Conquer Club

koontz1973 wrote:

Seamus76 wrote:I want to make the map fair, but I don't want to make the base camps too unattractive for only a +2 auto, which I think going through 6 would do.

People go though a 5 neutral for a +1 auto on Rorke's Drift. And the base camps need to be taken for the bonus region so not taking them is not an option. Raising the neutrals to 6 will not stop people taking them, it will only make them think about it in round one.

The base camps are "Part of no District", as stated in the legend, so they do not need to be taken for the district bonus, just the Expedition Route bonus. Also, as for Rorke's Drift, I find taking those +1 is mainly because I have a tert trapped behind one, not so much for the bonus all the time, but I do see your point. I guess to me a lower neutrals makes it more appealing in lager games, but in 1v1 where there is more space it might make it a little too easy.

koontz1973 wrote:

Seamus76 wrote:Why not try leaving the base camps at 3n, and upping the terts they sit in to 2n. That way it's the players 6 against the neutral 5 to get +2 auto deploy, which is more of a gamble but also still attractive enough for some to take the risk. That to me seems like a good balance, and it forces players to either make a gamble early on or wait a round or two before trying for them. Personally its rare for me to kill 5 with 6 so I would probably wait longer to try for them or not at all.

My analysis says 6 is the minimum, 8 is the target number, but lets go with the 5 for now and keep an eye on it. If it continues, they will have to go higher.

Sounds like a plan. I'll update the xml this evening to change Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction to 2n instead of 1n.

koontz1973 wrote:

Seamus76 wrote:I'm also going to make Port Heiden 2n unless there are any objections.

None, but again this is an easy bonus with neutrals all around. Raise it to a 2 and again, look at it later for a 3.

Will do this evening with the above change.

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-12-08:
XML update only:
- Adjusted S.S. Polaris large map coordinate
- Changed Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction to starting 2n instead of 1n
- Changed Port Heiden to starting 2n instead of 1n

Not sure if this came up before the beta map was available but i have a small concern. When attacking from a port why am i able to attack the "outgoing"(small boat that attacks to ports) boat at all? If i have a port to attack it from i can already attack all the other ports that the small boat can attack. I do not think this is a huge issue but i accidentally attacked the wrong boat and caught myself in a dead end that i had to fortify out of or lose my troops. Stupid mistake on my part,but i can't be the only one making mistakes like that. Again, not a big issue just a thought. Regardless as to wether you change this or not the map is top notch and i will be playing it in the future. Well done!

Endgame422 wrote:Not sure if this came up before the beta map was available but i have a small concern. When attacking from a port why am i able to attack the "outgoing"(small boat that attacks to ports) boat at all? If i have a port to attack it from i can already attack all the other ports that the small boat can attack. I do not think this is a huge issue but i accidentally attacked the wrong boat and caught myself in a dead end that i had to fortify out of or lose my troops. Stupid mistake on my part,but i can't be the only one making mistakes like that. Again, not a big issue just a thought. Regardless as to wether you change this or not the map is top notch and i will be playing it in the future. Well done!

I actually made the same mistake myself.

I guess the thought was "why shouldn't they", since there was not room in the legend to differentiate between the incoming and outgoing ships. I.e. There is not enough room to say, "And border Outgoing Small Boats within their body of water only." Plus is it an outgoing or incoming ship, based on where you are coming from, right? If you're on the Exploration Ship it's outgoing, but if your on the Port it would technically be incoming.

So long story short, I think it's a mistake people will make, but probably only once, and to actually explain it would take up too much room so I'm not sure there is much I can do to fix it.

But, with that said, if everyone thinks keeping the legend the same and just making the "outgoing" (from the Exploration Ships) small ships un-attackable from the Ports is less confusing, I would be happy to fix it.

Big fan. I give it an A-

QuatroQuatro wrote:Big fan. I give it an A-

Thank you!! An A- is better than most of the grades I've gotten in life, so, I'll take it! I'm also honored you used your first post on me.

