, please feel free to talk about them.

Thanks again
WM

• To make it fair for all players in turn 1, territory bonus should start at round 2 only.
• Not sure we want to block bonus for number of territories to 10.
  - A concept like the "Conquer Man" map should be used.
• Territory naming suggestion:
  - All territories in same group start with same letter and number increment by 1 for each territory.
  - When letter Z is reach, the following one are AA, BB, ...
• Did you test a number of armies with 3 digits (ex. 100) on a territory?
  - Is there a need for 4 digits (ex. 1000)?

Silver- wrote:My Comments:

• To make it fair for all players in turn 1, territory bonus should start at round 2 only.
• Not sure we want to block bonus for number of territories to 10.
  - A concept like the "Conquer Man" map should be used.
• Territory naming suggestion:
  - All territories in same group start with same letter and number increment by 1 for each territory.
  - When letter Z is reach, the following one are AA, BB, ...
• Did you test a number of armies with 3 digits (ex. 100) on a territory?
  - Is there a need for 4 digits (ex. 1000)?

1) I am not sure if this is possible with the current XML or game engine. Does anyone know? My idea was to designate starting positions for different number of player games. That way in a 1v1, each player would start in every bonus group.
2) And escalating scheme could work but I am not sure I have room. What is your suggested scale? And how would you write in up?
3) I don't really like this. Pork and beams made a suggestion about using odd shaped terts earlier. His naming was a bit different but would basically have the same issue. If the groups are named like you proposed, the groups get all misaligned. it is harder to find D1,2,3 and GH1, AA2....
By having it the current way, players always know that columns go from A,B,C... and rows start at 1 and increase as you go down. Basic Excel chart method.
4)3 digits fit. 4 digit will not be needed. The bonuses will not be so high that the map will fill quickly. 1,000 troop sis a lot. The game is big but not overly large in bonuses. Plus if people are betting big bonuses on purpose to fill up the map, then there is nothing that can be done.

WidowMakers wrote:

Silver- wrote:My Comments:

• To make it fair for all players in turn 1, territory bonus should start at round 2 only.
• Not sure we want to block bonus for number of territories to 10.
  - A concept like the "Conquer Man" map should be used.
• Territory naming suggestion:
  - All territories in same group start with same letter and number increment by 1 for each territory.
  - When letter Z is reach, the following one are AA, BB, ...
• Did you test a number of armies with 3 digits (ex. 100) on a territory?
  - Is there a need for 4 digits (ex. 1000)?

Thanks for the comments. Here are my responses.

1) I am not sure if this is possible with the current XML or game engine. Does anyone know? My idea was to designate starting positions for different number of player games. That way in a 1v1, each player would start in every bonus group.
2) And escalating scheme could work but I am not sure I have room. What is your suggested scale? And how would you write in up?
3) I don't really like this. Pork and beams made a suggestion about using odd shaped terts earlier. His naming was a bit different but would basically have the same issue. If the groups are named like you proposed, the groups get all misaligned. it is harder to find D1,2,3 and GH1, AA2....
By having it the current way, players always know that columns go from A,B,C... and rows start at 1 and increase as you go down. Basic Excel chart method.
4)3 digits fit. 4 digit will not be needed. The bonuses will not be so high that the map will fill quickly. 1,000 troop sis a lot. The game is big but not overly large in bonuses. Plus if people are betting big bonuses on purpose to fill up the map, then there is nothing that can be done.

... received 1 troop for holding Honeycomb Cluster A1
... received 7 troops for holding Honeycomb Cluster A3
... received 10 troops for holding Honeycomb Cluster G4
... received 1 troop for holding Honeycomb Cluster P3

<positions>
 <position>
  <territory>territ 1 cluster 1</territory>
  <territory>territ 1 cluster 2</territory>
  <territory>territ 1 cluster 3</territory>
  <territory>territ 1 cluster 4</territory>
  ...
 </position>
 <position>
  <territory>territ 2 cluster 1</territory>
  <territory>territ 2 cluster 2</territory>
  <territory>territ 2 cluster 3</territory>
  <territory>territ 2 cluster 4</territory>
  ...
 </position>
 <position>
  <territory>territ 3 cluster 1</territory>
  <territory>territ 3 cluster 2</territory>
  <territory>territ 3 cluster 3</territory>
  <territory>territ 3 cluster 4</territory>
  ...
 </position>
</positions>

00iCon wrote:Sorry to bring this up now, but couldn't this get a more "tactical" feel. It appears mostly luck based to me. I'n thinking along the lines of Waterloo, maybe drone bees attack 2 spaces/bombard, coloured hexagons attack hex's of the same colour?

EDIT: it's probably been discussed before.

PPS: My bad, those would bee(lame pun intended) the Nodes. But how about the drones from above. And how about a bonus for holding spread out larvae placed around the map?

pamoa wrote:

... received 1 troop for holding Honeycomb Cluster A1
... received 7 troops for holding Honeycomb Cluster A3
... received 10 troops for holding Honeycomb Cluster G4
... received 1 troop for holding Honeycomb Cluster P3

If you want this to apply then your legend should be
honeycomb cluster naming : name of hex with the lowest alphanumeric value
without number of hexes in the group

WidowMakers wrote:

00iCon wrote:Sorry to bring this up now, but couldn't this get a more "tactical" feel. It appears mostly luck based to me. I'n thinking along the lines of Waterloo, maybe drone bees attack 2 spaces/bombard, coloured hexagons attack hex's of the same colour?

EDIT: it's probably been discussed before.

PPS: My bad, those would bee(lame pun intended) the Nodes. But how about the drones from above. And how about a bonus for holding spread out larvae placed around the map?

Thanks for the comments. Could you please explain what you mean by "more tactical". It is a simple standard map. It is not symmetrical. There are no bottle necks (as far as I can tell) Why do you perceive this map as lucky?

Thanks
WM

00iCon wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:

00iCon wrote:Sorry to bring this up now, but couldn't this get a more "tactical" feel. It appears mostly luck based to me. I'n thinking along the lines of Waterloo, maybe drone bees attack 2 spaces/bombard, coloured hexagons attack hex's of the same colour?

EDIT: it's probably been discussed before.

PPS: My bad, those would bee(lame pun intended) the Nodes. But how about the drones from above. And how about a bonus for holding spread out larvae placed around the map?

Thanks for the comments. Could you please explain what you mean by "more tactical". It is a simple standard map. It is not symmetrical. There are no bottle necks (as far as I can tell) Why do you perceive this map as lucky?

Thanks
WM

As I said, bombardment done well makes maps ilke Waterloo tactical. So do the horses whcich attack 2 squares.
So do overlapping bonuses, like the larvae I mentioned, or like paths which give bonuses, like in Rail Aus.
In the end, it's probably a variety of XML features used in one map which make it feel tactical to me.

ustus wrote:ok, as someone who really wants what WidowMakers originally set out to create (a standard play map with the maximum number of territories) I find all the suggestions that it needs some sort of tactical obstacle slightly annoying. The main reason that there are so many CC maps that I haven't played is because i find such obstacles gimmicky and annoying. I'm not saying this to criticize the maps so much as to say that I'm hoping WM will make the map he set out to make, a nice, simple, standard playstyle map.
please? I'm sure i'm not the only one who likes such maps better...

pamoa wrote:some font suggestion for the title hexagonal font / metal on metal