Chirondom wrote:In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?
Not likely. The landing zones are auto deploy, they would each have 3, there is no telling where they would be. They wouldn't have enough territories to place more then 3 on their own. It would be like normal only 2 of the starting zones would be retarded (not getting another 3 to deploy).
Oh, the European territories can't attack each other?
nope, i however havent incuded this in legends as of yet
Its a pretty cool concept, i like how you are putting these conquest gameplay ideas into actual history. One thing i see is, the legend is hard to read.
Its a pretty cool concept, i like how you are putting these conquest gameplay ideas into actual history. One thing i see is, the legend is hard to read.
The text inside the box with Europe that says "The Home Land's of Europe", isn't that incorrect puncuation? Shouldn't it say "The Homelands of Europe"? I don't see why the ' is need in homelands, and I think homelands is one word.
Also, I don't like the equador line too much. It sorta divides the lower part of the map, but it doesn't really matter because it is real faint.
I like the idea, and it seems this map will move through the stages quickly.
lanyards wrote:The text inside the box with Europe that says "The Home Land's of Europe", isn't that incorrect puncuation? Shouldn't it say "The Homelands of Europe"? I don't see why the ' is need in homelands, and I think homelands is one word.
Also, I don't like the equador line too much. It sorta divides the lower part of the map, but it doesn't really matter because it is real faint.
I like the idea, and it seems this map will move through the stages quickly.
--lanyards
Acctuall the equator line feels a little intrusive, ill dull it some more
Its a pretty cool concept, i like how you are putting these conquest gameplay ideas into actual history. One thing i see is, the legend is hard to read.
Well, actual history is a stretch as I'm sure Unit_2 or qwert would be quick to point out but thank you.
yeti_c wrote:Hmmm - "Landing Zone" is a bit tricky to work out - perhaps some symbols in the territories might work better?
Also "home town" I dislike too - again perhaps some symbols? Like a temple, a teepee etc?
C.
On this... Igloo for Inuit, Cave of Mapuche, Loghouse (or whatever they are called, but not Teepee) for Comanche and a temple for Aztecs would be best.
A question about gameplay:
Unless I've missed something, it looks like there is no way to go from the "New World" back to Europe. That would cause a problem because if someone were to take all the territories in Europe, then they wouldn't be able to loose because nobody could get back to Europe.
Also, if the above problem isn't a problem, or it gets fixed, then I suggest that mabye there could be a bonus for holding all the European territories. It is just a suggestions though.
Its a pretty cool concept, i like how you are putting these conquest gameplay ideas into actual history. One thing i see is, the legend is hard to read.
Well, actual history is a stretch as I'm sure Unit_2 or qwert would be quick to point out but thank you.
I know, but it is not as much of a stretch as AoR: Magic
lanyards wrote:A question about gameplay: Unless I've missed something, it looks like there is no way to go from the "New World" back to Europe. That would cause a problem because if someone were to take all the territories in Europe, then they wouldn't be able to loose because nobody could get back to Europe.
Also, if the above problem isn't a problem, or it gets fixed, then I suggest that mabye there could be a bonus for holding all the European territories. It is just a suggestions though.
--lanyards
The Europe countries can't fight each other inside Europe. The Europe countries travel back and forth through their landing zone. The only way to another Europe country is back up through its landing zone.
yeti_c wrote:Hmmm - "Landing Zone" is a bit tricky to work out - perhaps some symbols in the territories might work better?
Also "home town" I dislike too - again perhaps some symbols? Like a temple, a teepee etc?
C.
On this... Igloo for Inuit, Cave of Mapuche, Loghouse (or whatever they are called, but not Teepee) for Comanche and a temple for Aztecs would be best.
Assuming you start doing them.
No teepees...
No teepees is good for me... but symbols are good.
mibi wrote:I think the european countires should border each other... that way someone can't just sweep through europe, you have to go through the landing zones.
Im assuming you mean shouldnt, european contrys dont boarder each other.
tenio wrote:it might be too late in development (i haven't read the whole thread)
but why isn't russia included? didn't they populate alaska and parts of W usa
Well, some reasons...
1) I didn't think of it.
2) There isn't really space for us to do this.
3) I wanted 3 player games to have all the spots filled when they were played.
4) It takes away our nifty ability to just say Europe and be talking about all the non-native countries. Russia would add extra wordiness to our legends.
