Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:37 am
those mountains are terrible Qwert! looks like someone dropped their filling on the map!
Conquer Club
Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://beta.conquerclub.com/forum/
WWII WESTERN FRONT [Quenched]
Page 16 of 22
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:41 am
If London is going to be included in a bonus, it has to be able to actually change hands rather than just becoming neutral. Forget live play because Lack won't even let it get to that if London's bonus is going to be that way.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:41 am
I dunno, I like the stars being kind of a mini game for the London player only. It's worth the perk since competent players should bombard all 3 Britain spots quickly to take it out of play. And if they aren't competent, they should maybe do it out of envy since they didn't have a spawn there?
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:37 pm
hulmey Posted: 10 Oct 2007 04:37 Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
those mountains are terrible Qwert! looks like someone dropped their filling on the map!
Hulmey,you dont help me with these words,give me something what i can put insted these mountain what you dont like.
Night Strike Posted: 10 Oct 2007 05:41 Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If London is going to be included in a bonus, it has to be able to actually change hands rather than just becoming neutral. Forget live play because Lack won't even let it get to that if London's bonus is going to be that way.
I think that we finish with these discusion.Like i say i will change these if not working good in game.So please be patience and waith when these map be in game,and then we will se how these work OK.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:02 pm
AndyDufresne wrote:
Final Forge
---The WWII - Western Front Map has reached the ‘Final Forge’ Stage. I've revived this thread from the pits of the Foundry furnace and have exmined the contents. Nearly every major concern has been addressed. If there are any other current concerns, please make your voice heard. If after a reasonable amount of time there has not been any objection or protest, the map will be deemed finished with the 'Foundry Brand' of approval and will be submitted for live play. As long as there is still discussion or posts that have yet to be commented on, the map will remain in Final Forge until said discussion has reached the conclusion that the map has reached its final and polished version.
Post questions and concerns if any.
--Andy
Congraturations
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:27 pm
AndyDufresne wrote:
Final Forge
---The WWII - Western Front Map has reached the ‘Final Forge’ Stage. I've revived this thread from the pits of the Foundry furnace and have exmined the contents. Nearly every major concern has been addressed. If there are any other current concerns, please make your voice heard. If after a reasonable amount of time there has not been any objection or protest, the map will be deemed finished with the 'Foundry Brand' of approval and will be submitted for live play. As long as there is still discussion or posts that have yet to be commented on, the map will remain in Final Forge until said discussion has reached the conclusion that the map has reached its final and polished version.
Post questions and concerns if any.
--Andy
I really don't agree with Britain, but you guys are in charge so if you're cool with Final Forging it in spite of all the complaints then that's your perogative. My worry:
I think I read somewhere that lack won't upload a new version of a map if it affects current games being played. I know that there were a lot of questions and ideas when World 2.0 was upgraded to World 2.1, but most of them wouldn't work out because country borders/continents had to remain the same. It was an aesthetic only upgrade. If there are as many complaints (proportionately) from normal CC numbers as there are from the foundry members, and the map needs a redo, I don't think lack would allow it simply because that would have a big affect on current games being played.
Or I could be way off base there. Correct me if I'm wrong (please, I hate looking like an idiot, it happens too often
)Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:49 pm
I also hate the britain situation. Most people do, it seems.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:53 pm
When does test play occur? maybe that would tell the tale of how Britain will impact the gameplay.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:20 pm
BeakerWMA wrote:When does test play occur? maybe that would tell the tale of how Britain will impact the gameplay.
They don't playtest.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:34 pm
I know there is some discussion going on in regards to London, but I don't think that that alone should hold back FF. 
Specifically in regards to London, I'm also on the side that it is broken, as in its current state, London is based around luck of the draw, rather than strategy.
--Andy
Specifically in regards to London, I'm also on the side that it is broken, as in its current state, London is based around luck of the draw, rather than strategy.
--Andy
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:21 pm
The London conundrum is interesting... I appreciate the attempt to do something entirely new, and this would indeed be new, but I have two problems with it:
1. The mapmaker won't stand behind it. Saying "I'll change it if it doesn't work" is a weak argument for leaving it in. Qwert, if you like it you should fight for it. if you don't care then you should listen to the voices of the foundry.
