Conquer Club

yes, I also think the photoshop needs restart...

natty_dread wrote:... plus it will be hard to create any kind of balance with that many overlapping bonus schemes.

you mean balance for starting positions? if, yes I do not think it will be hard to find good set up. particularly, when I look at some maps which I played - the starting positions were not so fair...

So... how are you planning to do starting positions? Will all castles/towns/etc. start neutral? They probably should since they have autodeploys. Since the land areas don't give any bonus (I think) you should only use them as starting territories.

my idea about starting positions looks something as this: (land, settlements without army numbers are neutral) but, your idea to do "land" as starting positions looks interesting. and the truth is that I never though about this
hm, when I am thinking about this, it seems better and better...

The problem with the positions you posted is that all the settlements have different bonus values. So how would you ensure that everyone starts with the same bonus in the start? One player could start with 6 castles, while another starts with 6 towns, so the one with the castles would have a huge advantage from the start and would probably win. You don't want to make a map where the outcome is decided by the drop.

Having all settlements start as neutrals is a good plan.

Alternatively, you can have towns (the ones with smallest bonus) coded as starting positions so everyone gets an equal amount of them (leftovers will be neutrals), then the land territories start as normal territories so everyone gets an equal amount of them too. The cities and towns would start as neutrals. The only problem with this would be the religion bonus, so you would probably have to do it so that the towns would not have any religion bonuses...

Either way, you have to do it so that everyone starts with an equal bonus at the start, everyone must have equal opportunities to win. Otherwise there won't be much point in playing the map...

natty_dread wrote:The problem with the positions you posted is that all the settlements have different bonus values. So how would you ensure that everyone starts with the same bonus in the start? One player could start with 6 castles, while another starts with 6 towns, so the one with the castles would have a huge advantage from the start and would probably win. You don't want to make a map where the outcome is decided by the drop.

when you look at the map, you can see that everybody have the same numbers of castle/city/town. only a little problem is with settlements marked by religious icons - some players have from start two icons with the same colour. but this is not hard to change.

natty_dread wrote: Having all settlements start as neutrals is a good plan.

I like this idea...

natty_dread wrote: Alternatively, you can have towns (the ones with smallest bonus) coded as starting positions so everyone gets an equal amount of them (leftovers will be neutrals), then the land territories start as normal territories so everyone gets an equal amount of them too. The cities and towns would start as neutrals. The only problem with this would be the religion bonus, so you would probably have to do it so that the towns would not have any religion bonuses...

this is also one possibility. and not bad. but the normal territories/land are not the same. from one you can attack only one settlement, from other two/three/ four. so this need also good balancing.

natty_dread wrote: Either way, you have to do it so that everyone starts with an equal bonus at the start, everyone must have equal opportunities to win. Otherwise there won't be much point in playing the map...

this map is not for all gameplay types, I´m afraid...

this map is not for all gameplay types, I´m afraid...

Which gameplay types is it for? You should figure out what settings it is likely to be played on most, then balance the map for those settings. The map however needs to be playable on all settings, so that it will be possible to play on any settings, even though some settings could work less than optimally for the map.

when you look at the map, you can see that everybody have the same numbers of castle/city/town.

Programming it this way is problematic. There are some limitations in the game engine. The only way to do it would be to have static starting positions, ie. each player always has one of a certain set of territories, which would be difficult to balance IMO...

I'd say the best way is to make castles and cities neutral, divide the towns equally to players, and let the land territories be distributed randomly. But then you shouldn't have any religion bonuses in towns, or have those towns also start neutral.

natty_dread wrote:Having all settlements start as neutrals is a good plan.

If I understand the legend correctly (again, this was hidden a bit and I may be misunderstanding) then there is no territory bonus at all.

Sooo, if all of the settlements were neutral, a player could very likely start with zero troops for income (or 1 troop, not sure about the minimum). Either way, not a good way to start.

A better idea might be to make all of the castles neutral, and some of the cities as starting positions and the rest of the cities neutral. Then keep the towns as open deployment perhaps? Not sure, really, I'll have to look at the map more.

You always get at least 1 troop. No matter if your bonus is 0 or -10, you still get 1 troop.

Besides the territory bonus could be made such that you always get 3 troops no matter how many territories you own. Like in the Jamaica map.

I think however that the best course of action would be my second suggestion, where towns are coded as starting positions (leftovers neutral), cities, castles & towns with religion bonus neutrals, and the rest normal. This way everyone gets the same amount of towns, and the same amount of land areas.

the large map is looking very good!

have you tested the small one yet?

Kabanellas wrote:the large map is looking very good!

have you tested the small one yet?

