Conquer Club

thenobodies80 wrote:Sorry for the delay. Some unplanned things messed up my schedule.
Anyway, more than a 1vs1 this could be a 1vs dice map, but it has something unique.

So you have my approval to make this a only 1vs1 map; up to koontz to decide when move this one to gameplay.

Nobodies

Thank-you tnb80.

[Moved]
cairnswk, because of the delay, moved it straight away so no sticky this time. Good luck and it is looking much more interesting than the first draft. Will have a look later and see if I can come up with something new for you.

Thank-you koontz for the move.
New stuff...keep it historical to th8e situation as much as possible...and balance on gameplay discussion would be better.

OK cairns. a couple of observations as I said I would.

Your top sentence in yellow, I take this to mean that a player can bombard their opponents targets. But why not allow them to bombard their own ones as well along their line. This would allow players another strategy. Hit an opponents to stop them or their own to lower their own neutral count when moving of from their base.
When you get to the centre, you have four spikes, 2 gold and one silver. One that is silver and gold. This gives the top player an advantage as when they get their, they have half of the spikes needed. I understand the need to make both sides slightly different but would you put different neutrals onto these two to make it better for the player coming from the bottom?
Or the second golden spike, how about a name change to ceremonial spike (the one kept by the family). Place this at the top and only have one gold and silver spike to fight over. this negates the balance issue completely and allows the spikes to have completely different names overall.
You have native Americans attacking the line, would you consider adding maybe an army base to both sides with an auto deploy? This would allow more troops to defend the lines bombard points. Without it, I fear that no one will ever keep a bonus.
Been looking around to see if any part of the line was started and then abandoned because of bad ground. Did you find anything like this in your research? Might be nice to say have a false start along both lines. This can then be a conditional border. You have to grab the false start before being able to continue.
Lastly, just for the hell of it, add a losing condition of holding your starting point or you lose the race. Should be fun with nukes, not that they had them then.

koontz1973 wrote:OK cairns. a couple of observations as I said I would.

Your top sentence in yellow, I take this to mean that a player can bombard their opponents targets. But why not allow them to bombard their own ones as well along their line. This would allow players another strategy. Hit an opponents to stop them or their own to lower their own neutral count when moving of from their base.

That's a very good idea, and it probably does have parallels in history of the surveyors and work scouts and managers who may have put in some pre-work at places along the way.

When you get to the centre, you have four spikes, 2 gold and one silver. One that is silver and gold. This gives the top player an advantage as when they get their, they have half of the spikes needed. I understand the need to make both sides slightly different but would you put different neutrals onto these two to make it better for the player coming from the bottom?

To make it fairer for the bottom player, yes, that could be considered, but then who is to say the bottom player is going to be disadvantaged...bottom player might be going first.
I have been in 1v1 games and initiated the game, and have gone both 1st and 2nd. That's why the balancing of neutrals is so important.

Or the second golden spike, how about a name change to ceremonial spike (the one kept by the family). Place this at the top and only have one gold and silver spike to fight over. this negates the balance issue completely and allows the spikes to have completely different names overall.

Not sure i understand what you're trying at here.

You have native Americans attacking the line, would you consider adding maybe an army base to both sides with an auto deploy? This would allow more troops to defend the lines bombard points. Without it, I fear that no one will ever keep a bonus.

Yes that could be done.

Been looking around to see if any part of the line was started and then abandoned because of bad ground. Did you find anything like this in your research?

No.

Might be nice to say have a false start along both lines. This can then be a conditional border. You have to grab the false start before being able to continue.

Care to explain this again please?

Lastly, just for the hell of it, add a losing condition of holding your starting point or you lose the race. Should be fun with nukes, not that they had them then.

Starting point is already part of the line objective, n'est-ce pas?

Care to explain this again please?

By all means. Along the way, the line managers say, lets go this way and find out that the land is not suitable after all for some reason. So they go back to firmer ground and start of in a new direction. So you have a fork in the line. This could be one or two territs long. You have to hold this (conditional border) to be able to advance along the main route. As soon as it becomes bombarded by the opponent (new bombard point), you lose the ability to advance past a certain point.

Looking at the map, you can have the branch at Laramie. Hold the new territ to be able to attack Fort Fred Steele, Green Creek and Evanston. Once you get to Evanston, you continue as normal. But if you lose the new territ, you will not be able to attack forward along the line at these points. The north can have the same effect at Wadsworth using the next three territs as well.

Even though I cannot find anything, I am pretty sure that along the way, false starts would of happened. Natural disasters (rock slides or floods), terrain (sinking sand), land owners (not selling), or even the native Americans may of forced a change in route.

koontz1973 wrote:

Care to explain this again please?

By all means. Along the way, the line managers say, lets go this way and find out that the land is not suitable after all for some reason. So they go back to firmer ground and start of in a new direction. So you have a fork in the line. This could be one or two territs long. You have to hold this (conditional border) to be able to advance along the main route. As soon as it becomes bombarded by the opponent (new bombard point), you lose the ability to advance past a certain point.

Mmmm. not a good idea really. This didn't happen. Any lines that were planned were implemented and that's why surveyors were employed...If we did this we have something like Route 66 and i see one person already saying they don't want that.

Looking at the map, you can have the branch at Laramie. Hold the new territ to be able to attack Fort Fred Steele, Green Creek and Evanston. Once you get to Evanston, you continue as normal. But if you lose the new territ, you will not be able to attack forward along the line at these points. The north can have the same effect at Wadsworth using the next three territs as well.

I will do something about the Forts.

