Conquer Club

sully800 wrote:I love the idea of big maps, but scrolling ruins the entire fun of playing. So I would try to eliminate/minimize scrolling in any way possible while maximizing countries. That simply means reducing oceans, keeping countries small, keeping the names short, etc.

But its also important to note that when clickable maps arrive scrolling won't be a big concern any more.

yes i will try to keep things as close together as possible without making the map cramped

also i'm working on a legend that will need little space. even if this will be a new concept i'll try to make it very easy to understand at a glance without the need of extensive explanations in the legend.

Bodmanbod wrote:i really would like to know more about this bonus system, until then i reserve my judgment.

sorry, no.

forget about the bonus system. concentrate on the number of terits

would you play a map that has 300 terits?

300 territories:

6 players - 50 each - 16 armies to first player....
5 players - 60 each - 20 armies to first player
4 players - 75 each - 25 to first player...

anyway as you can see the first player gets a big advantage, with 16 armies he can take a continent easily or take enough territories from each player to get a significant advantage.

Bodmanbod wrote:300 territories:

6 players - 50 each - 16 armies to first player....
5 players - 60 each - 20 armies to first player
4 players - 75 each - 25 to first player...

anyway as you can see the first player gets a big advantage, with 16 armies he can take a continent easily or take enough territories from each player to get a significant advantage.

not really my friend. the bonus armies you receive for the number of teritories you own can be modified. i my version you will receive exactly zero armiesregardless of how many terits you have

enough said now go and vote.

DiM wrote:

Bodmanbod wrote:300 territories:

6 players - 50 each - 16 armies to first player....
5 players - 60 each - 20 armies to first player
4 players - 75 each - 25 to first player...

anyway as you can see the first player gets a big advantage, with 16 armies he can take a continent easily or take enough territories from each player to get a significant advantage.

not really my friend. the bonus armies you receive for the number of teritories you own can be modified. i my version you will receive exactly zero armiesregardless of how many terits you have

enough said now go and vote.

That doesnt seem right either, maybe just give like 5 or something, no matter how many terits you have.

Kaplowitz wrote:

DiM wrote:

Bodmanbod wrote:300 territories:

6 players - 50 each - 16 armies to first player....
5 players - 60 each - 20 armies to first player
4 players - 75 each - 25 to first player...

anyway as you can see the first player gets a big advantage, with 16 armies he can take a continent easily or take enough territories from each player to get a significant advantage.

not really my friend. the bonus armies you receive for the number of teritories you own can be modified. i my version you will receive exactly zero armiesregardless of how many terits you have

enough said now go and vote.

That doesnt seem right either, maybe just give like 5 or something, no matter how many terits you have.

no. the number of terits you have will be of no importance in this map. you'll be able to win with having just one terit and 1 army in it. it will all depend on how well you strategize your moves.

Whoa, that's a pretty wild concept. If you can pull it off, DiM, I'll be worshipping you.

I love maps with lots of territories. I'd definitively play it.

The Random One wrote:Whoa, that's a pretty wild concept. If you can pull it off, DiM, I'll be worshipping you.

should i start the Church of DiM?

id say id rather not have a scrolling game with 300 territories. having no idea what strategies or concepts youre talking about...id say its likely that you could use whatever the strats are on a smaller scale and still make a good smaller map that isnt huge.

its seems to me that larger doesnt equal more interesting gameplay. i mean you could take the world map and put in every single city and country and it wouldnt really make it more fun....maybe with 50 players...but with 6 i doing think that making it bigger improves anything...

of course if your concept is something different maybe its necessary. i have no idea...

johloh wrote:id say id rather not have a scrolling game with 300 territories. having no idea what strategies or concepts youre talking about...id say its likely that you could use whatever the strats are on a smaller scale and still make a good smaller map that isnt huge.

its seems to me that larger doesnt equal more interesting gameplay. i mean you could take the world map and put in every single city and country and it wouldnt really make it more fun....maybe with 50 players...but with 6 i doing think that making it bigger improves anything...

of course if your concept is something different maybe its necessary. i have no idea...

for my concept i do need lots of terits. if i squeeze my butt cheeks maybe i can lower from ~300 to 180 but that's still more than any map around. but if people think 300 terit map is acceptable then i will do it.

or i could do a smaller version of 180terit first then go ahead and do a 300 terit one.

something like classic and world 2.1

I'm all for it. But I think you should get the mods to approve a larger size.

unriggable wrote:I'm all for it. But I think you should get the mods to approve a larger size.

yes i know. keyogi already said he's going to talk with andy about large maps.

I haven't had the chance to talk to Andy about it yet, but I'm wondering if there's a way Lack can have maps open up in a new window. It would solve some of the size restrictions, but obviously there would still be a limit. Have you got at least a rough idea of the size this map would be DiM?

KEYOGI wrote:I haven't had the chance to talk to Andy about it yet, but I'm wondering if there's a way Lack can have maps open up in a new window. It would solve some of the size restrictions, but obviously there would still be a limit. Have you got at least a rough idea of the size this map would be DiM?

no i really have no idea as i haven't started working on it. i just wanted to see if a map with 300 terits is welcomed before i started working on it.

YOU HAVE GOT TO DO THIS IT WOULD BE THE SWEETEST FUCKING THING IN THE WORLD.imagen sitting there round 1 and you have a 60 and 54 and maybe a 23 sitting all around mount CC readyy to be taken over but no blue suddenly forms a 78 right at the peak of the mountain made up of 75 territories. green quickely becomes the biggest dick in the world and has 5 on every single continent you scream MTHER FU**ER as you press AUTO ATTACK and you lose it and get wiped boohoo so you go start another game yea wooo..


*the important stuff*

do you think that 1 hour turns would be long enough to fortify up to about 100 countries?

steve monkey wrote:out of curiosity, how many territories does world 2.1 have?

113

i love world 2.1, no matter how little you are in it, you still have a chance.
on flat rate games, people don`t want to waste armies going for cards, so they leave the small guy alone. i did vote 241-270, but i would play a 300 territory map.

my opinion is: go for it! the idea of 300 territorie map is very interresting. i'd love to know the theme of the map

thanks for all the feedback guys. so far it seems a map this size will be accepted (if the graphics and gameplay are good of course) so i will leave this thread a little longer to get clear results and then i'll start working on the map.

i still need keyogi to give me some clarification on map size and lackattack to implement some new features.

yep, 300 seems very popular.
it has more than half the votes, with none of the others even coming close.

Sounds fun

DiM wrote:
should i start the Church of DiM?

Yes! But keep your sacrifices affordable, please.

KEYOGI wrote:I haven't had the chance to talk to Andy about it yet, but I'm wondering if there's a way Lack can have maps open up in a new window.

I probably should make this suggestion on the proper channels, but I think it'd be better if you could switch the map size on the game pane. Most maps I prefer small, but some I like large. Just sayin'.

The Random One wrote: I think it'd be better if you could switch the map size on the game pane. Most maps I prefer small, but some I like large. Just sayin'.

YES!!!

that would be very helpful. my computer can show some large maps, but not all of them. it would be nice to set teh ones to large that can fit.

(Im gonna post it in the suggestions forum)

a three player game:

some random time: wrightfan123 got 33 armies for 100 territories. lol:)

wrightfan123 wrote:a three player game:

some random time: wrightfan123 got 33 armies for 100 territories. lol:)

Congrats?

um, he's saying that in a 300 territ map you'd get 33 armies your first turn lol which is pretty sweet