[Abandoned] - Peru

by **Rih0** on Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:20 am

I haven't noticed it. yeah, the chances of that bonus is high. Imagine a 1v1 game! No worries, I will fix it on the XML.

by **MarshalNey** on Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:41 pm

Alright, I have to confess that this is the first serious look I've given this map, but I think it's due for a gameplay review sooooo....

The Good Stuff (Most of the map, in fact

)
(1) Simple and varied bonuses. This map doesn't have anything frustratingly complicated or confusing in terms of bonuses. Yet it has good options with a port bonus, a captial bonus and regional bonuses.
(2) Pretty clear legend. That minimap is crazy-go-nuts unique... it took longer to figure out, but I was happy when I did.
(3) Good borders/Attack Routes. The map, graphically, is clean and explicit.

Concens (in order of importance)
(1) Starting deployment vs. neutrals.
Having 8 players start with 2 countries randomly is just not going to be fun for a lot of players, nor is it necessary. There are 33 total regions, and almost a third of them are now neutral.
I noticed that the external countries are now all neutral, as per natty's suggestion. Is there a reason for this, since they don't have a bonus (positive or negative) associated with them? Some of the external countries are actually quite limited in avenues of attack, like Chile or Columbia, and even one of these starting non-neutral would bump up 8-player deployments to 3 each.

(2) Neutrals in general.
The neutrals I see necessary for game balance are:

The external countries are as much of a bane as a help to my mind for anyone who drops them, so I think open deployment would be fine.

Anyway, the neutral values also seem high, since the primary purpose is to avoid unfair drops, and not restrict gameplay. Under the current designation, for instance, Tumbes starts out cut off by neutral 3s... which can be a bummer if you're only dropping 2 regions and that's one of them.

Consider also that with neutral ports, the Northwest and Southwest regions are also less attractive in many game settings, because attacking enemy troops on small maps is far likelier to bring victory than attacking neutrals for bonuses... at least if the neutrals are too high.

I think 2 or 3 for the ports is OK, but the capital may be too high, especially with its reduced bonus. Certainly, it shouldn't be any lower than 4, but I just point it out as something to consider.

If the external countries are going to be neutral, I'd argue that they be neutral 1 or 2, otherwise they will likely be ignored entirely.

(3) A few housecleaning queries.

This stuff is mostly petty, as I said before the map is pretty clean, but if you can address it I'd be 100% satisfied.

Mystery Mass
Although it seems to have no bearing on gameplay, what is that greenish mass between Puno and Bolivia?

The Tacna-Puno-Bolivia border
The Tacna-Bolivia border seems a bit squished by those mountains, is there chance that you could get a little more length to the border without ruining the nice Puno-Bolivia border and keeping the impassible between Puno and Tacna explicit? If not, no biggy. It's clear if anyone looks closely.

Phantom Mountain Syndrome
Not at all your fault, but my eye at a glance extends the mountain range over the pass between Ucayali and Pasco. It might be partly because the army circle is so close that it 'fills the space' that would otherwise be obvious. Again, if anyone looks closely it's pretty clear that there are no mountains there, but I know some players who will get snookered, and it can probably be fixed by moving (or deleting) the army circle.

Minimap!
Would you be willing to switch the positions of the Northeast and the Northwest? I think it would be more intuitive, since the Northwest bonus would then be closest to its actual location on the map... the 'nearest' bonus for the eye would also be the first on the list... and the next on the list would be the next nearest, etc.... does that make sense?

Where in the world is Peru?
This may seem like pandering to ignoramuses, but not everyone who plays CC may immediately be aware of what may constitute 'external countries' and Peru proper. The legend doesn't specify, it just says 'Peru' and 'external countries', assuming that we know that Brazil, Bolivia, etc. aren't regions but countires in their own right.

This isn't a bad assumption, but if you want to go the extra mile, you could clear that up beyond any doubt by showing in legend the color key for the external countries. Or, you could even put a giant faded 'Peru' underlay... anyway, pretty small, but I want to be thorough and lay everything out.

by **Industrial Helix** on Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:38 pm

I'd be in favor of dropping the outside countries.

by **Rih0** on Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:11 am

You already said that a long time ago Helix, but I prefer keeping them as a "players ressource". Somewhere "out" of the principal map for you to recover troops and atack other players bonuses.

Thanks Marshal. I need you to read and answer it please:
I decided this:

1)Actually, the neutral quantity for 8 players would be high too. I believe that even with 2 territories, there wouldn't be enough borders or enough troops for someone to eliminate another player on the first round.
If you look in older versions you will see another territory
called Moquegua. Maybe that can help. Should I add it again?

