Conquer Club

Fuchsia tude wrote:Why am I able to reinforce from Hafsid Caliphate to Mali Empire, but not vice versa? The map says they border, but nothing about that connection being one-way.

Reviewed and this is an issue.

I feel like removing the Gibraltar crossing harms the balance of this map. As is, the Caliphates are clearly worse than the Roman and Mongol bonuses, even though they're valued the same. Not only are the Caliphates more spread out, bordering more continents, they're discontinuous. Neither of the other two have this problem, plus the Tengerians and especially the Catholics each have a corner where they can consolidate and keep to themselves (re-adding the Gibraltar crossing would fix this re:Catholics), while the Muslims need to cross half the map to claim their bonus.

The Caliphate should either have a relatively higher bonus, or maybe the Delhi (and Somali?) Sultanate should be broken out into something separate? Maybe an autodeploy, or a +1 each if Caliphates bonus is held? Or just make Delhi Sultanate part of no bonus.

I read the map the same way but after playing this isn't an issue. Taking Africa is +2 for Oriental + 3 for your turn = 5 drop, MAYBE plus Jerusalem + 1 and MAYBE Arabian Tribes then you have twelve terr so another +1, MAYBE cards +10. The other players don't view the Muslim bonus as a threat and so Africa burns less troops. Stacking 3 or 4 turns on Ayyubid and you have a nice offensive stack. Also you only need to defend Ayyubid to defend all of Africa. Stout defense.

Several Beta games have been played, or are in progress. What's the next step?

iancanton wrote:

HitRed wrote:Only one issue - visually and intrinsically I thought Rum could attack Jerusalem. Most players will also be confused. Straighten that out somehow and it's gold!

the jerusalem border is not only a perfect circle that is very close to the troop circle but, unlike all other borders, continues unbroken into the sea till it hits land again. if the jerusalem region becomes slightly bigger and a more irregular shape whose border stops at the sea, with the troop circle itself being moved slightly further left, then this will lessen confusion. the colour used for borders blends in very well with some of the natural features, when it needs to pop out a little more.

Donelladan wrote:Some of the troops number aren't well centered in their circle.

Also find the names not really smooth/readable. Especially the legends when using the small maps.

Fuchsia tude wrote:Why am I able to reinforce from Hafsid Caliphate to Mali Empire, but not vice versa? The map says they border, but nothing about that connection being one-way.

the xml must be amended so that mali empire can assault hafsid caliphate, with the result that mali empire troops can reinforce hafsid caliphate.

oriental orthodox is mislabelled as eastern orthodox in the xml, therefore oriental orthodox never appears in the game log.

marinid and zayyanid are adjectives, not nouns. are they caliphates, sultanates or something else? the map and xml must be amended appropriately.

ian.

iancanton wrote:marinid and zayyanid are adjectives, not nouns. are they caliphates, sultanates or something else? the map and xml must be amended appropriately.

ian.

I believe it was Marinid Sultanate and Zayyanid Kingdom.

thanks, Fuchsia tude. another quibble for CHAMPOS: ayyubid caliphate was more correctly ayyubid sultanate.

ian.

iancanton wrote:

Fuchsia tude wrote:Why am I able to reinforce from Hafsid Caliphate to Mali Empire, but not vice versa? The map says they border, but nothing about that connection being one-way.

the xml must be amended so that mali empire can assault hafsid caliphate, with the result that mali empire troops can reinforce hafsid caliphate.

oriental orthodox is mislabelled as eastern orthodox in the xml, therefore oriental orthodox never appears in the game log.

xml v34c uploaded to the beta site to correct the two issues above!

ian.

Hey

Thanks for all the comment, most of which I have tried to incorporate.

That do you think of the enclosed...



Champos

That altered Jerusalem bonus looks good.

I still don't like how much more difficult Islamic is to take than the other big two religions.

Also, it looks like a player can start with all the territories of one of the Orthodoxes, giving them a huge bonus on turn 1. Three starting locations should probably be created to hold one territory each from Oriental, Eastern, and Hindu.

Thanks for updating the XML to fix the 2 issues.

Somehow I missed the discussion on Jerusalem bonus being contingent on another bonus. Life in the middle is hard enough.

Fuchsia tude wrote:That altered Jerusalem bonus looks good.

agreed. however, ayyubid sultanate has lost a bit too much territory, considering that the capital was in the northern part! how about restoring its border with sultanate of rum, with jerusalem bordering both but being separated from abbasid caliphate?

Fuchsia tude wrote:I still don't like how much more difficult Islamic is to take than the other big two religions.

