Conquer Club

freakns wrote:as i said, its a question of pride as he sees it.
and woodruff, trust me, you are the least of the problems here.

Well then I want my way!

(I'm joking!)

This map has very few bonuses, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Has there been any thought as to giving more bonuses for holding more than 2 sword territories? Give the bonus of +2 for each pair of swords held.
2 swords = +2
3 swords = +6
4 swords = +12
5 swords = +20
6 swords = +30

The USAApocaplyse map has a progressive benefit like this.

I'm playing the game now (Game 4637008) and my current objective is to hold the 8 shields rather than eliminate the last 2 players. It's tough, but I think I will succeed.

Hi all, apologies if this has been discussed earlier (30+ pages is alot for a noob!). Just finished a game, and really liked the current state of the map. A couple of thoughts:
I agree with the idea of reducing the objective down from 8 shields -if you have 6/7 it would be unlikely there was much gameplay left anyway. Also, played a 1v1 and found that by the time we came into contact with each other, it was fairly obvious who was gonna win. Unfortunately, if you do reduce the shield objective you could forseeably have a game with no direct player confrontations, and would be strongly influenced by going first. Also, there were a couple of boundaries which were unclear - most were down to me - but the only one I would consider flagging up is the Bythnians-Chalcedonians. ie. there is no common land border.
Having said that I think the art/style of the map is excellent and (IMO) only needs a bit of tweaking....

Thanks for listening! I've just started Poison Rome which looks excellent!!

I get this message when I take my turns on this map:

"BOB: xml for this map is not correct"

Lx

Lindax wrote:I get this message when I take my turns on this map:

"BOB: xml for this map is not correct"

Lx

Uninstall BOB

Kotaro wrote:

Lindax wrote:I get this message when I take my turns on this map:

"BOB: xml for this map is not correct"

Lx

Uninstall BOB

... That would take the message away. But this isn't a bug for the map atm, but for Lack (made a thread about it, http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=91650).

Just played my first game on this map. I liked the layout and the different ways of collecting bonuses. I won without holding all 8 shields, is that supposed to happen? All other players were eliminated, so it makes sense that I won, but how do the 8 shields come into play then? Sorry if this has been covered.

On all CC maps with objectives, you can either win by reaching the objective and holding it until the start of your next turn, or by eliminating all other opponents. Indeed, obviously you've won.

squishyg wrote:Just played my first game on this map. I liked the layout and the different ways of collecting bonuses. I won without holding all 8 shields, is that supposed to happen? All other players were eliminated, so it makes sense that I won, but how do the 8 shields come into play then? Sorry if this has been covered.

This is one of those objective maps that really shouldn't be objective maps. By the time anyone gets the required 8 shields, they'll clearly have the map dominated so much that they'd have won anyway. There's not much point to the objective.

Hmm, I love the idea of the objective, but I don't find it realistic. Why would anyone go for the 8 shield objective when it's so much easier to eliminate your opponents? I searched through previous posts and I read many suggestions of lowering the objective to 4/5/6 shields. Can we try a few games like that to see how it influences gameplay?

Right.... here's my recommendation...

1. I've always been an advocate of changing the wording of the objective... so that should be done.

2. At the end of the day, what does 1 pixel really matter? Could be changed, but could equally be overlooked

3. We can reduce the starting neutral in Boeotians without any hassle, so that should be done.

4. I have been a strong advocate of making the objective slightly more relevant. Ideally, I think holding any 6 shields should suffice, except for the fact that there are 6 of them clustered in the South of the map. To make it fair, then it would need to be hold any 7 shields, although this still gives a slight advantage to whoever starts in the South. With this in mind, while I think that the objective should be more relevant to the map, I think that any other requirement than holding all of them would require too much tinkering with the map as a whole. Despite my better judgement, I think that this should be left alone now.

5. Fiddling around with the swords would require too much tinkering to other neutral values, and should probably be avoided at this stage.

6. There has been a mixture of opinion about this - it's fairly subjective, and could swing either way. If it's easy to shift things around, then why not do it; if it's going to be too much hassle now, this could be left as it is.

7. See #5.

As qwert is still refusing to answer directly, then I imagine that an intermediary shall be tasked with making the above changes (which is why I've erred on the side of ease with my recommendations), working from a flat-file (unless a PSD is forthcoming)

This has become my favorite map on CC.

First, it is an absolutely fabulous map. Graphics and attention to detail are superb.
Then, from a playing standpoint, I like that it is not an advantage to go first in this game like most of the others, (especially in 2 player games).

I have read the complaints about some positions being more difficult but thats part of the charm.

If there is more consideration of lowering the shield requirement to win, make sure macedonians is mandatory. Most of the shields are in the opposite end of the map.

Very nice job.

istanbul39 wrote:If there is more consideration of lowering the shield requirement to win, make sure macedonians is mandatory. Most of the shields are in the opposite end of the map.

Brilliant suggestion. That would help to even the gameplay. Looking forward to more games on this map.

istanbul39 wrote:If there is more consideration of lowering the shield requirement to win, make sure macedonians is mandatory. Most of the shields are in the opposite end of the map.

