Re: Knights & Warlocks [17.Oct.11] - V5 - page 1&2
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:42 pm
isaiah40 wrote:This should work for here!
wonderful
wonderful
Conquer Club
Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
http://rzmhprwww.conquerclub.com/forum2/
[Vacation until Dec] Knights & Warlocks - V15 - page 1&12
http://rzmhprwww.conquerclub.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=155384
Page 2 of 8
wonderful
Re: Knights & Warlocks [17.Oct.11] - V5 - page 1&2
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:42 pm
DiM wrote:isaiah40 wrote:This should work for here!
wonderful
are you going to make a map out of a stamp now?
Re: Knights & Warlocks [17.Oct.11] - V5 - page 1&2
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:17 am
zimmah wrote:DiM wrote:isaiah40 wrote:This should work for here!
wonderful
are you going to make a map out of a stamp now?
i don't work well with small sizes
Re: Knights & Warlocks [17.Oct.11] - V5 - page 1&2
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:19 pm
i'm gonna go ahead and do the graphics for the legend. in the meantime any gameplay feedback is appreciated.
Re: Knights & Warlocks [17.Oct.11] - V5 - page 1&2
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:24 am
vacation please
Re: Knights & Warlocks [17.Oct.11] - V5 - page 1&2
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:54 pm
pretty please... 
Re: Knights & Warlocks [17.Oct.11] - V5 - page 1&2
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:12 pm
isaiah40 wrote:[MOVED] per request.
Re: [Vacation - valid untill Apr 2012] - Knights & Warlocks
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:39 am
V6:
*started working on the legend
*changed some bombardment rules.
*tweaked some text
i forgot to add a losing condition that you must hold at least 1 knight warlock to survive.
and i'm thinking a good winning condition would be to unite all knights or unite all warlocks.
[bigimg]http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250/DiM-topia/KnightsWarlocks-L-V6.jpg[/bigimg]
*started working on the legend
*changed some bombardment rules.
*tweaked some text
i forgot to add a losing condition that you must hold at least 1 knight warlock to survive.
and i'm thinking a good winning condition would be to unite all knights or unite all warlocks.
[bigimg]http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250/DiM-topia/KnightsWarlocks-L-V6.jpg[/bigimg]
Re: Knights & Warlocks [23.Nov.11] - V6 - page 1&3
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:20 am
Welcome back!
[Moved]
[Moved]
Re: Knights & Warlocks [23.Nov.11] - V6 - page 1&3
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:42 am
In the legend, I'd consider changing >>> to actual arrows -->, just so that people don't start thinking about greater or less than signs, and try to apply that sort of reasoning to how bombardments work.
--Andy
--Andy
Re: Knights & Warlocks [23.Nov.11] - V6 - page 1&3
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:00 am
AndyDufresne wrote:In the legend, I'd consider changing >>> to actual arrows -->, just so that people don't start thinking about greater or less than signs, and try to apply that sort of reasoning to how bombardments work.
--Andy
already changed those to arrows.
the legend was just for gameplay describing purposes.
in the next update you'll see the new legend and the arrows.
Re: Knights & Warlocks [23.Nov.11] - V6 - page 1&3
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:46 pm
Groovy!
I'll have more words in a bit!
-Sully
I'll have more words in a bit!
-Sully
Re: Knights & Warlocks [23.Nov.11] - V6 - page 1&3
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:04 pm
Only two things for now: one, could you clarify the port connections in the legend? IMO, the ports should only connect to other ports along the same body of water. Second, could you post a version without the numbers? I want to start experimenting with the XML.
-Sully
-Sully
Re: Knights & Warlocks [23.Nov.11] - V6 - page 1&3
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:16 pm
i'm not sure if separating the ports as you suggest would add anything or change the gameplay significantly.
plus it would be kinda unrealistic to artificially limit them like that.
anyway here's V7:
*finalized legend.
*added arrows requested by andy
still haven't added the wining/losing conditions. would that add anything to the gameplay? should i add them?
[bigimg]http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250/DiM-topia/KnightsWarlocks-L-V7.jpg[/bigimg]
plus it would be kinda unrealistic to artificially limit them like that.
anyway here's V7:
*finalized legend.