Even though I cannot find anything, I am pretty sure that along the way, false starts would of happened. Natural disasters (rock slides or floods), terrain (sinking sand), land owners (not selling), or even the native Americans may of forced a change in route.

natural disasters, labour shortage, indians are already part of the map...but not as false starts, and certainly not to force a change in the route.
Thanks for your thinking on all that, but it kinda diverts from the real thing, and gets too messy from a quick 1v1. KISS.

Looks interesting but I'm not quite sure how it works. Do the yellow regions (poor labour supply, avalanches etc) revert to neutral - 'bombarded'? And from where can the bridges be bombarded? ie. which are the saboteurs (check that spelling, incidentally)?

If this gets the gameplay stamp I'll revisit my Marooned map.

Version 5.

ManBungalow wrote:Looks interesting but I'm not quite sure how it works. Do the yellow regions (poor labour supply, avalanches etc) revert to neutral - 'bombarded'? And from where can the bridges be bombarded? ie. which are the saboteurs (check that spelling, incidentally)?

Revert to neutral? - yes if you deplete your opponent's numbers.
From where? - at present in the white text it says 'from their start base", but i think that needs to be discussed further and explored more.
saborteurs - will fix that, thank-you.

If this gets the gameplay stamp I'll revisit my Marooned map.

Not sure why this map getting GP stamp is a condition for you doing your map, but...

cairnswk wrote:

ManBungalow wrote:Looks interesting but I'm not quite sure how it works. Do the yellow regions (poor labour supply, avalanches etc) revert to neutral - 'bombarded'? And from where can the bridges be bombarded? ie. which are the saboteurs (check that spelling, incidentally)?

Revert to neutral? - yes if you deplete your opponent's numbers.
From where? - at present in the white text it says 'from their start base", but i think that needs to be discussed further and explored more.
saborteurs - will fix that, thank-you.

"...you can be hampered (bombarded) by poor labour supply, snowfalls and Indians from their start base"
On reflection, I figure this means that you can bombard those enemy regions with tags (avalanches, etc) from the first base on your own line. Does the same apply to the saboteur feature - can the bridges only be bombarded from your start region?

cairnswk wrote:

If this gets the gameplay stamp I'll revisit my Marooned map.

Not sure why this map getting GP stamp is a condition for you doing your map, but...

One of the main reasons I dropped that idea was because it had too many bottlenecks/was too linear to be given the gameplay stamp. As this map is essentially one big linear bottleneck, I'd possibly go back to my idea.

ManBungalow wrote:...
"...you can be hampered (bombarded) by poor labour supply, snowfalls and Indians from their start base"[/i]
On reflection, I figure this means that you can bombard those enemy regions with tags (avalanches, etc) from the first base on your own line. Does the same apply to the saboteur feature - can the bridges only be bombarded from your start region?

yes at this stage...

cairnswk wrote:

If this gets the gameplay stamp I'll revisit my Marooned map.

Not sure why this map getting GP stamp is a condition for you doing your map, but...

One of the main reasons I dropped that idea was because it had too many bottlenecks/was too linear to be given the gameplay stamp. As this map is essentially one big linear bottleneck, I'd possibly go back to my idea.

OK, now i understand...thanks

Are the West and East tabs mis labeled?

I also think it would be better if it was more clear that the spikes could be attacked by promontory summit and that it is a one way only.

I personally also find the yellow text on black background to read. Are there alternative solutions?

Consider making the map dimensions larger? It feels a little crowded to me, especially with the description boxes that describe the disasters(bombardable regions)

Jippd wrote:Are the West and East tabs mis labeled?

yes. Fixed next version.

I also think it would be better if it was more clear that the spikes could be attacked by promontory summit and that it is a one way only.

Done

I personally also find the yellow text on black background to read. Are there alternative solutions?

Is this meant to be "hard to read"? Of course there are alternatives which i will keep in mind for you.

Consider making the map dimensions larger? It feels a little crowded to me, especially with the description boxes that describe the disasters(bombardable regions)

Full height not yet used, so there is room for expansion.

I wanna play this lol. Every time I look at this map I get a serious jones to try it out!

Funkyterrance wrote:...serious jones...

What's this??

cairnswk wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:...serious jones...

What's this??

he means a craving

nicarus wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:...serious jones...

What's this??

he means a craving

thanks nicarus

no problem cairns

nicarus wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:...serious jones...

What's this??

he means a craving

Yes, thank you nicarus. Like an itch I can't scratch.

Funkyterrance wrote:

nicarus wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:...serious jones...

What's this??

he means a craving

Yes, thank you nicarus. Like an itch I can't scratch.

Well, the snail's pace of the foundry...your going to need some cream or alcohol for that itch

Yes I did mean "hard to read" regarding the yellow and black combination issue

autodeploy
+2 Sacramento - Reno means that these two autodeploy +2 or all stations between them autodeploy +2?

also if Sacramento gives +2 autodeploy and Omaha just +1 the player who starts from Sacramento has advantage.

Oneyed

Jippd wrote:Yes I did mean "hard to read" regarding the yellow and black combination issue

OK Jippd, bare with me, i will try to fix it somehow as we proceed towards completing gameplay.

Oneyed wrote:autodeploy
+2 Sacramento - Reno means that these two autodeploy +2 or all stations between them autodeploy +2?

also if Sacramento gives +2 autodeploy and Omaha just +1 the player who starts from Sacramento has advantage.

Oneyed

OK Oneyed...did you see what is happening to autodeploy on other map...it is reverse.

I can see what you are saying, but don't tell me what i can already see...If you don't like this, what is your solution please?