Conquer Club

Victor Sullivan wrote:Now the discussion comes to a screeching halt Let's see, where were we...? I think the main issue was the starting deploys, as EvilD didn't seem to think my original idea would work. Just to refresh your memory, my idea was to have each player start out with a river territory then have the cities dealt out asper usual. Now, EvilD seemed to think starting out with Gilgamesh would be much different from starting with Ubaid, making things unbalanced. I believe his point has some validity and I think some of that can be resolved if each starting river territory position was paired with a city from a different region. Thoughts?

-Sully

theBastard wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:Now the discussion comes to a screeching halt Let's see, where were we...? I think the main issue was the starting deploys, as EvilD didn't seem to think my original idea would work. Just to refresh your memory, my idea was to have each player start out with a river territory then have the cities dealt out asper usual. Now, EvilD seemed to think starting out with Gilgamesh would be much different from starting with Ubaid, making things unbalanced. I believe his point has some validity and I think some of that can be resolved if each starting river territory position was paired with a city from a different region. Thoughts?

-Sully

hm, there are 8 regions and 16 cities. fine for 8 players game, but what if the map will be played by 6 for example?

I like idea to add each player 1 region and 2 cities outside of player´s region.

Evil DIMwit wrote:I don't know if there's a way to guarantee each player starts with two cities outside of their region, unless you code every territory into a starting position, so that every game starts with the same territory ownership configuration.

And that's just for 8 players. For 4- players, players would get multiple starting positions, so they still have a chance of starting with a bonus.

theBastard wrote:yes, territories could start as neutral.
but,
1, in the legend is mentioned "fertile" and "swamp" land. I can not see any difference on the map...

theBastard wrote:2, the bonus for town with river territory looks a little flint-hearted

Victor Sullivan wrote:

theBastard wrote:yes, territories could start as neutral.
but,
1, in the legend is mentioned "fertile" and "swamp" land. I can not see any difference on the map...

There is no difference, they both refer to the land territories.

isaiah40 wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

theBastard wrote:yes, territories could start as neutral.
but,
1, in the legend is mentioned "fertile" and "swamp" land. I can not see any difference on the map...

There is no difference, they both refer to the land territories.

Well I would suggest one of two things: 1 - Remove the reference to swamp and fertile land or 2 - add in some fertile and swamp land.

Victor Sullivan wrote:2. How would you suggest I go about doing that? I am not necessarily against the idea, I am just curious how I would go about executing that.

isaiah40 wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:2. How would you suggest I go about doing that? I am not necessarily against the idea, I am just curious how I would go about executing that.

Well on most maps, (though I don't know how it would fit in with the theme) you can put thin blue lines to denote a swamp.

Victor Sullivan wrote: There is no difference, they both refer to the land territories.

Victor Sullivan wrote: What do you mean, exactly?

MarshalNey wrote:At the request of the honorable Sully, this map has been put on hold.

Marshal Ney