Conquer Club

one more suggestion that if you do make the map and lack accepts the largness that you would make it longer up and down because that would make the scrolling much easier

**

and maybe you would not need a key at all.. but you could do something that the new midle east revamped did with the names in the land itself but you would just add the bonunes in there as well

plysprtz wrote:one more suggestion that if you do make the map and lack accepts the largness that you would make it longer up and down because that would make the scrolling much eisier

That's the way the scrolling would always work.

sully800 wrote:

plysprtz wrote:one more suggestion that if you do make the map and lack accepts the largness that you would make it longer up and down because that would make the scrolling much eisier

That's the way the scrolling would always work.

i think he's saying he wants the map tall not wide because it easier to scroll vertical than horizontal.

so when can we find out what this map idea is that you have?

wcaclimbing wrote:so when can we find out what this map idea is that you have?

after i see the poll results and the feedback here and after keyogi tells me about the map size i'll start working on the map.

once i finish a graphic layout i'll make a new threadand you'll all see about it.

you can get hints on what to expect if you look at the xml thread where i requested several xml modifications. it won't tell you the theme but it will give you an idea on the gameplay

*goes to read the XML thread*

DiM wrote:

sully800 wrote:

plysprtz wrote:one more suggestion that if you do make the map and lack accepts the largness that you would make it longer up and down because that would make the scrolling much eisier

That's the way the scrolling would always work.

i think he's saying he wants the map tall not wide because it easier to scroll vertical than horizontal.

yup thats what i mean

plysprtz wrote:

DiM wrote:

sully800 wrote:

plysprtz wrote:one more suggestion that if you do make the map and lack accepts the largness that you would make it longer up and down because that would make the scrolling much eisier

That's the way the scrolling would always work.

i think he's saying he wants the map tall not wide because it easier to scroll vertical than horizontal.

yup thats what i mean

i'll see what i can do. at the moment the hand drawn sketch is kinda square

scan it.

unriggable wrote:scan it.

i already said it won't be shown in this thread. now we're talking about the terit number not about the map.

I figure that those that think that 300 territories is to many, then you can always not play it. Besides, 300 territories would make a wicked 3 player game!

hecter wrote:I figure that those that think that 300 territories is to many, then you can always not play it. Besides, 300 territories would make a wicked 3 player game!

The only problem with playing this 3 player would be whoever goes first can destroy everyone else with their 100 guys.

Risktaker17 wrote:

hecter wrote:I figure that those that think that 300 territories is to many, then you can always not play it. Besides, 300 territories would make a wicked 3 player game!

The only problem with playing this 3 player would be whoever goes first can destroy everyone else with their 100 guys.

You cant destroy 200 countries with only 100 guys.

and remember, each area would still have 3 (unless theres a new XML thing to change that) so it would be even harder.

guys i already said in this map you won't receive troops for the number of terits you own so don't bother thinking the first player will get 100 troops.

in fact even if i keep the current system for 100 terits you get 33 troops not 100

but i won't keep the system. no matter how many terits you have you won't receive anything. you'll get your bonuses from other things (not continents there won't be any)

this is soundign similar to my idea we where discussiong teh other day DiM

I think I speak for everyone (except the lost people who didn't pay attention to the whole "no extra armies for territories" bit) when I say "Yes, DiM, that is a great idea, so stop giving us hints and show us something already! "

Our DiM is a stubborn old bastard today lol. almost like KLOBBER

gimil wrote:this is soundign similar to my idea we where discussiong teh other day DiM

no it is not. it is totally 100% different. don't worry

lol speaking of that i started a ruff draft and i think it could work and also i voted for 300 terrs the more the merrier

gimil wrote:lol speaking of that i started a ruff draft and i think it could work and also i voted for 300 terrs the more the merrier

you got pm with clarification

This poll is invalid; people have no experience of playing with large maps like these and have therefore no knowledge of what the maximum should be.

Jafnhár wrote:This poll is invalid; people have no experience of playing with large maps like these and have therefore no knowledge of what the maximum should be.

if i follow your line of thought most polls should be invalid.

for example a really common poll question is:
"Do you like the map?"

actually nobody played the map cause it is still in the process of making so nobody can 100% say they like it or not before they play it.

most polls are for informatory reasons. to get an idea if people might play a 300 terit map or if they would like a one way connection in a specific spot.

Would love to see a 300 territory map... that would be ace...

Sadly people would fight to keep it simple to avoid confusion...

But with that many countries - the map could be awesome... balancing could be a massive issue of course!!

C.

yeti_c wrote:Would love to see a 300 territory map... that would be ace...

Sadly people would fight to keep it simple to avoid confusion...

But with that many countries - the map could be awesome... balancing could be a massive issue of course!!

C.

it won't be simple at all. but hopefully there will be absolutely no confusion.

Definitely would need to do away with the 1 hour time limit/per turn.