Conquer Club

I think a good solution would be 4 cities objective and +2 autodeploy per city.

I know the temptation is to try and rush into these things flap, but it would be best to take some time and look at all the options. Both nobodies and natty make good points. The +3 is to high, and maybe the +2 is as well. A good drop and you might grab a city on the first round and just keep it giving you extra troops. It might be an idea to drop it to 4 cities and keep the +1 auto, and if that does not move things along as you wish, drop it to 3 cities with the +1, then we can go to 4 with +2. You have lots of time in the beta to get these things right so no need to make rash judgements.

koontz1973 wrote:Both nobodies and natty make good points.

Yes, very good points and your rigth I might rush this some

Why Im giving it some time to get more comment and time to think, also many of the multi playes games havent even finish yet and still to see how they turn out

(what can I say, its my baby and I want a good start for it )

Flapcake wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Both nobodies and natty make good points.

Yes, very good points and your rigth I might rush this some

Why Im giving it some time to get more comment and time to think, also many of the multi playes games havent even finish yet and still to see how they turn out

(what can I say, its my baby and I want a good start for it )

I know the feeling.

The 1v1 games have always had the tendency to not go for neutrals so you can discount them some. The other thing to remember with 3 cities, if I get a good drop by any 3 that you are not to close to, I could grab them in round 1 and win in round 2.

natty dread wrote:I think a good solution would be 4 cities objective and +2 autodeploy per city.

So, after a month...what are your thoughts about this option?

Nobodies

thenobodies80 wrote:

natty dread wrote:I think a good solution would be 4 cities objective and +2 autodeploy per city.

So, after a month...what are your thoughts about this option?

Nobodies

The current winning condiction are rearly been used as it is now, it seem to be more random or by chance than as a tactic to go for victory by holding 5 cities.
It was one of the main thoughts around the gameplay that this solution was to figth for, now it seem that players chose the easy win and then the cuttent condiction dont have any present.

Therefor I would like to try out nattys suggestion, 4 cities objective and +2 autodeploy per city.

I will prepare the graphic and PM koontz for the XML changing. when done you get a PM from me.

Flap

Perfect, looking forward to it!

Nobodies

question, why the objective at all. the map is fun, even if the drop can be totally unsettling.
can't the objective simply be removed? i see no need for it with this map

SirSebstar wrote:question, why the objective at all. the map is fun, even if the drop can be totally unsettling.
can't the objective simply be removed? i see no need for it with this map

Thx for your comment SirSebstar, your point are serious.

Well yes the objective could be remeoved, but is was never my idea with this map from the start, it was to have serval options for victory, also with the suggestion by natty I think its an improvment, with out the condiction its a map strait ahead, nothing wrong with that, but I wanted a map where you are forced to think strategic and not just throw the dice blindfolded.

Will get you the xml done by tonight.

New xml. 4 cities required to win and a =2 auto deploy on all 5 cities now included.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/1/27/3255536//finlandv2.xml

koontz1973 wrote:New xml. 4 cities required to win and a =2 auto deploy on all 5 cities now included.

Super, thx Koontz

Here are the latest updates, PM sendt to Foundry foreman.

Big


Small


XML
http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/1/27/3255536//finlandv2.xml

Files sent to the turtle!

Updated!

thenobodies80 wrote:Updated!

Thx tb80, looks greate

I like the latest gameplay update. I'll probably play the map more because of it.

chapcrap wrote:I like the latest gameplay update. I'll probably play the map more because of it.

Thx chapcrap

Finally the map of Denmark came forward - very much wanted and valued - great work, dudes :-)
I have created some foggy maps and I discovered that it is shown to all players which player has captured which shield. I think the idea of a foggy game is missed, then. Could you do anything about that, pls.
But keep up the great work, mates.
Playful regards
Mightor

Looked at your games and do you mean in the game log it shows the deployment of 2 for holding a shield? If you do, then nothing can be done as this is the way the log works.

If not, can you give a game number and clearer description of what it is so I can look into it.

I this game I can see that yellow has 2 shields - in other games I see other players conquerrings of shields.
I wonder if the other players may see the same picture as I do ?

Game: Game 10701396
Four Cities ==> Ålborg(3) [2] Århus(?) [2] Esbjerg(?) [2] Odense(9) [2] København(6) [2]

Regards
Mightor

You see that yellow has 2 shields, but which ones? The game log will always tell you how many troops each player gets, but not what territories each player gets. As koontz said, there is nothing that can be done about it. Plus I see you are using BOB, and as far as I know BOB doesn't show you which player has which city in foggy games.

I just now noticed a small graphical flaw: the dark inner glow of the land area seems to be missing between randers / viborg.

natty dread wrote:I just now noticed a small graphical flaw: the dark inner glow of the land area seems to be missing between randers / viborg.

Its no flaw, its made like that on on purpose, its a river/impassable

"It's not a bug, it's a feature", right?

The thing is, since it's the only "river" on the map, there's really no context to separate rivers from other bodies of water, so it just looks like another piece of water... so it'd be good if it was consistent with the other waters.

"It's not a bug, it's a feature" Yes your rigth

We are here in the category of taste and "cant take my eyes away details" in reality the water dont comes down that far in that area, but for the gameplay some impasable was needed, and what was more natural that make the "river/water" extended, therefor it looks like it does, I just didten added the white line to it, not by any fault but it was just the way I draw it.

If the foundry are upset of the missing sea foam, Im happy to add it, no sweat