Conquer Club

Coleman wrote:If you need the rails and the capitals what is the point of those bonuses? If you could actually keep them you are already winning, is it just so the clear front-runner can win faster? Why is there a rail-road at all? Is there something about the history/culture/geography of this part of the world that makes the rail-road necessary? From a game-play standpoint I just don't see the need for it.

Don't know how I didn't mention it before but railway in Baltics... it's not very advanced and there isn't a good connection between the 3 countries. What I suggest you to check out this wiki page about the highway that connects the 3 countries (and other parts of Europe): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_route_E67 It would suit to this map very well because everybody in Baltics knows Via Baltica.

natty_dread wrote:I only looked at Estonia, but it seems at least Estonia doesn't have any larger administrative divisions, than the counties that already are represented as territories.

Actually, Estonia has 15 counties which are not all on the map currently. Next (smaller) regions which I don't know how they are called, Estonia has 194 of those so they are definitely not fitting on the map
About the map you found - if it's supposed to be a modern map then there's no point looking at historic maps.

I've already said that if you need help in naming regions, especially Estonia's, then I can help out. That said, The lonely island should be called Kärdla (as it's capital is) and the bigger island Kuressaare. If you decided not to make them 2 different then you should call the bunch of them Kuressaare (capital of bigger island).

Actually, Estonia has 15 counties which are not all on the map currently. Next (smaller) regions which I don't know how they are called, Estonia has 194 of those so they are definitely not fitting on the map

The smaller divisions are municipalities. The point was, that the counties can't be used as bonus areas, and there are no larger divisions to use...

About the map you found - if it's supposed to be a modern map then there's no point looking at historic maps.

Historical regions can very well be used as bonus areas, if there are no modern alternatives.

Btw, I don't see the point in naming the regions by their capitals. Why not name the regions by their actual names?

natty_dread wrote:Btw, I don't see the point in naming the regions by their capitals. Why not name the regions by their actual names?

Mapmaker had used them so I just helped him correct the grammar mistakes. Plus, city names are waaay more beautiful than the county ones, at least in Estonia. Overall, I think it's easier to use cities as region names because then you can have exactly the number of territories you want. For example, there's 47 cities in Estonia but if you need 20 regions in Estonia then you can just take the 20 biggest and voila - 20 correctly named territories Instead of using historical names which have been changed oh way too often in the history of Baltic states. Or if to use historical names then all 3 countries should have names from the same time, otherwise it's a very weird mix IMO.

natty_dread wrote:Why not divide each country into a few smaller bonuses and make a regular bonus system? I don't think this current bonus style fits very well with a random drop map.

You have 37 territories. The smallest bonus is 6 territories. Or 5 if you count the rail bonuses. You don't have any small bonuses that are easy to take in the beginning of the game. Thus I fear the game would largely be decided by whoever gets the best drop & dice in the beginning.

But it is impossible to add six, seven or eight small bonuses, so adding one or two would make it way more imbalanced.

I know I could divide it up more, but It would no longer be a small map, which was what I was going for.
If people want another pretty standard gameplay, normal sized map, then I can do that, I was just trying to make it different.

And before, some territories were squished and so it looked bad, so I combined some. Also, Lithuania had way less than everywhere else and it was awkward. Also, Lithuania divides up pretty poorly, the top five are in one region and the bottom five are in another.

While I realize that there are errors in territory names, I want to go into the bonuses more.
Any suggestions?
Potentially:
Lithuania (10 territories 5 borders
+4 for 7
+ 6 for all

Latvia (15 territories 10 borders)
+5 for 7
+10 for all

Estonia (12 territories 4 borders)
+3 for 6
+6 for all

Hmm. How about,

Estonia:
+1 for 4
+4 for 8
+6 for all 12

Latvia:
+2 for 5
+6 for 10
+10 for all 15

Lithuania:
+2 for 5
+6 for all 10

This would give more smaller bonuses, which would make for more interesting games IMO. In a 6 player game, every player can grab a +1 or +2 bonus in the beginning, and then they have to fight to expand... I don't think 7-8 player games should even be considered too much, with a map this size.