2. The argument that it reflects what happened to Britain historically. i love historical accuracy in maps, but no map will play out the way history played out - if it did this wouldn't be much of a game. To be historically accurate you'd have to allow for the possibility that Britain could indeed be invaded by the Germans. In fact, Hitler even announced his intentions to do so on July 16, 1940...
"As England, in spite of the hopelessness of her military position, has so far shown herself unwilling to come to any compromise, I have decided to begin to prepare for, and if necessary to carry out, an invasion of England... and if necessary the island will be occupied."
I'm not entirely opposed to the current bombard-only lay-out, as weird as it is. I am afraid that once somebody controls the bonus it will be next to impossible to get them out because when you hit one border it will be occupied by a single neutral army - no breaking the bonus and moving in. To make this work, you have to make it both hard to get out and expand and easy to bombard. Since we're talking about bombardment of the UK by german planes/rockets, maybe there should be more territories that can bombard? Perhaps a few airport or V1 rocket icons across germany, and any airport can bomb the UK?
Oh, and I'd lose the star in London... the player that gets the luck of the draw there shouldn't have access to TWO bonuses that nobody else gets. Limit the value.
1. The mapmaker won't stand behind it. Saying "I'll change it if it doesn't work" is a weak argument for leaving it in. Qwert, if you like it you should fight for it. if you don't care then you should listen to the voices of the foundry.
2. The argument that it reflects what happened to Britain historically. i love historical accuracy in maps, but no map will play out the way history played out - if it did this wouldn't be much of a game. To be historically accurate you'd have to allow for the possibility that Britain could indeed be invaded by the Germans. In fact, Hitler even announced his intentions to do so on July 16, 1940...
"As England, in spite of the hopelessness of her military position, has so far shown herself unwilling to come to any compromise, I have decided to begin to prepare for, and if necessary to carry out, an invasion of England... and if necessary the island will be occupied."
I'm not entirely opposed to the current bombard-only lay-out, as weird as it is. I am afraid that once somebody controls the bonus it will be next to impossible to get them out because when you hit one border it will be occupied by a single neutral army - no breaking the bonus and moving in. To make this work, you have to make it both hard to get out and expand and easy to bombard. Since we're talking about bombardment of the UK by german planes/rockets, maybe there should be more territories that can bombard? Perhaps a few airport or V1 rocket icons across germany, and any airport can bomb the UK?
Oh, and I'd lose the star in London... the player that gets the luck of the draw there shouldn't have access to TWO bonuses that nobody else gets. Limit the value.
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:52 pm
I really do like this map but like tons of people have pointed out england is the only problem and saying that i will be fixed after play testing is about the worst excuse
maybe allow one of the major cities to 'Air Drop' into london or something like that
i really don't know what the solution could be but not allowing london to be taken over really is pointless
maybe allow one of the major cities to 'Air Drop' into london or something like that
i really don't know what the solution could be but not allowing london to be taken over really is pointless
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:21 am
gratz qwert with your ff
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:47 am
Well, I guess I could propose an argument for change.
Yes, historically the push from Marshall Park to Normandy was one way, the allied attack was successful, ect.
Isn't it realistically possible that we could have had bad intelligence, and in an alternate version of history the Germans were overly prepared, pushed back the attack, and then reversed it resulting in an invasion of Britain?
Changing the one way attack route to a two way one would open players to playing this alternate version of events and solve the 'London Problem'.
All that being said, I am in the camp, possibly a camp that only qwert and I live in for all I know, that this doesn't need to change. I believe that a lot of risk is luck and dealing with what you are dealt compared to what others are and then turning bad circumstances into a victory.
The idea that the map is broken because three territories could be exclusive and even taken out of play completely isn't convincing to me. People that feel otherwise have apparently never played Risk 2210 and had a continent blocked off due to radiated territory placement. Granted risk 2210 had cards and other factors that could counter the inherent advantages and disadvantages of this. This map has the bombardments to counter it.
I guess what we have on our hands is a fight between two unprovable ideas. You can't really prove it is broken, we can't prove that it isn't. If qwert is willing to fight for his idea then who knows how long this process may take. I'm okay with waiting if the end result is he doesn't have to change his plan for Britain.
