Conquer Club

It's back from the dead!!!!!
Looking good, Mr. Fixit! Here are some of my thoughts:
1. Change the "Light" areas to just "3's" (i.e. instead of "Light Cyan", just have "Cyan 3"). Just a personal preference there.
2. Could you explain the bonuses to me? I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
3. Include connector lines between territories!
4. Include the territory-naming formula on the map.

-Sully

1. Change the "Light" areas to just "3's" (i.e. instead of "Light Cyan", just have "Cyan 3"). Just a personal preference there.

I'll make the changes and see what it's like but would probably look better.

2. Could you explain the bonuses to me? I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

Any complete outer coloured circle would give the player +2
Any complete middle circle (currently named 'Light') would give +3
If you own all three circles from a colour you get an extra +4 (total bonus =2+2+3+4) but number can be changed

3. Include connector lines between territories!

The territories are very basic, except for the arrows as they give an extra attacking region.
* Solid colour regions can attack it's overlapping regions
* Overlapping regions can attack solid colours that make up the overlap
Is there a real need to include attacking lines?

I need to make the troop placement circles smaller so not to hide so much of the overlapping part of the circles, I did make the circles bigger but that just made more of an overlap.

i think you could change it to something like "Urbanicty" or something. Make each circle a neighborhood or a city set in the future when each "circle" or city is overpopulated and starts to fight with all the others. The Pipes you had could be called tunnels or highways or airways...

I say this because the last map looks like an urban evolution art script i saw once.

I loved each version you put forth, I think it might just need some sort of theme rather than colors. Good job imo.

FixitDave wrote:

2. Could you explain the bonuses to me? I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

Any complete outer coloured circle would give the player +2
Any complete middle circle (currently named 'Light') would give +3
If you own all three circles from a colour you get an extra +4 (total bonus =2+2+3+4) but number can be changed

Okay, I get it now. I think you shouls get rid of the s at the end of "Inner Circles" and "Outer Circles", otherwise it implies you need all inner circles or all outer circles. And for the "All Circles of One Color" (or whatever) bonus should include the smaller bonuses so it would say "+11" or "+10" (+10 might be nicer, just cuz it's a good-looking number).

FixitDave wrote:

3. Include connector lines between territories!

The territories are very basic, except for the arrows as they give an extra attacking region.
* Solid colour regions can attack it's overlapping regions
* Overlapping regions can attack solid colours that make up the overlap
Is there a real need to include attacking lines?

I think so, cuz it would be easier to see what attacks what, and it would save space in the legend that you will inevitably need.

army of nobunaga wrote:i think you could change it to something like "Urbanicty" or something. Make each circle a neighborhood or a city set in the future when each "circle" or city is overpopulated and starts to fight with all the others. The Pipes you had could be called tunnels or highways or airways...

I say this because the last map looks like an urban evolution art script i saw once.

I loved each version you put forth, I think it might just need some sort of theme rather than colors. Good job imo.

This is an okay idea, and if you like it dave, then go for it. But as it stands, I like the colours. Once you think you've got your idea completely laid out, submit a Design Brief and see what Industrial Helix says about the concept.

-Sully

RGB is used for computers, but the base colours are red, blue and yellow.
red-orange-yellow-green-blue-purple

Obrens wrote:RGB is used for computers, but the base colours are red, blue and yellow.
red-orange-yellow-green-blue-purple

RGB is also used by human eyes, so it is a much more natural system than RBY

RGB are the additive primary colours, RBY is incorrect, it should be CYM cyan, yellow and magenta which are the subtractive primary colours and also additive secondary. simply that cyan looks like blue and magenta looks like red, but red blue and yellow is an incorrect set

So... What's up, dave? How's it going on the map?

I've posted in the sticky post but no response as yet, not sure if I'll get a PM, post on here...or ignored if rubbish...

Anyway, I've updated the image in the first post and also created xml

Capture the white circle, only 6 regions per colour are used during initial deployment (ie the triangle that makes up y1, y1-y2, y2, y3-y2, y3-y1 & y3) so no regions that join 2 colours are used.

This gives 36 regions for deployment and rest neutral...
[bigimg]http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll195/mydodgypics/colours-start.jpg[/bigimg]

The other idea I had was to make the back 3 per colour as POSITIONS and rest neutral but it wouldn't work out right with 8 players, would be nice with 6 players or less....

YES! Nice to see this back in action! A few things:
1. Not sure if "Center and overlapping regions can attack each other" is clear enough. Can Blue 1-Cyan 2 attack Cyan 1-Cyan 2? Can Blue 2-Magenta 1 and Magenta 2 attack each other? I suggest attack route lines. You could set the opacity really low, so it's not distracting.
2. 36 territories is not one of the "golden numbers", I'm afraid. I think if you included all the bordering territories, save for one (upping it to 47), you'd be good. Definitely against starting positions for this map.
3. I would suggest an auto-deploy for the white territories to make it a tad easier to hold (maybe +1 auto-deploy for the outside white territories and +3 for the inner one?).
4. I'm wondering if you could do something better with your labels, as they are harder to read than what I think is necessary.
5. Don't go overboard with the xml just yet, as there will probably be several edits down the line

This is looking better and better. Keep at it, Mr. fixit!