Like the map. It is "Kodiak" not "Kadiak."

kent456 wrote:Like the map. It is "Kodiak" not "Kadiak."

Thanks, I'm glad you like it. It's been pretty fun actually.

You are correct, the current name and spelling is Kodiak, but in 1895 when this map is based on it was Kadiak. You can see here, just zoom in.

Map Of Alaska. Punnett Brothers, 1897

Hello,
I am playing the map for the first time, and I find the instruction on the right side :"Ports connect within their own [...]. Revert to neutral if held", are not very easy to read. Especially on the small map - I almost only play using small map - but even as a big map not so easy.
I think you should make the letter a bit thicker and/or blacker.

"SS Consellation" for XML:)

Edit: looks like this XML was still not uploaded: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=186049&start=315#p4363404

fix the spelling of Constellation and I'll make sure to tell tnb.

Seamus76 wrote:CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-12-08:
XML update only:
- Adjusted S.S. Polaris large map coordinate
- Changed Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction to starting 2n instead of 1n
- Changed Port Heiden to starting 2n instead of 1n

Gilligan wrote:"SS Consellation" for XML:)

Edit: looks like this XML was still not uploaded: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=186049&start=315#p4363404

fix the spelling of Constellation and I'll make sure to tell tnb.

I just checked this most recent version that was posted and I don't see the misspelling. Was it this version?

Also, the more I play the map the more I'm not so sure the extra 1n is needed on Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction. It seems like those +2 auto deploys aren't so make or break as suspected early on. Thoughts?

Seamus76 wrote:

Seamus76 wrote:CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-12-08:
XML update only:
- Adjusted S.S. Polaris large map coordinate
- Changed Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction to starting 2n instead of 1n
- Changed Port Heiden to starting 2n instead of 1n

Gilligan wrote:"SS Consellation" for XML:)

Edit: looks like this XML was still not uploaded: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=186049&start=315#p4363404

fix the spelling of Constellation and I'll make sure to tell tnb.

I just checked this most recent version that was posted and I don't see the misspelling. Was it this version?

Also, the more I play the map the more I'm not so sure the extra 1n is needed on Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction. It seems like those +2 auto deploys aren't so make or break as suspected early on. Thoughts?

It was live when I saw the misspelling. Noticed it when I cashed.

This is my first post on the board but I'm playing a game with Seamus76 and he told me of the coming changes(buffing Unilaska and the Basecamps) so I just wanted to share my thoughts(this comes from experience in normal/escalating scenarios):

My main concern is this: buffing up the neutrals that protect the base camps are going to turn those into sucker plays. I am fine with the Unliaska buffing because it is situated in a great spot strategically. But the basecamps are already punished by the expedition routes. The expedition routes already make it hard to capture a basecamp over the course of multiple turns they also make it hard to take a basecamp from a defensive stack builder to an offensive army and generally it requires a turn of reinforcement, they are already slow and lumbering. I am worried that buffing the basecamp's neutral protection will make so they will only be targeted by the noobs, while the experienced players sit back and don't risk so much. I enjoy that the basecamps are very tempting targets, but even as it stands now, they are no sure thing, going after one early is still a risky proposition, I believe that bumping their protecting neutral from 1 to 2 will really tip the scales risk/reward wise and would anticipate going after them myself far less(not that I go after them all the time now, like I said, they are risky).

Love the map though! One of my favorites actually.

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2014-22-02:
XML update only:
- Changed Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction back to starting 1n instead of 2n, as I had changed in the last update(which to this day has not been uploaded, so I'm not sure much will change to the live map except Port Heiden going to 2n.)
- Updated Constellation spelling

Seamus76 wrote:CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2014-22-02:
XML update only:
- Changed Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction back to starting 1n instead of 2n, as I had changed in the last update(which to this day has not been uploaded, so I'm not sure much will change to the live map except Port Heiden going to 2n.)

