[Abandoned] - Peru

by **army of nobunaga** on Tue May 11, 2010 2:18 am

dont really see how north east and south east can be worth so few, but i guess you guys have calculators and such

by **Rih0** on Tue May 11, 2010 6:27 pm

I decided not to use that thing of ext countries+ports gives a -X bonus. It wouldn't work. I'll keep the actual version and wait for the foundry aprovement. If the foundry does not aprove, please, at least tell me why.

by **AndyDufresne** on Mon May 17, 2010 11:49 am

From a gameplay perspective, I'd maybe fudge the size of Tumbes a little bit just show the army shadow is not completely enveloping the region.

Moreover, "Regions" are the official CC Lingo for "territories" so you may want to keep consistent with CC Lingo. http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?m ... tructions2

In regards to the Capital bonus, you need to hold the Capital plus any 3 regions inside Peru, yes? Right now, the way it is worded it could suggest that just by old any 3 regions inside Peru without holding the Capital leads to the bonus.

Keep up the good work. I like the use of bordering countries as a railway around the map.

--Andy

by **Evil DIMwit** on Thu May 20, 2010 9:28 am

Are the neutral counts/deployment assessments that you have listed in the first post still valid? Or do you need to update those?

by **Rih0** on Thu May 20, 2010 3:09 pm

sure! I`d recommend a 4 players game, but a doubles game with 8 players may also be an interisting option

by **Evil DIMwit** on Thu May 20, 2010 3:12 pm

Part of why I ask is because you have neutral levels listed for every single territory, and if every territory is neutral, then players can't play the map because they don't have any territories.

by **natty dread** on Thu May 20, 2010 3:55 pm

2 players: 10 territories for each and 13 random neutrals
3 players: 9 territories for each and 6 random neutrals
4 players: 1 port for each + 7 territories for each and 1 neutral at lima
5 players: 6 territories for each and 3 random neutrals
6 players: 5 territories for each and 3 random neutrals
7 players: 4 terriories for each and 5 random neutrals
8 players: 4 terriories for each and 1 neutral at lima

From the sound of this, you're planning on coding the ports as starting positions? If so, they will also be handed out in 2 and 3 player games. In 2 player games each gets 2, in 3 player games each gets 1 and the remaining is either left as neutral or will be divided randomly along with the rest of the territories, depending on how you code it.

by **Evil DIMwit** on Thu May 20, 2010 6:13 pm

natty_dread wrote:2 players: 10 territories for each and 13 random neutrals
3 players: 9 territories for each and 6 random neutrals
4 players: 1 port for each + 7 territories for each and 1 neutral at lima
5 players: 6 territories for each and 3 random neutrals
6 players: 5 territories for each and 3 random neutrals
7 players: 4 terriories for each and 5 random neutrals
8 players: 4 terriories for each and 1 neutral at lima

From the sound of this, you're planning on coding the ports as starting positions? If so, they will also be handed out in 2 and 3 player games. In 2 player games each gets 2, in 3 player games each gets 1 and the remaining is either left as neutral or will be divided randomly along with the rest of the territories, depending on how you code it.

I think the ports ought to always start neutral if they all connect to each other, since the first player will be able to take over the next players' ports fairly handily otherwise, especially with the port bonus.

by **natty dread** on Thu May 20, 2010 6:16 pm

Evil DIMwit wrote:
I think the ports ought to always start neutral if they all connect to each other, since the first player will be able to take over the next players' ports fairly handily otherwise, especially with the port bonus.

Good point.

by **Rih0** on Fri May 21, 2010 12:08 pm

Ok, 1st post edited.

I can't use that thing of 1 port for each in the 3 player games. It wouldn't be balanced in my opinion.
I'd also recommend a freestyle game for this map.

by **Evil DIMwit** on Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:15 am

Rih0 wrote:I can't use that thing of 1 port for each in the 3 player games. It wouldn't be balanced in my opinion.