I have not done any work on this map lately. I am waiting for it to clear GP. Once it hits the Graphics Workshop, I will get back on it.

porkenbeans wrote:For the longest time I was intimidated to play Waterloo. It just seemed too complicated, and hurt my eyes a bit as well.
But then one day I was forced to play it in a turny. Well, I had to bore down and study the map in detail. To my surprise it was NOT really as complicated as I thought, and in fact was very easy to understand.

This map is much like Waterloo in some respects. It looks very complicated upon first glance, but after you study it, it becomes very clear if you just put your mind to it. This is certainly NOT a Doodle board, so it will require some serious study. I think that you will be able to figure it out rather quickly. It does look very intimidating, but it is NOT that complicated as you first think.

Bullshit.

Waterloo is instantly obvious what is going on... this is not...

There is no likeness whatsoever between this map and Waterloo.

C.

yeti_c wrote:
Bullshit.

Waterloo is instantly obvious what is going on... this is not...

There is no likeness whatsoever between this map and Waterloo.

C.

I do not know Waterloo map, but yeti, there are more opinions as has porkenbeans that no everything is obvious in Waterloo...

and, with respect to Waterloo map, I´m happy that Reconquista is different. it was my idea to do something unique.

yeti_c wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:For the longest time I was intimidated to play Waterloo. It just seemed too complicated, and hurt my eyes a bit as well.
But then one day I was forced to play it in a turny. Well, I had to bore down and study the map in detail. To my surprise it was NOT really as complicated as I thought, and in fact was very easy to understand.

This map is much like Waterloo in some respects. It looks very complicated upon first glance, but after you study it, it becomes very clear if you just put your mind to it. This is certainly NOT a Doodle board, so it will require some serious study. I think that you will be able to figure it out rather quickly. It does look very intimidating, but it is NOT that complicated as you first think.

Bullshit.

Waterloo is instantly obvious what is going on... this is not...

There is no likeness whatsoever between this map and Waterloo.

C.

Yeti, why don't you learn to read more carefully.
I did NOT say that this map is anything like Waterloo except in one respect. And that is, that when you first look at it, it seems very complicated. But once you study it, it turns out that it is not as complicated as it first appears.

I picked Waterloo for this comparison because (like it, or not) it IS one, if not the most complicated "looking" maps. But looks can be deceiving, Reconquista is no more complicated than Waterloo. If you spent more than a few seconds studying it, you would see that.

porkenbeans wrote:Yeti, why don't you learn to read more carefully.
I did NOT say that this map is anything like Waterloo except in one respect. And that is, that when you first look at it, it seems very complicated. But once you study it, it turns out that it is not as complicated as it first appears.

I picked Waterloo for this comparison because (like it, or not) it IS one, if not the most complicated "looking" maps. But looks can be deceiving, Reconquista is no more complicated than Waterloo. If you spent more than a few seconds studying it, you would see that.

It is you who should read better... I answered your point that you again try to pander out here as complete and utter bullshit...

At first look - Waterloo is easily understandable... at first look of this map it isn't... that was your point - and it's bollocks...

Now read that properly and reply with something meaningful.

C.

This is the first time I've had a proper look at this map, and it is very difficult to get a clear understanding of what is going on. I note the comparison between Waterloo in terms of complexity, although would argue that the essence of Waterloo is a lot simpler (ie there are two 'non-standard' attack-types, indicated with a clear and simple symbol) even though the attack/fortification of artillery can cause confusion. On the other hand, my concern with this map is that it is the bonus groupings which are incredibly confusing; I cannot see any easy way to tell whether or not my opponent has a bonus (without using a non-standard plug-in such as BOB).

MarshalNey (I believe) summarised my feelings when he stated that there is just too much going on, and that all the symbols compete for attention.

In addition to the confusion about bonus structures (you'll also need to find a simple way of ensuring that a minimal bonus is given out on the drop), there are several places where I have no idea where territory borders go, due to the overlapping symbols (which would look so much better without any bevel on them at all - this is supposed to be a hand-drawn map after all).

Yes, the map looks good, but in its current state it is not fit for purpose in terms of a conquerclub game board.

I would urge you to seriously consider simplifying the gameplay, so that you can declutter the map, thereby enhancing the user experience.

the bonuses need any changes, or maybe better explaintation in legends... make them more simple?
hm, but the truth is that there are not so much bonuses: the auto-deployed units are clear I think. the shield bonuses are also clear, only what is needed is to explain that they are not cummulative...
the religious bonuses looks, for me, looks fine.

about borders, I think plastic settlements was not good idea. they looks great, but have not border. what about this one (no map, only settlements and borders)?

Spoiler

Click image to enlarge.

