Conquer Club

Mad-elph wrote:I've just started on this map having not noticed it addition until last week. I really enjoy it for what it is, but I do have issues with the design in context of history. I have not read all 36 pages on this so maybe its been already responded to. I read the first 3 and the last 3. Anyway, I am a Classics and Political Science student and my senior seminar is on the Peloponnesian War, the work of Thucydides. I think this map's design is misguided for the Peloponnesian War. Its a great map but does not really capture the battles or real territory of dispute in the Pelo war. The fact that noone starts in the Peloponnese is a huge red haring, and going there does nothing for you really. I am guessing that you just took the Ancient Greece or Alexander map and fused them.

I would love to contribute to an accurate depiction, and don't want to dismay the designer, but I think its faulty in that it put more emphasis on fights in Asia Minor and Thrace instead of Hellas and some cycladic islands. Furthermore names such as Pontus, Romans, Persians are wrong for the era. In 431 Rome had not united Italy. Persia was in dismay and did little for either side in the war. Pontus was a Persian settlement that didn't do anything during the war. Instead of Rome you should have Sicily which is a big part of Athens War, as they wanted the Sicilian wheat and to dominate Syracuse, much to their failure.
Emphasis should be put to a lower level... It should be on empires and their vassal states, Athens should get a bonus if it holds Pylos, or Potidea etc. Sparta if it takes Delos or controls Attica or the Argives.

The map should exclude Asia for the most part. Rhodes, Crete, Halicarnasus (where most of my playing of the map have found to be the focal point) have minor involvement, acting only as tributaries to Athens in the later part of the War. Halicarnasus is from Alexander's exploits. As far East as the map should go is the inclusion of Lesbos as that is really as far as this war is concerned Eastward. To the north you can cut some too. I know this plays down the maneuvering there but its all wrong. There is a lot in the war over the Chalcidian lands.
If scaled right you could have more regions in the Peloponnese, a few in Chalcidia etc... the emphasis should be on cities here as that is how they battled. Laying siege to cities and commanding the surrounding area. When you wanted to attack someone you'd land an army, ravage the land so they had no food stuffs and if they came out of their fortress you'd battle them, if not you'd leave to fight another summer.

I'd love to help make an appropriate map... If you want me to I can try, but I can't do too much until Dec, when I finish my degree.

Mad-elph wrote:I've just started on this map having not noticed it addition until last week. I really enjoy it for what it is, but I do have issues with the design in context of history. I have not read all 36 pages on this so maybe its been already responded to. I read the first 3 and the last 3. Anyway, I am a Classics and Political Science student and my senior seminar is on the Peloponnesian War, the work of Thucydides. I think this map's design is misguided for the Peloponnesian War. Its a great map but does not really capture the battles or real territory of dispute in the Pelo war. The fact that noone starts in the Peloponnese is a huge red haring, and going there does nothing for you really. I am guessing that you just took the Ancient Greece or Alexander map and fused them.

I would love to contribute to an accurate depiction, and don't want to dismay the designer, but I think its faulty in that it put more emphasis on fights in Asia Minor and Thrace instead of Hellas and some cycladic islands. Furthermore names such as Pontus, Romans, Persians are wrong for the era. In 431 Rome had not united Italy. Persia was in dismay and did little for either side in the war. Pontus was a Persian settlement that didn't do anything during the war. Instead of Rome you should have Sicily which is a big part of Athens War, as they wanted the Sicilian wheat and to dominate Syracuse, much to their failure.
Emphasis should be put to a lower level... It should be on empires and their vassal states, Athens should get a bonus if it holds Pylos, or Potidea etc. Sparta if it takes Delos or controls Attica or the Argives.

The map should exclude Asia for the most part. Rhodes, Crete, Halicarnasus (where most of my playing of the map have found to be the focal point) have minor involvement, acting only as tributaries to Athens in the later part of the War. Halicarnasus is from Alexander's exploits. As far East as the map should go is the inclusion of Lesbos as that is really as far as this war is concerned Eastward. To the north you can cut some too. I know this plays down the maneuvering there but its all wrong. There is a lot in the war over the Chalcidian lands.
If scaled right you could have more regions in the Peloponnese, a few in Chalcidia etc... the emphasis should be on cities here as that is how they battled. Laying siege to cities and commanding the surrounding area. When you wanted to attack someone you'd land an army, ravage the land so they had no food stuffs and if they came out of their fortress you'd battle them, if not you'd leave to fight another summer.