Make sure to fix the spelling of Constellation in this version. I changed it myself when I sent it off for upload yesterday.

i do like the map but i think the top prt is too easy to dominate with and protect it for what i saw so far to win you need to start and get light pink or the on on top of it and take as fast a possible the other one and then you just steam roll everyone

we're playing an epic game on this map which came via. "random map".
it's a lot of fun, but the only problem is i don't see the game ever ending. we're at round 96 and still 4 out of 6 players left, no end in sight. but it's been a great game. i was almost out early but was able to recover by hanging out only on the boats.

Bonogi wrote:My main concern is this: buffing up the neutrals that protect the base camps are going to turn those into sucker plays. I am fine with the Unliaska buffing because it is situated in a great spot strategically. But the basecamps are already punished by the expedition routes. The expedition routes already make it hard to capture a basecamp over the course of multiple turns they also make it hard to take a basecamp from a defensive stack builder to an offensive army and generally it requires a turn of reinforcement, they are already slow and lumbering. I am worried that buffing the basecamp's neutral protection will make so they will only be targeted by the noobs, while the experienced players sit back and don't risk so much. I enjoy that the basecamps are very tempting targets, but even as it stands now, they are no sure thing, going after one early is still a risky proposition, I believe that bumping their protecting neutral from 1 to 2 will really tip the scales risk/reward wise and would anticipate going after them myself far less(not that I go after them all the time now, like I said, they are risky).

Love the map though! One of my favorites actually.

I agree with Bonogi.

+1

I really like the map. I'm in the final of a tournament on it. I like the way we attack with the ships.

Personnally, I dislike that we loose 1 troops on some territories. I know that it's because you want to add to the realism, but I think it should be the opposite. Expeditions routes were made because it was less risky than others and it's on them that we loose troops. I'm not so sure!

: BetaMarch 2014 (Official Monthly Challenge)
Postby WOLFZ71 on Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:22 am

so i've been playing a lot of District of Alaska working towards my beta medal. i love this map the auto deploys make it so fun to play. my favorite way to make it extremely challenging and very fast paced is to set it for 1 minute speed game. the only thing i don't like on it is the date in the top of the map looks like 1990? is it 1890? any who here are my wins for the month of March.

Game 14083511
Game 14083736
Game 14085969
Game 14087127
Game 14087268
Game 14088114
Game 14088394
Game 14091275
Game 14091411
Game 14091509
Game 14091723
User avatar
Major WOLFZ71

PLEASE LET ME KNOW HOW TO MAKE THIS AVAILABLE FOR GAME PLAY ASAP!!

So far I like it, visually appealing, and each additional BC and ship is so useful. The southern terk is a little long for my opinion but then again i am only playing with one other person. the land bonueses will work well.

Also a response resulting from BetaMarch 2014 (Official Monthly Challenge)

Thing you like about the map.
- Good mix of concepts:
Autodeploy is small and not just at drop points.
Bonuses are not too small but achievable in smaller games.
- Starting neutrals seem to be at ports and other spots on non-critical paths. Tends to compress the drop and lead to land attacks, rather than building stacks and heading directly to ships. It also takes away the 'luck of the drop'.

Thing you dislike about the map.
- Bethel and Dutch Harbor ports connect to all others, providing an advantage if held. It's clearly explained, though in small writing.
- Non-ship autodeploy doesn't need to have a neutral 2 around it. Is tough enough as it is, and perhaps unnecessary given the layout (second bullet under likes).

Updated!

Nice map with good play. Not to fond of the route's they don't seem to come into play much perhaps there is a way to expand them to make them be more part of the play

and agree with the above comment on the 2 ports which give a clear advantage . If you drop near and can grab them early its a bit to much of an edge.

I do like that the drop however does seem to be consistently even and that there are no super fancy tricks to it

Ive posted before that I really like the map, but being a bit of a medal whore Im here again....

I like....that the BC autodrop was raised to 2
I dislike...the text in the legend is difficult to read in small version (honestly this is a very minor thing, really had to stretch to find something about this map I dislike.