Conquer Club

the.killing.44 wrote:Okay fair enough, N. Amazon is distinguishable. I see Meso-America & N. Andes as one; N. Amazon as its own; S. Amazon, E. Forest, and S. Forest as another; Patagonia as its own; Chilean & S. Andes together; and C. Andes as its own—barely.

Dude, I'm practically blind and i can see the diff.

Having joined the list of preliminary reviewers and received my notice from [player]thenobodies80[/player] (almost two weeks ago, I'm ashamed to admit), I am here to make my comments with regard to the possible transition of this map from the Drafting Room to the Main Foundry.

Having taken a quick review of the Drafting Room guidelines, I would say that just about everything has been well covered. As a companion to the First Nations of North America map, this one is of course less than completely original, but it certainly is interesting. No doubt tournament directors will enjoy putting this map up for play with FNNA (and any others yet to come?).

I said just about before, because I don't see

a plan for how the gameplay will work,

but to be honest, I'm not quite sure that means, aside from, in this case, stating that the gameplay is essentially standard with no bombardments, non-obvious connections, or complicated bonus structures. Perhaps this should be stated explicitly in the first post.

The only other comments I will make right now are:

• confusion between the names Choco and Chono when deploying or reinforcing may be the source of much wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments, so an alternative for one or the other would be welcome;
• the colour-blind check above pointed out to me something that I can now see in the original image: Chono and Mapuche are each a little lacking in the colour which defines their bonus zone

Neither of those comments are a reason to hold this map back from moving to the Main Foundry. I just thought I would throw them in while I'm here. I recommend the award of the Draft stamp and the move to the Main Foundry.

(Anyone unfamiliar with the process of Preliminary Review and wishing to become involved should see the Preliminary Reviews topic.)

Good point about the Chono and Choco, t'would be nice if an alternative could be found for one or the other...

Incandenza wrote:Good point about the Chono and Choco, t'would be nice if an alternative could be found for one or the other...

Not required though. Eg. Egypt Lower: Ament and A-Ment are right beside each other.

jpcloet wrote:

Incandenza wrote:Good point about the Chono and Choco, t'would be nice if an alternative could be found for one or the other...

Not required though. Eg. Egypt Lower: Ament and A-Ment are right beside each other.

Nobody likes that, though.

viewtopic.php?f=358&t=74069&p=1903802&hilit=shaanxi+greater+china#p1903802

If it's not too hard that would be a big improvement.

the.killing.44 wrote:

jpcloet wrote:

Incandenza wrote:Good point about the Chono and Choco, t'would be nice if an alternative could be found for one or the other...

Not required though. Eg. Egypt Lower: Ament and A-Ment are right beside each other.

Nobody likes that, though.

viewtopic.php?f=358&t=74069&p=1903802&hilit=shaanxi+greater+china#p1903802

If it's not too hard that would be a big improvement.

I agree. I don't like the Ament and A-Ment so certainly would like Chono and Choco to change. Good map so far!

soundman wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:

jpcloet wrote:

Incandenza wrote:Good point about the Chono and Choco, t'would be nice if an alternative could be found for one or the other...

Not required though. Eg. Egypt Lower: Ament and A-Ment are right beside each other.

Nobody likes that, though.

viewtopic.php?f=358&t=74069&p=1903802&hilit=shaanxi+greater+china#p1903802

If it's not too hard that would be a big improvement.

I agree. I don't like the Ament and A-Ment so certainly would like Chono and Choco to change. Good map so far!

Not to mention that a mistaken deployment to an adjacent region can possibly be worked around or recovered from much more easily than one to a region all the way at the other end of the map.

soundman wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:

jpcloet wrote:

Incandenza wrote:Good point about the Chono and Choco, t'would be nice if an alternative could be found for one or the other...

Not required though. Eg. Egypt Lower: Ament and A-Ment are right beside each other.

Nobody likes that, though.

viewtopic.php?f=358&t=74069&p=1903802&hilit=shaanxi+greater+china#p1903802

If it's not too hard that would be a big improvement.