*added arrows requested by andy
still haven't added the wining/losing conditions. would that add anything to the gameplay? should i add them?
[bigimg]http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250/DiM-topia/KnightsWarlocks-L-V7.jpg[/bigimg]
Re: Knights & Warlocks [24.Nov.11] - V7 - page 1&3
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:19 pm
I think the losing conditions are important to have. What kind of winning condition did you have in mind?
-Sully
-Sully
Re: Knights & Warlocks [24.Nov.11] - V7 - page 1&3
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:23 pm
Victor Sullivan wrote:I think the losing conditions are important to have. What kind of winning condition did you have in mind?
-Sully
DiM wrote:a losing condition that you must hold at least 1 knight/warlock to survive.
and i'm thinking a good winning condition would be to unite all knights or unite all warlocks.
Re: Knights & Warlocks [24.Nov.11] - V7 - page 1&3
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:26 pm
DiM wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:I think the losing conditions are important to have. What kind of winning condition did you have in mind?
-SullyDiM wrote:a losing condition that you must hold at least 1 knight/warlock to survive.
and i'm thinking a good winning condition would be to unite all knights or unite all warlocks.
Ah, yes. I don't think the winning conditions are really necessary. But definitely go with the losing condition.
-Sully
Re: Knights & Warlocks [24.Nov.11] - V7 - page 1&3
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:28 pm
ok, i'll add just the losing condition.
Re: Knights & Warlocks [24.Nov.11] - V7 - page 1&3
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:38 pm
To clarify, are the villages the circles with no symbol or all circles?
-Sully
-Sully
Re: Knights & Warlocks [24.Nov.11] - V7 - page 1&3
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:07 pm
Victor Sullivan wrote:To clarify, are the villages the circles with no symbol or all circles?
-Sully
absolutely all terits are villages. some of them are special villages that contain a cleric or a noble, or even a knight/warlock.
Re: Knights & Warlocks [24.Nov.11] - V7 - page 1&3
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:45 pm
Gotcha! Thanks!
-Sully
-Sully
Re: Knights & Warlocks [24.Nov.11] - V7 - page 1&3
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:33 am
The roads could stand to stand out better from the background.
Re: Knights & Warlocks [24.Nov.11] - V7 - page 1&3
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:22 am
DiM wrote:ok, i'll add just the losing condition.
I think I'm just in favor of a losing condition, and no winning condition, if you are adding conditions at all. I think the map is unique enough in theme and graphics you don't need to add too many additional gameplay elements to it.
--Andy
Re: Knights & Warlocks [24.Nov.11] - V7 - page 1&3
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:47 pm
You've got some very nice textures in this map.
Judging by your losing condition, I presume that each player starts off with a Knight or a Warlock?
I am also assuming that all Ports connect (the legend doesn't mention this, but it must be so). It seems that it would be very easy to take out someone's Knight or Warlock on the first or second turn with good dice, which forces the losing condition. Am I reading this correctly? Perhaps the ports start at a higher neutral? But then it would make some of the Outlaws inaccessible/unusable.
I think it would really help to see some neutrals on the map at this stage, to help with understanding the gameplay nuances.
In what context does "connected to" refer in regards to the Farm/Mine/Lumber bonuses? Is it how many are chained together? How many are in the same colored region? Does the Farm/Mine/Lumber village itself count? (for example, I have Lo, Rinat, and Didy. Do I get +2 or +3 bonus?).
With such a harsh penalty on the Assassins/Clerics the Flying Monkeys & Griffins seem almost useless. No one will want to keep their troops on an Assassin/Cleric village, so bombarding them will be unnecessary. With a negative 2 bonus, I would want my opponent to keep their Assassin/Cleric. Perhaps you could give those another target? Such as Capitals or Nobles?
Whatever bombardment change you end up with, I think it would help a bit to have the icons laid out in a way that represents this better. For example, first row, Griffin > Assassin > Knight and a note saying arrows bombard. This would A) give you more room to explain some things and B) simplify the learning curve a little. Its easier for some to see it visually rather than read and reference relations separately.
Lastly, have you considered using Dragons instead of Flying Monkeys?
$.02
Judging by your losing condition, I presume that each player starts off with a Knight or a Warlock?
