Conquer Club

So, there is an old topic titled 'Worst Maps,' where players have spoken about why certain maps are 'bad' from some objective standpoint (starting drops are unfair for certain settings, difficult game play mechanics, etc), but I'm more curious about simple subjectivity when it comes to choosing the maps you play on.

Do you avoid any maps based entirely on non-objective reasons? That is to say, are there any maps you avoid because some personal bias, prejudice, or feelings?

I usually classify my opinions about a map's graphics as personal feeling, since what I like others may not. A couple of maps I tend to avoid because I simply don't like looking at the gameboard are Luxembourg and Malta.


--Andy

i avoid the classic map purely because i'm bored with it.

Subjective? I don't know - I can tell you which maps I absolutely avoid:

Iceland - for some reason I am just terrible at this map. It makes no sense, as it's a normal classical gameplay map.
Antarctica. Sorry, just a terrible, ugly map.
Baseball - blargh.
Hive- with one exception; large team games can be fun on it. But multiplayer singles, no way.
Pearl Harbor - just the potential to be so unbalanced.

Maps that others hate that I love?

Poison Rome, Conquer Man, Stalingrad

All the Age of ... - maps (AoR 1-3, Merchants). Simply because I suck at them and really can't be bothered to become any better, since I hate the gameplay. That should be subjective enough.

JBlombier wrote:All the Age of ... - maps (AoR 1-3, Merchants). Simply because I suck at them and really can't be bothered to become any better, since I hate the gameplay. That should be subjective enough.

booo

pearl harbour-stalingrad-waterlo-dass schlossh. These maps required to much thinking,because you need to use much more time to examine what need to play. Someone will say,its to much complicated, but actualy its not, just need to use brain for play.
these dont mean that i dont have brain.
To play these maps.
Actualy these maps give me inspiration to create Battle of Kursk,and Battle of Antietam, who will have similar strategic scenario, and will not be geographicaly map like all mine previous maps. Its will have same mexanic, with all game conditions,to win a war.

I avoid 8 Thoughts like the plague. Not because I don't like looking at it but just because it didn't completely turn out the way I imagined it.

Also many cairnswk maps because I get serious eye strain trying to play a lot of them. Love the CCC though.

I won't play Madness because my parents and siblings never loved me.

There are any number of maps such as "Ancient Greece" I don't play because I simply don't like the artwork of the map. Then there are maps such as "Arms Race" that I don't play because the gameplay doesn't appeal to me. Then there is "Waterloo" and its ilk. I won't play that as a Speed game, but I will try it as a Casual game, since they are maps with some complexity, that I would prefer to have some time to ponder my moves. On the other hand there any number of maps I will play just for some subjective reason. Third Crusade and Napoleoic Europe I play not only because I like the game mechanics, but the art work on them is superb as well.

I don't like dad sclos (sp?), world 2.1, middle ages, Imp rom, and most of the rail maps.

Other then that I think I'll mostly be happy 2 play any

IcePack wrote:I don't like dad sclos (sp?)

Das Schloß or Das Schloss

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:

IcePack wrote:I don't like dad sclos (sp?)

Das Schloß or Das Schloss

-Sully

Apparently my phone auto correct is a worse speller then I am. I meant "das schlos" but it clearly didn't like that

Oh well, i thought there might be two s' as well.

IcePack

"don't like dad sclos (sp?), world 2.1, middle ages, Imp rom, and most of the rail maps."

imp rom?

I hate Brazil with a passion. Not sure if it is just because of the graphics, or that I for some reason suck at that map.

I also suck at Antarctica.

Neither makes sense, but I avoid them.

I used to hate rail maps with a passion and avoided them at all costs, but I've slowly gotten better at them - mainly through team play.

And like, dan, I think singles games on Hive are beyond the pale and won't play them. Team games are OK, though.

i absolutly hate all rail maps and Hive.

i also tend to avoid maps with bad graphics some seriously need a revamp

I haven't really been bothered to give Hive a try, but I have played a few random times on the Rail maps, and I think I similarly avoid them as well on pure subjective reasoning.


--Andy

D-Day: Omaha Beach because it makes no sense that artillery regions can attack (rather than bombard) their targets... unless they're using human cannonballs, of course.

I don't like the Hive, but I don't hate it as much as most people. Don't like the Schloss or for that matter many of the WWII maps. But what I really hate are the First Nations maps. Not only are they full of ugly colours, but I can't remember any of the names, so reading in the log that "blank attacked Glubglug from Atakuklu" means nothing to me. I have to scroll up and see where exactly Glubglug and Atakuklu are, and that makes for a long, slow, tedious game. Having put it that way, I guess that's a large part of why I dislike the Hive and the Schloss as well, because the terts have non-memorable names and you have to look up each one to see where it is. At least on the Hive they're sequential, so you have an approximate idea of where a tert is before you look.

I don't like the graphics of most of the Rail maps, but I do like the Orient Express 1883 and the Transiberia 1914 maps. Which is good since I generally like most things having to do with Railroads.

I think I got into a habit in the middle stages of my career, where I avoided maps purely because of what others have said, without actually even playing or viewing them by myself.
So things like Hive, Das Schloss, Stalingrad, all fall into those categories, but I've become rather fond of them as a result of my relative success on them.

And then come the other maps where I have no clue on why I do badly, and thats enough for me to avoid them, tho perhaps thats somehow an objective reasoning?
Thing like: I've got 0-11 on that map, aaaaargh!

Hive burns holes in my retina's, scrambles all thought and irritates my colon.

I don't play random because of this map and of course the last time I played random freaking Hive showed up.

I avoid any map that looks cluttered or has a barrage of special rules/mechanics that I don't feel like learning. I like to play on nice, simple, clean maps.

There are very few maps that I absolutely refuse to play. In fact I don't know that there are any... if someone invites me I usually accept even if it's a map I don't like so much.

I don't like Waterloo though. I've tried a few games on it but I just can't get a hang of the strategy so I tend to avoid it.

The same with AoR maps. I like the maps, they look awesome and the gameplay seems solid... I'm just no good at them for some reason, so I tend to avoid them as well.

Also Hive. In this case, it's not because I'm crap at it - I have won some games on it - but it's so damn large and the games take forever on it, and I like my games short and sweet.

No_Risk_No_Fun wrote:I avoid any map that looks cluttered or has a barrage of special rules/mechanics that I don't feel like learning. I like to play on nice, simple, clean maps.

I think if I a see a wall of text on a gameboard, or a legend that is half the map, that usually also dissuades me from wanting to play on it.


--Andy

I tend to like maps that have a big legend, but map rank tells me I don't play them a lot. Not all maps with a big legend though, it should have straight forward gameplay, but a lot of bonuses and other stuff. WWII Ardennes is a good example: straight forward, but a rather big legend. Only played one game on it, lost that one as well.