Indeedy.The Bison King wrote:And we are Live!
Well done
Moderator: Cartographers
Indeedy.The Bison King wrote:And we are Live!

Regions that lose 1 troop per turn (or any specific number of troops per turn) stop when you have only one troop left. They do not revert to neutral. Regions which revert to neutral at the start of the turn of the player holding them ("killer neutrals") do exactly that: no matter how many troops you leave on them, they revert to their starting neutral value when you start your turn. They do not revert to the starting neutral value unless a player holds them: if someone weakens them without taking them, they stay weak.william.paul wrote:Forgive me if this has been brought up in the previous 31 pages, but I was a little confused about the Celtic Sea Territory.
Some maps that have a 'loose 1 per turn territory' specify that it either goes down to 1 or will revert to neutral 1 id you only have 1 army there. After playing it, I thought that adding in that it it only reduces your forces to 1 would clarify things.
I want to keep Kernow +2, because I think +1 is too small for it being in the crossroads of the map. I need to leave at least 1 neutral in the bonus to keep people from dropping it right off the bat. Ynsyek Syllen seems like an obvious choice because even if someone doesn't go for the bonus it will soon be broken by people traveling from on end of the map to another. Maybe Stonehenge could be dropped to only having 2 neutrals but I don't think that will make much of a difference and I think that would make it too easy to score that +1 auto deploy.Commander62890 wrote:Hello there!
Does it occur to you that the Kernow bonus is a little too good, being 2 territories for +2 and being protected by neutrals?
In two teams games, my opponents dropped both territories in Kernow, and now they will surely take and hold it.
There are 2 neutrals to go through to get to Kernow:
1) Stonehenge, of course, is worthless as a bonus in a team game; And as a neutral 3, it is brutal to go through in order to break Kernow
2) Ynysek Syllan is a bit better, being a neutral 2.
Either way, the team that does not take Kernow is pretty much fucked
Changing it to +1 would be okay, but it will still be unbalanced. The only way to balance it is to allow Kernow to be attacked without having to go through neutrals. Perhaps change Ynysek Syllan to a regular territory?
By the way, I imagine this issue will be the same with 1v1s, unless a territory in Kernow is dropped neutral
The Bison King wrote: I want to keep Kernow +2, because I think +1 is too small for it being in the crossroads of the map. I need to leave at least 1 neutral in the bonus to keep people from dropping it right off the bat. Ynsyek Syllen seems like an obvious choice because even if someone doesn't go for the bonus it will soon be broken by people traveling from on end of the map to another. Maybe Stonehenge could be dropped to only having 2 neutrals but I don't think that will make much of a difference and I think that would make it too easy to score that +1 auto deploy.
i say get the permission or change it.The Bison King wrote:Ruh-Roh! Hmm I suppose I can ask permission. Looking on the site it has a section for non-commercial use. She might ok it, I'm not really sure. Worst case scenario I just change it to something else. What do you think?
TERMS OF USE
For non-commercial use only, for internet illustration, with appropriate credit accompanying link "Original design by Jen Delyth ©1990" and/or http://www.kelticdesigns.com next to design as shown.
Copy and paste the image into your web page (CTRL click or ALT click) WITH CLEAR CREDIT and EMEDDED LINK as provided. You do not need to request permission to use these as links to us, but if you let us know, we can return the favor. Please make sure you link back to us at http://www.kelticdesigns.com
I'll contact her tomorrow. A couple questions I need to know first.thenobodies80 wrote:i say get the permission or change it.The Bison King wrote:Ruh-Roh! Hmm I suppose I can ask permission. Looking on the site it has a section for non-commercial use. She might ok it, I'm not really sure. Worst case scenario I just change it to something else. What do you think?
The terms of use says it can be used only for non commercial use and used only as link that points back to the owner site. You can't use it in any other way without owner permission.
TERMS OF USE
For non-commercial use only, for internet illustration, with appropriate credit accompanying link "Original design by Jen Delyth ©1990" and/or http://www.kelticdesigns.com next to design as shown.
Copy and paste the image into your web page (CTRL click or ALT click) WITH CLEAR CREDIT and EMEDDED LINK as provided. You do not need to request permission to use these as links to us, but if you let us know, we can return the favor. Please make sure you link back to us at http://www.kelticdesigns.com
If you make contact, it will be in your own capacity as an artist who has created a map image that has recently been used on CC. Your use of the image is not commercial (ie you have not been paid and it does not generate an income for you), although I guess that in some shape or form it may help to generate income for CC?The Bison King wrote:I'll contact her tomorrow. A couple questions I need to know first.
When I'm talking to her an I representing myself, or the Conquer Club as a whole?
and
Does this in anyway count as commercial use by being on this site?

Sorry I'm not changing that.MNDuke wrote:I didn't feel like sorting through 31 pages, so forgive me if this has been brought up. I have played this map numerous times and think that the Alba bonus is too easily defended with Isle of Man starting out as a neutral. If the drop is bad, a game can be decided fairly quickly similar to Aus on Classic. I'd like to see Isle of Man not be worth +1 for holding it and the starting neutral be removed. In doing this, it would neutralize the Alba bonus from being so hard to take. As it stands it's too easily defended with stonehenge and Isle of man being neutrals. This leaves 2 ways in that aren't protected by neutrals. Maybe I'm out of line, but I think it would vastly improve the map and balance the gameplay a little more.
It means wait another weekThe Bison King wrote:In other news it's been about a week or more since I sent that email out to Keltic designs and I haven't received a response yet. What do you think this means?
I'd also say tho, to be better safe than sorry. Just start making preparations for what you would do without that image, and if they do allow you to use it, it'll just be a nice surprise.Victor Sullivan wrote:It means wait another weekThe Bison King wrote:In other news it's been about a week or more since I sent that email out to Keltic designs and I haven't received a response yet. What do you think this means?
Thanks for almost considering my thoughts.The Bison King wrote:Sorry I'm not changing that.MNDuke wrote:I didn't feel like sorting through 31 pages, so forgive me if this has been brought up. I have played this map numerous times and think that the Alba bonus is too easily defended with Isle of Man starting out as a neutral. If the drop is bad, a game can be decided fairly quickly similar to Aus on Classic. I'd like to see Isle of Man not be worth +1 for holding it and the starting neutral be removed. In doing this, it would neutralize the Alba bonus from being so hard to take. As it stands it's too easily defended with stonehenge and Isle of man being neutrals. This leaves 2 ways in that aren't protected by neutrals. Maybe I'm out of line, but I think it would vastly improve the map and balance the gameplay a little more.

It won;t go, it will be replacedVictor Sullivan wrote:No gameplay comments, just sad to see the image go...

I apologize for the bluntness, but NO DUH.MrBenn wrote:It won;t go, it will be replacedVictor Sullivan wrote:No gameplay comments, just sad to see the image go...