I am also assuming that all Ports connect (the legend doesn't mention this, but it must be so). It seems that it would be very easy to take out someone's Knight or Warlock on the first or second turn with good dice, which forces the losing condition. Am I reading this correctly? Perhaps the ports start at a higher neutral? But then it would make some of the Outlaws inaccessible/unusable.
I think it would really help to see some neutrals on the map at this stage, to help with understanding the gameplay nuances.
In what context does "connected to" refer in regards to the Farm/Mine/Lumber bonuses? Is it how many are chained together? How many are in the same colored region? Does the Farm/Mine/Lumber village itself count? (for example, I have Lo, Rinat, and Didy. Do I get +2 or +3 bonus?).
With such a harsh penalty on the Assassins/Clerics the Flying Monkeys & Griffins seem almost useless. No one will want to keep their troops on an Assassin/Cleric village, so bombarding them will be unnecessary. With a negative 2 bonus, I would want my opponent to keep their Assassin/Cleric. Perhaps you could give those another target? Such as Capitals or Nobles?
Whatever bombardment change you end up with, I think it would help a bit to have the icons laid out in a way that represents this better. For example, first row, Griffin > Assassin > Knight and a note saying arrows bombard. This would A) give you more room to explain some things and B) simplify the learning curve a little. Its easier for some to see it visually rather than read and reference relations separately.
Lastly, have you considered using Dragons instead of Flying Monkeys?
$.02
Re: Knights & Warlocks [24.Nov.11] - V7 - page 1&3
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:45 am
lostatlimbo wrote:You've got some very nice textures in this map.
thanks.
lostatlimbo wrote:Judging by your losing condition, I presume that each player starts off with a Knight or a Warlock?
I am also assuming that all Ports connect (the legend doesn't mention this, but it must be so). It seems that it would be very easy to take out someone's Knight or Warlock on the first or second turn with good dice, which forces the losing condition. Am I reading this correctly? Perhaps the ports start at a higher neutral? But then it would make some of the Outlaws inaccessible/unusable.
the losing condition wasn't set in stone but after some more consideration i have decided to add it, coupled with a few changes to make early eliminations impossible/very hard.
basically the knights/warlocks will be able to one-way attack surrounding terits and they will only be attacked via the bombardments from assassins/clerics.
lostatlimbo wrote:I think it would really help to see some neutrals on the map at this stage, to help with understanding the gameplay nuances.
in an earlier version i had the starting positions as well as the neutrals but i forgot to add them for the latest one. i'll make some changes and post a new version asap which will include neutrals.
lostatlimbo wrote:In what context does "connected to" refer in regards to the Farm/Mine/Lumber bonuses? Is it how many are chained together? How many are in the same colored region? Does the Farm/Mine/Lumber village itself count? (for example, I have Lo, Rinat, and Didy. Do I get +2 or +3 bonus?).
lo + rinat + didy will give you +2 because you have 2 villages connected to the farm. if you capture nec and tulangeo you'll get a further +2 for a total of +4. in somebody comes and takes didy, you'll not only lose the +1 for didy but also the +2 for nec and tulangeo because right now they're no longer connected to the farm in lo. however you can quickly take chu which is connected to tulangeo (and nec) and since it is a port it's also connected to rinat and now you're back to having +4.
lostatlimbo wrote:With such a harsh penalty on the Assassins/Clerics the Flying Monkeys & Griffins seem almost useless. No one will want to keep their troops on an Assassin/Cleric village, so bombarding them will be unnecessary. With a negative 2 bonus, I would want my opponent to keep their Assassin/Cleric. Perhaps you could give those another target? Such as Capitals or Nobles?
they're not useless in the context of being able to eliminate the enemy. see above.
lostatlimbo wrote:Whatever bombardment change you end up with, I think it would help a bit to have the icons laid out in a way that represents this better. For example, first row, Griffin > Assassin > Knight and a note saying arrows bombard. This would A) give you more room to explain some things and B) simplify the learning curve a little. Its easier for some to see it visually rather than read and reference relations separately.
i will try and implement this.
lostatlimbo wrote:Lastly, have you considered using Dragons instead of Flying Monkeys?
the flying monkeys are a special request so i shall keep them.