Perhaps you should consider getting rid of the religious icons bonus and factoring religion into the map some other way.

You could throw a mosque or cathedral on the map, giving religious fervor to your armies. Cathedral + each Christian town = + 1. Mosque plus every Muslim town = +1.

yeti_c wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:Yeti, why don't you learn to read more carefully.
I did NOT say that this map is anything like Waterloo except in one respect. And that is, that when you first look at it, it seems very complicated. But once you study it, it turns out that it is not as complicated as it first appears.

I picked Waterloo for this comparison because (like it, or not) it IS one, if not the most complicated "looking" maps. But looks can be deceiving, Reconquista is no more complicated than Waterloo. If you spent more than a few seconds studying it, you would see that.

It is you who should read better... I answered your point that you again try to pander out here as complete and utter bullshit...

At first look - Waterloo is easily understandable... at first look of this map it isn't... that was your point - and it's bollocks...

Now read that properly and reply with something meaningful.

C.

At first glance waterloo is anything but simple... not sure where you get this simple idea and waterloo, but you must be sorely mistaken.

Industrial Helix wrote:Perhaps you should consider getting rid of the religious icons bonus and factoring religion into the map some other way.

You could throw a mosque or cathedral on the map, giving religious fervor to your armies. Cathedral + each Christian town = + 1. Mosque plus every Muslim town = +1.

hm, but these religious icons represent also (maybe more) areas which were conqured by christian kingdoms, Portugal western part, Castilia-Leon central part and Aragon eastern part.

what about to add religious icons not for settlements but for territories?

That might work. To be honest, I find all these icons to be difficult to read and see the pattern in.

What if you used color shades to indicate whether a country is Islamic or Christian? Say the souther areas are shades of Blue and Christian shades of Red.

Industrial Helix wrote:That might work. To be honest, I find all these icons to be difficult to read and see the pattern in.

What if you used color shades to indicate whether a country is Islamic or Christian? Say the souther areas are shades of Blue and Christian shades of Red.

Yes, I believe you are right. I have been working on a version that has a whole different Gameplay. I do appreciate this map as it is, but perhaps it IS too complicated for some. I have tried to make it simpler, and still retain its flavor. I should have it up today.

Well, its not necessarily an issue of complicated gameplay as it is an issue of clarity. Symbols convey less clarity than colored regions.... Think back to maps of the European Empires, French didn't stick a symbol next to Hue and Algiers, they colored the whole country in to make it clear it was their Empire.

Bruceswar wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:Yeti, why don't you learn to read more carefully.
I did NOT say that this map is anything like Waterloo except in one respect. And that is, that when you first look at it, it seems very complicated. But once you study it, it turns out that it is not as complicated as it first appears.

I picked Waterloo for this comparison because (like it, or not) it IS one, if not the most complicated "looking" maps. But looks can be deceiving, Reconquista is no more complicated than Waterloo. If you spent more than a few seconds studying it, you would see that.

It is you who should read better... I answered your point that you again try to pander out here as complete and utter bullshit...

At first look - Waterloo is easily understandable... at first look of this map it isn't... that was your point - and it's bollocks...

Now read that properly and reply with something meaningful.

C.

At first glance waterloo is anything but simple... not sure where you get this simple idea and waterloo, but you must be sorely mistaken.

I didn't say simple - yet another person that needs to learn how to read?!

C.

@yeti,
Easily understandable = simple, uncomplicated, less detailed, etc...

Learning how to read, starts with the understanding of what words mean.
yeti I know that you are not illiterate, so why are you spamming this thread ?
It seems lately that every time I turn around, you are interjecting yourself with a belligerent attitude in my projects. I really do not mind your input, if it is meant in a helpful manner, but I am not perceiving it that way at all.

yeti_c wrote:Bullshit.

Waterloo is instantly obvious what is going on... this is not...

There is no likeness whatsoever between this map and Waterloo.

C.

I believe I talked about this point as well, and the analogy involved the two maps' relative complexity. The first time I played it, Waterloo wasn't "instantly obvious" to me in terms of gameplay, and I believe I can humbly say that I'm not a dumb cookie. I think perhaps you're talking from a perspective that has played that map so much that you no longer recognize its initial learning curve. Either that, or you're exaggerating for effect.

Either way, the Waterloo comparison was for illustrative purposes only, and not meant to equate the two in any way. The point pokenbeans was trying to make (which I hope I contructively criticized in my reply) was that a high learning curve does not necessarily make for a bad map.

......
Out of curiosity, is it possible that you guys would consider using a colored background instead of the shields? I don't know that any good reason has been put forward for not using the traditional colors to indicate region bonuses, and it would immesely help in understanding this map.