Excellent point. I agree.

Concise description:
Just think you can make the game flow a little better if you wouldnt have 6 in Athens and 2 others in Southern Greece. I love the going in a circle concept but It is too hard to attack the island and persia through the south, Sorry if this isnt the right forum, please let me know where this should go,, Thanks Phlayer

This really belongs in Map Foundry

Love the map and have played it over 20 times. I do think that 6 home armies in Athens and 2 of the surrounding countries(around boetians i think) is too much. very hard to attack the island string or the small contenient (persia?) Often whoever gets established in the small contenient wins because it is too hard to attack them on two front. Only when someone suicides into those 6's does it work. Keep up the good work, I love the Circle effect Phlayer

Great map - great gameplay and graphics as it stands.

I agree with MrBenn's points above.

Possible Improvements
I agree with suggestions to reduce some of the neutral values around the Athens area- everyone tends to avoid it. Too much of a swing the other way might not be too great either though, given that there is a sword and helmet there all-in-one.

My vote - Reduce the neutral size on Boetia to 3.


The Objective
MrBenn's line of thinking is that its possibly not worth the hassle to change it (due to the problem of the many in the south).

Effectively, anyone who takes the obective currently, has won. I've done it twice and not realised. Nobody tends to take much notice of it, making it pretty harmless. Although not ideal, there is certainly no gameplay problem if it stays as it is.

My vote - leave it as it is to save too much fiddling around.

Certainly the wording needs changing (or the xml - it would make the objective more attainable if it just had to be captured)

Access to Swords
In an ideal world all start points would have equal ease of access.

However, as it is, the overall gameplay is much fairer and strategy-biased than a typical classic map with the potential of nice drops and advantages of going first.

This map proves that slight inequalities in start positions dont cause a problem (although they might on a smaller map).

DJ Teflon wrote:Certainly the wording needs changing (or the xml - it would make the objective more attainable if it just had to be captured)

You know that isn't an option, right? CC is coded for objectives to be fulfilled when they are held for one turn. AFAIK, you can't just change that for this map.

Hey I'm playing in game 5341508. I just captured all the shields but I didn't win. Is this a problem with the beta? Or am I missing something?

Wait for your next turn.


Guys... The wording must be changed.

RobRabbit wrote:Hey I'm playing in game 5341508. I just captured all the shields but I didn't win. Is this a problem with the beta? Or am I missing something?

You need to capture them and hold them for a turn, just like any other map with objectives.

Re: Boetians neutral
Well, I'm glad I've never ventured there before - I've also discovered there's a 6 on Corinthians!

I've just started on this map having not noticed it addition until last week. I really enjoy it for what it is, but I do have issues with the design in context of history. I have not read all 36 pages on this so maybe its been already responded to. I read the first 3 and the last 3. Anyway, I am a Classics and Political Science student and my senior seminar is on the Peloponnesian War, the work of Thucydides. I think this map's design is misguided for the Peloponnesian War. Its a great map but does not really capture the battles or real territory of dispute in the Pelo war. The fact that noone starts in the Peloponnese is a huge red haring, and going there does nothing for you really. I am guessing that you just took the Ancient Greece or Alexander map and fused them.

I would love to contribute to an accurate depiction, and don't want to dismay the designer, but I think its faulty in that it put more emphasis on fights in Asia Minor and Thrace instead of Hellas and some cycladic islands. Furthermore names such as Pontus, Romans, Persians are wrong for the era. In 431 Rome had not united Italy. Persia was in dismay and did little for either side in the war. Pontus was a Persian settlement that didn't do anything during the war. Instead of Rome you should have Sicily which is a big part of Athens War, as they wanted the Sicilian wheat and to dominate Syracuse, much to their failure.
Emphasis should be put to a lower level... It should be on empires and their vassal states, Athens should get a bonus if it holds Pylos, or Potidea etc. Sparta if it takes Delos or controls Attica or the Argives.

The map should exclude Asia for the most part. Rhodes, Crete, Halicarnasus (where most of my playing of the map have found to be the focal point) have minor involvement, acting only as tributaries to Athens in the later part of the War. Halicarnasus is from Alexander's exploits. As far East as the map should go is the inclusion of Lesbos as that is really as far as this war is concerned Eastward. To the north you can cut some too. I know this plays down the maneuvering there but its all wrong. There is a lot in the war over the Chalcidian lands.
If scaled right you could have more regions in the Peloponnese, a few in Chalcidia etc... the emphasis should be on cities here as that is how they battled. Laying siege to cities and commanding the surrounding area. When you wanted to attack someone you'd land an army, ravage the land so they had no food stuffs and if they came out of their fortress you'd battle them, if not you'd leave to fight another summer.

I'd love to help make an appropriate map... If you want me to I can try, but I can't do too much until Dec, when I finish my degree.

Mad-elph wrote:I really enjoy it for what it is…

I have to say I think this is what you have to do. The front page says "Conquer Club is a casual gaming site…," and while it's great you have the knowledge and the awareness to post, and also while we strive to maintain a high historical accuracy on our maps, sometimes it comes down to just creating a good map to play and look at.