If the only possible end result is the community insists on forcing him to change it, then I suggest the two way border addition between Marshall Park and Normandy now to save us a lot of headache.
Yes, historically the push from Marshall Park to Normandy was one way, the allied attack was successful, ect.
Isn't it realistically possible that we could have had bad intelligence, and in an alternate version of history the Germans were overly prepared, pushed back the attack, and then reversed it resulting in an invasion of Britain?
Changing the one way attack route to a two way one would open players to playing this alternate version of events and solve the 'London Problem'.
All that being said, I am in the camp, possibly a camp that only qwert and I live in for all I know, that this doesn't need to change. I believe that a lot of risk is luck and dealing with what you are dealt compared to what others are and then turning bad circumstances into a victory.
The idea that the map is broken because three territories could be exclusive and even taken out of play completely isn't convincing to me. People that feel otherwise have apparently never played Risk 2210 and had a continent blocked off due to radiated territory placement. Granted risk 2210 had cards and other factors that could counter the inherent advantages and disadvantages of this. This map has the bombardments to counter it.
I guess what we have on our hands is a fight between two unprovable ideas. You can't really prove it is broken, we can't prove that it isn't. If qwert is willing to fight for his idea then who knows how long this process may take. I'm okay with waiting if the end result is he doesn't have to change his plan for Britain.
If the only possible end result is the community insists on forcing him to change it, then I suggest the two way border addition between Marshall Park and Normandy now to save us a lot of headache.
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:53 pm
I'm in the camp with Coleman and qwert Britain should be left as is
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:17 pm
I'll join Coleman and Qwert too.
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:31 pm
you can only get siegfried defence if you r deployed on one of those 3 contries?
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:53 pm
Mountains look pretty bad. I suggest you make a defense instead.
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:58 pm
oaktown wrote:Oh, and I'd lose the star in London... the player that gets the luck of the draw there shouldn't have access to TWO bonuses that nobody else gets. Limit the value.
Basically the biggest reason I'm against it. A player who is dropped on the island suddenly has greater potential troop bonus than anybody else in the game. That is imbalanced, and I don't care if the entire rest of the map has the ability to bombard the island to counter it.
I don't mean to sound too negative. I didn't congratulate qwert on his FF. The rest of the map is really deserving of FF and ready to play.
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:26 pm
Coleman Posted: 11 Oct 2007 11:47 Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I guess I could propose an argument for change.
Yes, historically the push from Marshall Park to Normandy was one way, the allied attack was successful, ect.
Isn't it realistically possible that we could have had bad intelligence, and in an alternate version of history the Germans were overly prepared, pushed back the attack, and then reversed it resulting in an invasion of Britain?
Changing the one way attack route to a two way one would open players to playing this alternate version of events and solve the 'London Problem'.
All that being said, I am in the camp, possibly a camp that only qwert and I live in for all I know, that this doesn't need to change. I believe that a lot of risk is luck and dealing with what you are dealt compared to what others are and then turning bad circumstances into a victory.
The idea that the map is broken because three territories could be exclusive and even taken out of play completely isn't convincing to me. People that feel otherwise have apparently never played Risk 2210 and had a continent blocked off due to radiated territory placement. Granted risk 2210 had cards and other factors that could counter the inherent advantages and disadvantages of this. This map has the bombardments to counter it.
I guess what we have on our hands is a fight between two unprovable ideas. You can't really prove it is broken, we can't prove that it isn't. If qwert is willing to fight for his idea then who knows how long this process may take. I'm okay with waiting if the end result is he doesn't have to change his plan for Britain.
If the only possible end result is the community insists on forcing him to change it, then I suggest the two way border addition between Marshall Park and Normandy now to save us a lot of headache.
Good point,These can be alternative solution if present solution not working,and i only must change one thing-put arrows from normandy to Marshall Park.I realy want to these idea work,only we must give chance,to se how work.If i put to britain be attacabile,then bombardment option dont need for these map.
BeakerWMA Posted: 11 Oct 2007 00:53 Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When does test play occur? maybe that would tell the tale of how Britain will impact the gameplay.