Also, it looks like a player can start with all the territories of one of the Orthodoxes, giving them a huge bonus on turn 1. Three starting locations should probably be created to hold one territory each from Oriental, Eastern, and Hindu.

jerusalem and ayyubid caliphate no longer need to start neutral. in each of the orthodox bonuses, if we code one region as an n2 neutral, then there will be 42 starting regions. this makes the difficult islamic caliphates bonus slightly easier than before, as that player no longer has to kill a coded neutral. even so, it still deserves a higher bonus than mongol tenggerians. although i understand the use of identical bonuses for fog games, it's inconceivable that someone can hold one of the three big bonuses without an opponent already knowing which one it is.

i see no reason for the label for teutonic orders to be written diagonally rather than horizontally. it ought to be teutonic order (singular).

http://newhistories.group.shef.ac.uk/wordpress/wordpress/teutonic-order-genocide-baltic/

ian.

Should "K." get a key somewhere?

K. = Kingdom

Maybe in the Indian Ocean?

iancanton wrote:

Fuchsia tude wrote:That altered Jerusalem bonus looks good.

agreed. however, ayyubid sultanate has lost a bit too much territory, considering that the capital was in the northern part! how about restoring its border with sultanate of rum, with jerusalem bordering both but being separated from abbasid caliphate?

I think you are right, whilst the game play might be marginally better it is best to get the history right with this map. Any crusade would have had to get past the ayyubids, and the crusaders only had a sliver of land on the coast. I think we keep Jerusalem as it was.

Fuchsia tude wrote:I still don't like how much more difficult Islamic is to take than the other big two religions.

Also, it looks like a player can start with all the territories of one of the Orthodoxes, giving them a huge bonus on turn 1. Three starting locations should probably be created to hold one territory each from Oriental, Eastern, and Hindu.

This should be prevented by the coding we have done. A player may secure this bonus early, but there are opportunities to do the same with the other small bonuses


So really I am thinking of keeping the same as the beta version, tidying it up, getting the army bonuses more entered and then putting the map up for final approval. What do you reckon?

Re changing ayybid caliphate

I think you are right, whilst the game play might be marginally better it is best to get the history right with this map. Any crusade would have had to get past the ayyubids, and the crusaders only had a sliver of land on the coast. I think we keep Jerusalem as it was.

which numbered version do u want to use as a basis for advancement?

CHAMPOS wrote:getting the army bonuses more entered

what does this mean?

ian.

Maybe the bonus for Eastern Orthodox could be increased to 3.

CHAMPOS wrote:

iancanton wrote:

Fuchsia tude wrote:That altered Jerusalem bonus looks good.

agreed. however, ayyubid sultanate has lost a bit too much territory, considering that the capital was in the northern part! how about restoring its border with sultanate of rum, with jerusalem bordering both but being separated from abbasid caliphate?

I think you are right, whilst the game play might be marginally better it is best to get the history right with this map. Any crusade would have had to get past the ayyubids, and the crusaders only had a sliver of land on the coast. I think we keep Jerusalem as it was.

Fuchsia tude wrote:I still don't like how much more difficult Islamic is to take than the other big two religions.

Also, it looks like a player can start with all the territories of one of the Orthodoxes, giving them a huge bonus on turn 1. Three starting locations should probably be created to hold one territory each from Oriental, Eastern, and Hindu.

This should be prevented by the coding we have done. A player may secure this bonus early, but there are opportunities to do the same with the other small bonuses


So really I am thinking of keeping the same as the beta version, tidying it up, getting the army bonuses more entered and then putting the map up for final approval. What do you reckon?

Maybe it should, but it wasn't as of not too long ago, when I dropped with all three terts of one. I'm not talking about securing it early; I mean holding the entire thing before the game even begins. I think this was the game: https://beta.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=15869363

A century after its birth, animation continues to evolve. The most exciting developments are found on two distinct fronts: the anime (“animation”) of Japan and the prime-time television cartoons of the United States. An offspring of the dense, novelistic style of Japanese manga comic books and the cut-rate techniques developed for television production in 1960, anime such as Miyazaki Hayao’s Princess Mononoke (1997) are the modern equivalent of the epic folk adventures once filmed by Mizoguchi Kenji (The 47 Ronin, 1941) and Kurosawa Akira (Yojimbo, 1961; “The Bodyguard”). Kon Satoshi’s Perfect Blue (1997) suggests the early Japanese New Wave films of director Oshima Nagisa with its violent exploration of a media-damaged personality.