Conquer Club

You can't attack diagonally?

Works for me... that would change the number of borders for cyan, so its bonus would have to increase:

Since the killer neutrals are not part of the bonuses, you should colour them something else than the bonus colour. White would look good.

Ok.

natty_dread wrote:You can't attack diagonally?

Nope. I think that would open it up too much. Or we could add in some 6's and then make it possible to attack diagonally. I don't know, I kinda like it without diagonal attacks. You add in some 6's, now you only need 5 squares for each region. And don't forget, some regular neutral armies are gonna get placed too whenever there's not an evenly divisible number of players.

I'm not exactly digging the white. Maybe color the killer squares a very light version of their bonus colors.

Also, one of the open territories should be coded a regular neutral in the XML so that in 2- and 3- player games players don't start with 18 territories each which would give the first player a significant advantage.

Ok.. also I realized that some of the rows and columns are much easier to hold, so I added in a bonus structure for them.

Wouldn't it be so much better if either the rows or columns had numbers instead of letters so you can find coordinates easier?

Of course, that's what I meant to do.

Hm, how about this: Draw a colored line along along the middle of each row and column, and indicate with that color how much of a bonus that row/column gets. That way it'll be easier to discern visually and players won't have to look back at the legend all the time.

I don't think we want to get quite so busy with the color scheme.. how about just all the same color dotted lines with arrows at the end, like brown?

(It'll take me awhile to put them all in.)

Oh, I like the arrow. You may want to try different colors just to see how it looks, but this is pretty cool.

Ok here we go..

You should also state in the legend that the killer neutrals do not belong in the row/column bonuses.

Ok I changed the wording a bit.

What is a killer nuetral?

rockandrull wrote:What is a killer nuetral?

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 66&t=23382

"If you want you can make these neutrals come back after someone takes the territory. We call these killer neutrals, which revert to neutral at the beginning of the occupying players turn."

So, if someone took over a territory which had 7 neutral armies on it, then however many armies they leave on that territory (or however many armies anyone else leaves on the territory, if they take it over from the first player) will disappear at the beginning of their next turn and be replaced with 7 neutral armies. I've never played with killer neutrals, so I'm just making assumptions here based on the way it's written in the tutorial. Perhaps someone with more experience could confirm this.

What makes this "Sudoku"? To me it looks like 3x3x3 squares with killer neutrals for some reason. As someone else said, we already have Conquer-4. Is this not Conquer-9?

I also do not understand the bonus structure. There is no difference in the rows/columns/squares, so why are the bonuses different?

shakeycat wrote:What makes this "Sudoku"? To me it looks like 3x3x3 squares with killer neutrals for some reason. As someone else said, we already have Conquer-4. Is this not Conquer-9?

I also do not understand the bonus structure. There is no difference in the rows/columns/squares, so why are the bonuses different?

What makes it Sudoku is the placement of the killer neutrals which are placed in a Sudoku-style pattern, the fact that there are nine sections like Sudoku, and the object of completing either a mini-square or a full row or column. I've looked at Conquer-4, there is some similarity but IMO there is PLENTY of difference to the gameplay. In Conquer-4, diagonal moves are allowed; there are no unique sections for bonuses; and the play is much more open since there are no barriers like the ones the killer neutrals provide.

Also, there is some difference in the rows/columns/squares in the Sudoku game. If you look at squares which are not blocked by killer neutrals as being the "borders", then some of the squares, columns and rows have fewer "borders" and are therefore easier to hold, at least during the early stages of the game, as the remaining borders are blocked by killer neutrals which are likely to be more difficult to breach.

If people don't like the killer neutral idea, I'm more than happy to just change the squares which currently hold killer neutrals into actual barrier squares which cannot be attacked or occupied by any player. However, I prefer the killer neutrals because it helps with the Sudoku theme and it adds a new dimension, as the difficulty breaching regions changes as the game progresses and people accumulate more armies.

There's no need to state that the object is to hold all of the non-killer-neutral territories... that's pretty much a given in any game unless it's Assassin.

Interesting 'puzzle game' map. I've never really done Sudoku, but the map is less open than Conquer 4 which already seems an improvement to my mind.

This map look good in terms of idea and is in need of gameplay refinement. This map belongs in the gameplay workshop!

So, I don't know - it seems really busy with all the horizontal and vertical bonuses. Do we like them or just want to have bonuses for regions only? Or maybe just want to add a +1 or +2 for any row or column? Also, +5 bonus seems excessive for the cyan square.

I am personally happy with the bonus scheme you just listed (+2 for any row/column), but would vote strongly against taking out the row/column bonus completely as it sort of defines the Sudoku theme as I understand it. Plus, it gives options without making the map hard to understand.

I don't think the map looks cluttered at all. It's quite straightforward.

My only displeasure is at the values used for the killer neutrals... you know in practice that most players will simply attack around them and treat them as barriers, yes? Anyway, I have a long-standing beef with high neutrals in maps, so I'm probably biased.

My only displeasure is at the values used for the killer neutrals... you know in practice that most players will simply attack around them and treat them as barriers, yes? Anyway, I have a long-standing beef with high neutrals in maps, so I'm probably biased.

Yes, that's really the point - without any barriers at all this map would be too open. And it adds an interesting dimension because the barriers can be breached in later stages of the game when people have larger armies - however, those armies would have to be extremely large to even risk it since if you fail, you haven't at least succeeded in beating down your opponent some. In practice, most of the time those high neutrals will be used as barriers and that's the way I wanted it to be.

Here's one example where players might be tempted to breach the neutral barriers:
In this example, cyan might be tempted to kill his own killer neutrals (7) in the green section to get through to the red section. After all, they don't count against his bonus and they'll come back. Green might be tempted to kill his own killer neutrals (7) in the yellow section to get through to the blue section.

Then again, they may not. Perhaps it would be better to make them all regular neutrals?

I really like the killer neutrals -- they're pretty much what makes this map. They might work better if reduced to 4/5/6. Or even 3/6/9, to make some spots much more permeable than others.