I thinking that Lack can alove only 10-15 games (like private games)to some people play,and all others can se how these work.
unriggable Posted: 11 Oct 2007 19:53 Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mountains look pretty bad. I suggest you make a defense instead.
Well if these can solve these issue i will change to defence barriers.
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:50 pm
i remember when this was in map ideas, its gone a long ways since then and looks great
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:28 am
qwert wrote:Good point,These can be alternative solution if present solution not working,and i only must change one thing-put arrows from normandy to Marshall Park.I realy want to these idea work,only we must give chance,to se how work.If i put to britain be attacabile,then bombardment option dont need for these map.
Qwert, I really would like to see this work, but don't do it half-assed. You're setting this up to be a failure, because what is going to happen is it will go live, people will complain, and you'll be faced with having to change this because you have said repeatedly that you would.
I think this could be a good idea, but if a player is lucky enough to get dropped there he should have to earn the bonus. Some possible changes you could consider:
1. Add more territories to Britain. This would make it both harder to take over and would allow more players to start there.
2. Decrease the Britain bonus. +3 for holding 3 territories is high for any map, let alone this situation in which there's no threat of invasion by another player... in a way that's zero borders. Italy has six territories and two borders and it only gets +2?
3. Allow more territories to bombard the British territories. Earlier I'd suggested placing airfield or rocket sites across Europe which could bombard. With only three threat countries, all you'd have to do is hold one of them and you're assured to never lose Britain.
4. Allow the sites that can bombard to bombard ALL of the British territories, not just one each. Right now it will take a coordinated attack by potentially three enemies from three different territories in two different continents to knock somebody out of there, since nobody can move in.
5. Lose the star in London. Right now whoever drops there has access to two bonuses that nobody else can get, which is a huge advantage since there's only seven bonuses on the map.
In short, do something to lessen the advantage and you might be able to convince people. Leave it as is and you'll be changing the map a month after it's quenched.
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:52 am
Defending Britain again...
I think +3 is right because it can be removed from play entirely via the bombardments, and it has limited access to the rest of the map. It is not inconceivable that players would try to attempt this even if multiple players owned each bombardment site.
I am also in favor of the star bonus being only available for the lucky/unlucky Britain player.
That said, with the current arguing and debating I'd rather just have Marshal and Normandy be a two way attack route so that the map is released in the near future. It's unfortunate people can't be more open minded about this.
I think +3 is right because it can be removed from play entirely via the bombardments, and it has limited access to the rest of the map. It is not inconceivable that players would try to attempt this even if multiple players owned each bombardment site.
I am also in favor of the star bonus being only available for the lucky/unlucky Britain player.
That said, with the current arguing and debating I'd rather just have Marshal and Normandy be a two way attack route so that the map is released in the near future. It's unfortunate people can't be more open minded about this.
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:20 am
i reakon leave it - at least give it a shot anyway
{having britain as the launching pad for contiuned invasions - as they'd have to keep their armies up there to hold it - would be a good following of the history - however, if anything had to be changed, i'd just put another +1 on germany, i.e. equal historical force, and itally, tucked away there down in the corner could maybe be +1 for a little more enticement}
Otherwise, again, ignore the {}, and count this as a vote in support of leaving it.
{having britain as the launching pad for contiuned invasions - as they'd have to keep their armies up there to hold it - would be a good following of the history - however, if anything had to be changed, i'd just put another +1 on germany, i.e. equal historical force, and itally, tucked away there down in the corner could maybe be +1 for a little more enticement}
Otherwise, again, ignore the {}, and count this as a vote in support of leaving it.
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:58 am
Coleman wrote:Defending Britain again... with the current arguing and debating I'd rather just have Marshal and Normandy be a two way attack route so that the map is released in the near future. It's unfortunate people can't be more open minded about this.
It's equally unfortunate that the people who defending the one-way attack routes are also saying it should be eliminated.
I am in support of the idea, and I don't think it should be removed; I think it should be improved upon. Right now I see the britain situation as imperfect - we can either make a fix now as asl80 and I have suggested, eliminate it now as Coleman has suggested, or put out an imperfect product and recall it later as Qwert has suggested. Why not just fix it now?