Conquer Club

Lone.prophet wrote:i think the colors should be more clear to distiguish

Is it that hard? Where is the most trouble? Need to know before we can help.

how about you chnage it to "Louisania" since that was what it was called, there where only about 50 native american tribes there and none were stronge, and if you do change it to "Louisania" or "French" change the "French" to "Iroquois", where the French are on your map is where the Iroquois were in real life and the French owned the top thats not on the map.(and the landing point on your map is right but below there is where the Iroquois were)

That would break what we are trying to do though. Lets say this is earlier then Louisania.

The Souix are more western, I'd still want it to be a Native American alliance of tribes. Beyond Souix and Iroquois I'm not sure of what most people know though. I don't want to grab another abstract name like the Mapuches.

Besides, the change of movement by the French in this reality may have pushed the Iroquois west.

You could use the Comanche, they had some good power.

Unit_2 wrote:You could use the Comanche, they had some good power.

If gimil isn't loathe to change I'd run with that. I'm not sure how much it solves your complaint, but I do know that the Iroquois are supposed to be where we put the French which is probably frustrating you.

Version 5

Changes

Iroquois to Comanche
Fixed some neutrals.
Border adjustment for Aztecs

try making the continents lighter than the ocean brown. make them pop out a bit more.

wcaclimbing wrote:try making the continents lighter than the ocean brown. make them pop out a bit more.

They are already, do you mean even brighter then? I'm not sure how that would work, guess that's a gimil level suggestion I can't help with.

wcaclimbing wrote:try making the continents lighter than the ocean brown. make them pop out a bit more.

Increase brightest is an easy possibility, i could also increase the outer shadow instead to help the continets stick out. If i make them to light some on the colors may not stick out.

I see something, we need to bump Aztecs 1 up by 1.

I think a drop in Aztec 3 to 3 would be fine to compensate.

Reason is a 10v10 situation pops up if Aztecs homeland rushes for Comanche homeland first turn or vice versa.

We could also bump up that dock... Docks maybe should be 4 anyways. Would slow a Mapuches rush for Aztecs or Comanche if we did.

I don't like rushes you know. People should be safe for at least 1 round.

EDIT: Comanche 1 should be 2 not 4.

i like it, cool idea... is sacajwea going to be her own bonus territory?-0

Coleman wrote:I see something, we need to bump Aztecs 1 up by 1.

I think a drop in Aztec 3 to 3 would be fine to compensate.

Reason is a 10v10 situation pops up if Aztecs homeland rushes for Comanche homeland first turn or vice versa.

We could also bump up that dock... Docks maybe should be 4 anyways. Would slow a Mapuches rush for Aztecs or Comanche if we did.

I don't like rushes you know. People should be safe for at least 1 round.

EDIT: Comanche 1 should be 2 not 4.

I rather keep it even. Give me a number of neutrals and ill rework the terrs so that there is a minimum number of neutrals between any two homelands

uhhh i didnt even see the names behind the territoria maybe make them more clear

Lone.prophet wrote:uhhh i didnt even see the names behind the territoria maybe make them more clear

I plan on redoing these at some point since i personally dont like there blandness atm

Loving this - not quite sure about the brown - but it might grow on me!!!

C.

In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?

Chirondom wrote:In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?

Not likely, with a high number of neutrals to go through. There a few placement unbalanced ive going to fix in the next update.

Chirondom wrote:In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?

Not likely. The landing zones are auto deploy, they would each have 3, there is no telling where they would be. They wouldn't have enough territories to place more then 3 on their own. It would be like normal only 2 of the starting zones would be retarded (not getting another 3 to deploy).

gimil wrote:

Coleman wrote:First, I'm not gay. There was no kissing.

there was lots of kissing . . .

(im not gay either, although coleman was rather tender)

Still not gay, Version 6

Coleman wrote:Still not gay

No one said you where . . .

As you have probably already figured out, I'm a fan of the antique map look!

there's a port on the eastern coast of S. America - can it attack the port in eastern canada? Same ocean, but the way the map cuts off it suggests that there is no route.

In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things.

oaktown wrote:As you have probably already figured out, I'm a fan of the antique map look!

there's a port on the eastern coast of S. America - can it attack the port in eastern canada? Same ocean, but the way the map cuts off it suggests that there is no route.

In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things.

Possibly, It should be more obvious in live play. Are the watermark names not visible for you?

Back to the cut off, not sure what to do there, gimil level response required again.

oaktown wrote:there's a port on the eastern coast of S. America - can it attack the port in eastern canada? Same ocean, but the way the map cuts off it suggests that there is no route.

This is an issue ill look into.

oaktown wrote:In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things.

This is a concern, are you confused with all of them oaktown? Or is there jsut paticular one that confuse you?

Coleman wrote:

Chirondom wrote:In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?

Not likely. The landing zones are auto deploy, they would each have 3, there is no telling where they would be. They wouldn't have enough territories to place more then 3 on their own. It would be like normal only 2 of the starting zones would be retarded (not getting another 3 to deploy).

Oh, the European territories can't attack each other?