Bonuses seem good enough to me in terms of numbers.

Though the capital bonus system seems a bit wonky to me. To be honest, I don't get the railroad thing. I mean, I understand it but I don't see why it is there. I think the bonus system would work quite well on a "Hold two Capitals for +1 and All three for +3"

natty_dread wrote:Hmm. How about,

Estonia:
+1 for 4
+4 for 8
+6 for all 12

Latvia:
+2 for 5
+6 for 10
+10 for all 15

Lithuania:
+2 for 5
+6 for all 10

This would give more smaller bonuses, which would make for more interesting games IMO. In a 6 player game, every player can grab a +1 or +2 bonus in the beginning, and then they have to fight to expand... I don't think 7-8 player games should even be considered too much, with a map this size.

That would make it too easy to get a drop advantage in a smaller game, however. In fact, under this scheme, with 3 players, it is mathematically impossible for any player to not start the game with a bonus(!).

Hmm, you're probably right. I didn't think of that, I rarely play games with <4 players...

natty_dread wrote:Hmm. How about,

Estonia:
+1 for 4
+4 for 8
+6 for all 12

Latvia:
+2 for 5
+6 for 10
+10 for all 15

Lithuania:
+2 for 5
+6 for all 10

This would give more smaller bonuses, which would make for more interesting games IMO. In a 6 player game, every player can grab a +1 or +2 bonus in the beginning, and then they have to fight to expand... I don't think 7-8 player games should even be considered too much, with a map this size.

I think the smaller bonuses are too likely to be dropped, as Evil said. Midrange is best, I think.

I will stay out of the balancing issues, but I will try to help naming the regions:

For Lithuania, the regions would be : 1 ) Klaipeda (Klaipėda)
2 ) Siauliai (Šiauliai)
3 ) Marijampole (Marijampolė)
4 ) Alytus
5 ) Vilnius (the capital)
6 ) Kaunas
7 ) Utena
8 ) Panevezys (Panevėžys)
9 ) Telsiai (Telšiai)
10 ) Taurage (Tauragė)

Also, IMO, it would be logical if you'd have a name for an island above Ventsipils and you'd be attack (both sides).

captainwalrus wrote:While I realize that there are errors in territory names, I want to go into the bonuses more.
Any suggestions?
Potentially:
Lithuania (10 territories 5 borders
+4 for 7
+ 6 for all

Latvia (15 territories 10 borders)
+5 for 7
+10 for all

Estonia (12 territories 4 borders)
+3 for 6
+6 for all

This looks like a fine bonus scheme but it'll be quite hard to hold any bonus on a map this open. Are you planning to add any impassables?

I don't know, it doesn't really lend itself to impassible, and I like the openness. In a 8 player game, yes I think it would not play well because of the difficult bonuses, but I think people know better than to play settings that aren't ideal. Small games would be fine.

captainwalrus wrote:I don't know, it doesn't really lend itself to impassible, and I like the openness. In a 8 player game, yes I think it would not play well because of the difficult bonuses, but I think people know better than to play settings that aren't ideal. Small games would be fine.

I really regret making England completely open. I am a complete fan of the build-your-own bonus structure pioneered by oaktown with Berlin, but the impassables, bottlenecks and chokepoints are what helps to make that map so good.

It took me a very long time and a lot of number-crunching to help ensure that 1v1s were as fair as possible on England, and even now it still sucks as a small-number-of-players map. I would seriously suggest trying to find some way of adding strategic value to the map by reducing the connectivity of it all.

[Moved]

Alas! It would appear that development of this map has stalled. If the mapmaker wants to continue with the map, then one of the Foundry Moderators will be able to help put the thread back into the Foundry system, after an update has been made.