I agree. I don't like the Ament and A-Ment so certainly would like Chono and Choco to change. Good map so far!

Just because it's slipped through the net on another map, doesn't mean that we should let it slip here too (the other example is Shangxi and Shaangxi on the China map)

And there used to be an issue on the Philippines map, Cagayan/Cayagan or something along those lines, but it was fixed after people (including yours truly) screwed up deploys and protested.

It's a small fix, but it's a pretty user-friendly one.

Eh, new bridges I think. But I do kinda have to double take to see the borders in N Amazon. Kind of confusing, but I think that would be ok for a place like, oh say the amazon having rivers.

I sooooo love this graphic style

=D=

Wonderful! Great map! The graphic style is very warm.
A beautiful follow-up to the First Nations of North America map.
I can't wait to play!

I like this map. I look forward to playing on it

waiting..............

get me outta gameplay guys

Meso-America made to two..

any more advice?

Tisha, another superb piece of work....but this is flaling a little flat for me at present...there's no trees to add character.
Any chance of replaacing some of those river impassables around the Amazon Basin with some jungle/rainforest type trees.
Only a suggestion, sorry if it's already been squashed.

This isn't gameplay related, sorry... but the bridges look like pieces of railway, to me. Perhaps if you curved them somewhat they'd look more like hanging bridges? Just my opinion though.

The zone called Palenque can be changed as "Caribes" (or the english "caribs") that was a indigenous tribe, really fierce and proud when the spaniards came. they are still inhabitants of that region (as a minority of course)

any gameplay comments?
I have some ideas for jungle ish stuff, and I know the bridges suck.. I just haven't found what I want to do with those things

were the Carib more in the Caribbean?

All right, number time:

Bonus drop probabilities:
Chilean will be dropped in 21% of 2-player games, 32% of 3-player, 23% of 4-player, 16% of 5-player, 15% of 6, 9% of 7, 11% of 8-player games. That's a little high even for a 1-point bonus, I think.
Central Andes and Eastern Forest top out at 10% for 3-player games, which is not so bad.

48 territories means 4-player games start out with 12 territories for each player. The nearest "magic numbers" on either side are 44 and 52 (39-43 and 53 also work).


One graphical comment: In some places where rivers fade into regular territory boundaries, it's a little hard to make out at first which territories touch which (particularly Choco/Muisca and Campa/Cayabi). This might be more troublesome on the small map.

Evil DIMwit wrote:All right, number time:

Bonus drop probabilities:
Chilean will be dropped in 21% of 2-player games, 32% of 3-player, 23% of 4-player, 16% of 5-player, 15% of 6, 9% of 7, 11% of 8-player games. That's a little high even for a 1-point bonus, I think.
Central Andes and Eastern Forest top out at 10% for 3-player games, which is not so bad.

48 territories means 4-player games start out with 12 territories for each player. The nearest "magic numbers" on either side are 44 and 52 (39-43 and 53 also work).


One graphical comment: In some places where rivers fade into regular territory boundaries, it's a little hard to make out at first which territories touch which (particularly Choco/Muisca and Campa/Cayabi). This might be more troublesome on the small map.

I fixed the rivers..

it would have been nice if someone had said something about the territory numbers back when I was asking.. I thought 48 would have been a good number..

how is there a better chance to drop the 2 territory bonus in three player games, than two player games?

Tisha wrote:how is there a better chance to drop the 2 territory bonus in three player games, than two player games?

It's the chance of any player dropping the bonus. Since in two-player games, 1/3 of the territories end up neutral, there are fewer opportunities for a player to drop it.

lookin good

Tisha wrote:it would have been nice if someone had said something about the territory numbers back when I was asking..

Someone did:

MrBenn wrote:

Tisha wrote:42 or 48 territories? someone decide for me..

Personally I'd go for more.... If you could sneak it up to 53, then you'd have a better amount for 8 player games, with no "unfairness" with a player starting with 12/15/18 terrs...

I suppose you did.. it just wasn't a "48 is a bad number, don't go there"