-Sully

1. Not sure if "Center and overlapping regions can attack each other" is clear enough. Can Blue 1-Cyan 2 attack Cyan 1-Cyan 2? Can Blue 2-Magenta 1 and Magenta 2 attack each other? I suggest attack route lines. You could set the opacity really low, so it's not distracting.

Added lines with 20% opacity and white stroke...I have to say that I really like it, brings the regions together

2. 36 territories is not one of the "golden numbers", I'm afraid. I think if you included all the bordering territories, save for one (upping it to 47), you'd be good. Definitely against starting positions for this map.

Sure, not sure how odd it would be with a single neutral region but if 47 is tried and tested...can you explain why 47?

3. I would suggest an auto-deploy for the white territories to make it a tad easier to hold (maybe +1 auto-deploy for the outside white territories and +3 for the inner one?).

Sure, would help with the objective and added

4. I'm wondering if you could do something better with your labels, as they are harder to read than what I think is necessary.

Changed font and size...any better?

5. Don't go overboard with the xml just yet, as there will probably be several edits down the line

Sure, just quick practice with the XML creator

Added v2.2 to the first post...

FixitDave wrote:

1. Not sure if "Center and overlapping regions can attack each other" is clear enough. Can Blue 1-Cyan 2 attack Cyan 1-Cyan 2? Can Blue 2-Magenta 1 and Magenta 2 attack each other? I suggest attack route lines. You could set the opacity really low, so it's not distracting.

Added lines with 20% opacity and white stroke...I have to say that I really like it, brings the regions together

I agree Looks great!

FixitDave wrote:

2. 36 territories is not one of the "golden numbers", I'm afraid. I think if you included all the bordering territories, save for one (upping it to 47), you'd be good. Definitely against starting positions for this map.

Sure, not sure how odd it would be with a single neutral region but if 47 is tried and tested...can you explain why 47?

47 territories is one of the "golden" territory numbers because no matter how many players are playing the map, each person won't get a multiple of 3 territories, so the first person to play can't get an extra +1 over the later players that he takes a territory from. Here, lemme give you an example:
Warren and Luke each start out with 12 territories. Warren goes first and gets +4 for 12 territories (12 divided by 3). Warren takes a territory from Luke (bringing Luke's territory count down to 11). Warren ends his turn. Luke goes next and and only gets +3 for 11 territories. See what I mean? 47 avoids all of those cases for any number of players.

FixitDave wrote:

3. I would suggest an auto-deploy for the white territories to make it a tad easier to hold (maybe +1 auto-deploy for the outside white territories and +3 for the inner one?).

Sure, would help with the objective and added

Cool! Lookin' good

FixitDave wrote:

4. I'm wondering if you could do something better with your labels, as they are harder to read than what I think is necessary.

Changed font and size...any better?

Looks fine... I was actually referring to the "Blue 2" and "Green 3" type labels.

FixitDave wrote:

5. Don't go overboard with the xml just yet, as there will probably be several edits down the line

Sure, just quick practice with the XML creator

Okay

Looks great! Just that minor label fix and think you should submit a Design Brief. If you haven't already (I can't remember )

Ah, ok, I did change the outer glow on some but I'll review it again and repost.

Updated image on the first post...

Victor Sullivan wrote:47 territories is one of the "golden" territory numbers because no matter how many players are playing the map, each person won't get a multiple of 3 territories, so the first person to play can't get an extra +1 over the later players that he takes a territory from. Here, lemme give you an example:
Warren and Luke each start out with 12 territories. Warren goes first and gets +4 for 12 territories (12 divided by 3). Warren takes a territory from Luke (bringing Luke's territory count down to 11). Warren ends his turn. Luke goes next and and only gets +3 for 11 territories. See what I mean? 47 avoids all of those cases for any number of players.

I see...thanks for the explanation.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Looks fine... I was actually referring to the "Blue 2" and "Green 3" type labels.

Changed text to black with a 66% opaque stroke...better?

Victor Sullivan wrote:Looks great! Just that minor label fix and think you should submit a Design Brief. If you haven't already (I can't remember )

Already submitted here

Much much better! I hink i's ready for Gameplay, but we really need some other people to post their input.

I think there needs to be some sort of theme to this map. Not just overlapping color circles. I don't mean to be negative, but it just floors me that there's support for this "map".

Isn't this just a different presentation of Chinese Checkers?

danalan wrote:Isn't this just a different presentation of Chinese Checkers?

yea looking at the terts it looks almost the exact same, just a little smaller.

-griff

grifftron wrote:

danalan wrote:Isn't this just a different presentation of Chinese Checkers?

yea looking at the terts it looks almost the exact same, just a little smaller.

-griff

hmm well that needs to be changed.

danalan wrote:Isn't this just a different presentation of Chinese Checkers?

Not at all. I don't see where this is coming from, honestly. The whole game mechanic is different. The objective is the center, there are fewer territories to go thru, the bonus structure is different, the one-way attacks are different...