I don't think it would really be imbalanced if the remaining port is coded neutral. In any case, you unfortunately can't pick: If you have four starting positions, then they will be divided among players in a 2- or 3-player games. By the same token, if a starting position is coded to start neutral, it will start neutral whenever there are more players than starting positions.
Also, you can't decide how many neutrals a territory starts with if it doesn't start neutral every time (unless it's a Start Position), so either every external country starts neutral all the time, or the ones that do start with 3 neutrals.

by **natty dread** on Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:27 pm

When can we see an update on this?

by **Rih0** on Thu Jul 01, 2010 3:11 pm

In the first post its writen: "slow development"
and I don´t have many ideas, from here to on. I'm not saying to trash. I'll continue until the end(at least I hope so). What I mean is: this isnt enough good? And I prefer grafical develop. This gameplay part does not interests me too much. Im thinking on working it with someone else, that can do the XML for me. Anyone interested?

by **natty dread** on Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:51 pm

Meh, I can work out a gameplay plan for you if you wish.

by **Rih0** on Sat Jul 03, 2010 12:57 pm

Thanks, any help is welcome!

by **natty dread** on Mon Jul 05, 2010 12:23 pm

Ok here's what I got:

1. Make the ports start neutral with 3 neutral troops on each.

2. Connect only adjacent ports to each other. Use sea route lines between ports.

3. Merge Moquegua to Tacna

4. remove bridge between Ayacucho & Cuzco

5. Divide Loreto in 2 parts, northern and southern. See this image:

The northern part would consist of the 4 northernmost provinces, so it would connect to Amazonas, Equador and Colombia (and the southern part of course.)

The southern part would consist of the 3 southern provinces, and it would connect to Uyacali & Brazil (and the northern Loreto of course.)

6. Remove bridge between La libertad & San Martin.

7. Have all the external countries start with 3 neutrals each.

8. Remove the +1 for each port. Instead make a bonus for holding 3-4 ports: +1 for 3 ports and +2 or +3 for 4 ports.

Do these changes and we'll look at the bonus values next.

by **Rih0** on Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:53 pm

Here it is. Finnaly the update.

V3.9

EDITED: sorry, updated wrong file, and had to fix something on the map.

by **natty dread** on Mon Jul 05, 2010 4:20 pm

Ok, good work!

Ok these are graphical things, but they are required for gameplay clarity so you can as well do them now: Fix the border between North Loreto - Equador - Colombia so that the Equador-Colombia border is more visible. It's kinda hidden there. The same with Tacna-Bolivia.

Also you could just as well remove the army circles, I think the map could look way better without them - they're not really necessary anywhere, and actually make things worse at some places (Tumbes, Apurimac.)

Now as for bonus values, here's what I suggest:

North East - 3
Center - 5
North West - 3
South East - 1
South West - 4

by **Rih0** on Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:02 pm

Ok, my opinion:
1)I dont think it will be good to change the bonus of north west from 4 to 3
I understand your point, reducing bonus in all areas would be enough for redicing bonuses in this area, but this is a hard bonus to keep. even with one bridge less, you would still have 4 frontiers, because cajamarca would be a problem, and ancash is a principal point. I can make the chenges in all other bonuses, but I think it would be better like +4

2)Making those grafical changes will be hard, even because I kept the original size, that was 630\630(something like that). I just reduced borders. It will loose the reality of the map.
And more: I think the people with those territories: colombia/ecuador bolivia/tacna will be curious enough to search their connections on the assault phase.
Just to remember: its gameplay workshop, not grafics workshop.

by **natty dread** on Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:28 pm

1) you have to look at the bigger picture. northwest's borders are easy to reduce by taking cajamarca and equador, also because it's close to Lima which you can use to expand the bonus. if you hold northwest and lima, you would get 3 for northwest and 1-2 for lima...

2) gameplay clarity is part of gameplay. You might as well do the borders now since you will be asked to do it anyway eventually. And don't worry about the "reality" of the map, this is CC, and people come here to play the maps, not to learn geography. For CC maps you may need to sacrifice accuracy of borders if it's required for gameplay clarity. I've had to fudge a number of borders on all of my maps to improve gameplay clarity, it's just how things work here... you can ask the foundry mods but I'm pretty sure they'll say the same thing.

by **Rih0** on Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:41 am

Ok, here it is:
I changed lima bonus.

by **Arama86n** on Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:02 am

Well, I've never been a huge fan of "ports", but overall I like this map. I like the graphics very much, the theme looks interesting, impassables and gameplay looks nice. keep up the good work!

by **Rih0** on Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:08 am

Thanks

by **Rih0** on Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:37 pm

If yu are reading this, post your opinion about the map please.

Natty, finished?

by **Industrial Helix** on Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:11 pm

The only thing I see worth mentioning is that on the first page it is not mentioned that a neutral will start on one of the purple bonuses. I think I mentioned it before, but can't remember. But anyway, it should be noted that such a thing should be written into the xml as the likelihood of a player dropping a two territory bonus is high.