Conquer Club

Just because I'm curious and eager to get back to work on my Alagaesia map I'd like you to respond to the poll.

My thoughts are that now that we have at least two high territory maps, NA and World 2.0, is the foundry ready for a more intimate map, with say, less than 36, maybe even 30 territories. This map would be mainly for three player games, but could be used to create a battle royale feel with only six players.

What does the foundry feel is the lowest the number of territories within a map can go?

I love the idea of a smaller map. It adds a different gameplay element to most of the maps that are roughly the same size.

Someone should make a realtime map with only 24 countries, would love to see one in action.

I wouldn't ever play it, but if some will that's good enough.

I think a lower number of territories simply increases the amount of luck involved because there are so few attacks that the good and bad streaks don't have time to even out. Especially with 6 players, only starting with 5 or less countries would mean you could basically be out before you start.

But as you said, for 3 player it would work fine.

I think 30 is the minimum, so you always will start with at least 5 territories. 4 is too less to start with I think.

I really do think it's a good idea, it'll be a battle for survival right off the bat. I'm just wondering if it would be a good idea to have no continent bonuses. Because, say you have a map where you start with say four territories and you happen to have a continent bonus, that would be extremely unfair. If there are continent bonuses, I feel they should only be of 1 or 2 army values.

In my opinion there are not enough smaller maps, and I would personally like to play some 3 or 4 player games on such a map.

I like the fact there's so many maps to choose from (plus those in development), but I don't think there's enough variation between them. I know my Australia map was critised for having too few countries at some point in development, but why is that a bad thing?

The Ireland map has only 32 territories...

KEYOGI wrote:I really do think it's a good idea, it'll be a battle for survival right off the bat. I'm just wondering if it would be a good idea to have no continent bonuses. Because, say you have a map where you start with say four territories and you happen to have a continent bonus, that would be extremely unfair. If there are continent bonuses, I feel they should only be of 1 or 2 army values.

In my opinion there are not enough smaller maps, and I would personally like to play some 3 or 4 player games on such a map.

I like the fact there's so many maps to choose from (plus those in development), but I don't think there's enough variation between them. I know my Australia map was critised for having too few countries at some point in development, but why is that a bad thing?

No continent bonuses? thats crazy, because the only way to win without continent bonuses is to use number of territory bonuses, and a small map wont have any of that.

gavin_sidhu wrote:No continent bonuses? thats crazy, because the only way to win without continent bonuses is to use number of territory bonuses, and a small map wont have any of that.

Circus Maximum also has no continents, and isn't very big, so it can be done.

Circus is designed to escalating games.
I think 32 is the minimum. I wouldnt play any number lower. By the way, Ireland map is crazy, with those continents with high high bonuses. This map should be changed.

How about a simple map with twenty circles. Each circle is part of two continents, and each continent is worth two armies.