I'd love to help make an appropriate map... If you want me to I can try, but I can't do too much until Dec, when I finish my degree.

Harijan wrote:do you win by holding all 8 shields at the end of your turn? or do you need to hold all 8 shields at the beginning of your turn (ie hold shields for one full round).

the.killing.44 wrote:

Harijan wrote:do you win by holding all 8 shields at the end of your turn? or do you need to hold all 8 shields at the beginning of your turn (ie hold shields for one full round).

Full round.

neanderpaul14 wrote:Has anyone ever achieved this objective? I've played this map many times and on numerous settings and no one has even come close. It seems to me the only way to accomplish this would be to hold a game hostage, by not going for the kill.

Harijan wrote:Just won it with 8 shields. The last opponent had 30+ more armies and a strength advantage over me. He just didn't have his troops in the right places to win. So it is possible, and it was much easier/faster than waiting him out.
[url]
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=5756182[/url]

neanderpaul14 wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:

Harijan wrote:do you win by holding all 8 shields at the end of your turn? or do you need to hold all 8 shields at the beginning of your turn (ie hold shields for one full round).

Full round.

Has anyone ever achieved this objective? I've played this map many times and on numerous settings and no one has even come close. It seems to me the only way to accomplish this would be to hold a game hostage, by not going for the kill.

Raskholnikov wrote:Why exactly is this game still in Beta? Others have leapfrogged it out of Beta... Is there any problem we know of that is holding it back or needs more testing?

Raskholnikov wrote:Ah. well I think this has been solved. It can be done. Not easily, but it can - and not just by stalling the game. Hopefully this will speed up the process. This is one of the most enjoyable CC maps IMHO and deserves to be out of Beta ASAP.

wolfpack0530 wrote:I love the map and play it all the time. In discussing this with my clan mates and others who play with me, we all agree that Persians is far and away the best starting position on the map. There is virtually no chance that somebody is gonna break through from the west with all of those 6s there untill the spoils hit 30 or so. I think one or more of those 6s need to be lowered to 2s.

That is my only suggestion.

MrBenn wrote:I've read through the last couple of pages, and think that there are the following concerns about the map:

1. Wording of the objective - Capture vs Hold
2. Elimiotes coordinate needs to be moved 1 pixel to the left.
3. Boeotians becomes a 2 neutral instead of a 6 neutral
4. There was some talk about making the objective require any 4/5 shields rather than all 8
5. Possibly bumping up the sword territories to 4 neutrals
6. The area surrounding the Samotkrace/Imbrians area is not clear enough. An easy and very quick solution would be to move the second line of greek text below the first, and off-set to the right a bit, then move "Imbrians" up and to the right a few pixels.
7. Is there a way to fix this? That is, so every starting point has equal access to swords?
What is popular opinion on these issues?

MrBenn wrote:Right.... here's my recommendation...

1. I've always been an advocate of changing the wording of the objective... so that should be done.

2. At the end of the day, what does 1 pixel really matter? Could be changed, but could equally be overlooked

3. We can reduce the starting neutral in Boeotians without any hassle, so that should be done.

4. I have been a strong advocate of making the objective slightly more relevant. Ideally, I think holding any 6 shields should suffice, except for the fact that there are 6 of them clustered in the South of the map. To make it fair, then it would need to be hold any 7 shields, although this still gives a slight advantage to whoever starts in the South. With this in mind, while I think that the objective should be more relevant to the map, I think that any other requirement than holding all of them would require too much tinkering with the map as a whole. Despite my better judgement, I think that this should be left alone now.

5. Fiddling around with the swords would require too much tinkering to other neutral values, and should probably be avoided at this stage.

6. There has been a mixture of opinion about this - it's fairly subjective, and could swing either way. If it's easy to shift things around, then why not do it; if it's going to be too much hassle now, this could be left as it is.

7. See #5.

As qwert is still refusing to answer directly, then I imagine that an intermediary shall be tasked with making the above changes (which is why I've erred on the side of ease with my recommendations), working from a flat-file (unless a PSD is forthcoming)