2) the problem of the neutrals is hard. Im keeping neutral 3 because: If I reduce the neutrals of ext. countries and ports to 2 or less, someone who get territories that do NOT connect to ports or external countries would have more dificulty to get cards. The idea is to give equal chances to everyone.

3) I will do some improvements on the mountains. I think pasco circle is on the place I can put it. I got nonwhere to move that army circle. Something I was wondering: May I remove all army circles?

by **MarshalNey** on Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:21 pm

Rih0 wrote:)Actually, the neutral quantity for 8 players would be high too. I believe that even with 2 territories, there wouldn't be enough borders or enough troops for someone to eliminate another player on the first round.

Errrmmm... if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that a first-round elimination wouldn't be a likely possibility, yes?

If so, I disagree. I see no reason why a player couldn't deploy 1-2 on his two regions and attack two of another player... if for no other reason than it's terminator, he's a cook and his target is a major. Or it's an Assassin game- even though the jackpot of Assassin Doodle Earth is popular, I don't think we need two maps like that.

Rih0 wrote:If you look in older versions you will see another territory
called Moquegua. Maybe that can help. Should I add it again?

Perhaps. Another region for open deployment would at least put the starting regions in the ballpark for 8 players (3 each). This can be solved also by just making some- or all- of the external countries open instead of neutral.

Rih0 wrote:2) the problem of the neutrals is hard. Im keeping neutral 3 because: If I reduce the neutrals of ext. countries and ports to 2 or less, someone who get territories that do NOT connect to ports or external countries would have more dificulty to get cards. The idea is to give equal chances to everyone.

Ports: fine at 3, but really 2 is still a formidable defense on a small map like this. Either way.

External Countries: I still think they'd be useless at anything but 1... at 3 they'll almost certainly be ignored in any but the most unusual circumstance. If you really want them to be a viable 'outside resource', do one or more of the following-

There is simply very little advantage to taking an external country as the gameplay now stands. Consider this- as a starting neutral region, why on earth would anyone ever attack Chile or Columbia?

Rih0 wrote:3) I will do some improvements on the mountains. I think pasco circle is on the place I can put it. I got nonwhere to move that army circle. Something I was wondering: May I remove all army circles?

Yes, you can remove the circles. Many maps are using that style now, and it seems to work just fine. I find that the circles are helpful for an initial draft, but you are far past that stage. Of course, keeping them or ditiching them is entirely up to you.

by **AndyDufresne** on Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:19 am

I like the inclusion of the 'outside countries'.

--Andy

by **Rih0** on Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:21 am

Ok I will be updating this tomorrow. Im busy today. I will add a bonus for outside countries.

by **Rih0** on Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:13 pm

Sorry, for the wrong information, i found some time to do this:

Now it would be like a net arround Peru.
I added a big bonus in outside countriesbecause it borders almost the entire Peru, becoming an easy target.
And now Moquegua is back!
I also removed army circles(dont worry, troops will fit).
Now with a better borderin bolivia.

V 4.1

by **MarshalNey** on Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:38 pm

The bonus for the outside countries is sizeable at +5, but if they are all at neutral 3, it's certainly not unjustified.

The border at Bolivia looks great =D>

Can you put my mind at ease and have a little minimap in the legend by the bonus for the outside countries, showing the color and shape? You have plenty of space in the vast blue ocean there to the right.

Other than that, I'll confer with my colleagues and see if they have any further suggestions. Looking good!

Also, if you can put the neutral number values that you're using directly on the map of your first post, and update any starting region counts (for 8 players, they start with 3 each now, yes?)

by **Industrial Helix** on Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:45 am

Personally, I don't really like the ports bonus and think the map could do with out. It feels like you're just making bonuses out of features for no particular reason other than to have a bonus.

by **Rih0** on Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:03 am

There is a bonus to justify the conquer. Who would try to assault it with no bonus? Also, i dont really think the map can do without it. As I said, its like a net around Peru.

Thanks MarshalNey.

by **Industrial Helix** on Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:17 am

Well, I like it as a quick attack route rather than something to capture.

by **Rih0** on Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:20 pm

You said very well, YOU like it more as an atack route, but what the millions of CC players think? I personaly would use it for both things.

by **Industrial Helix** on Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:35 pm

Millions, ha!, more like thousands really. But hey, its your map. If you want bonuses for ports then so be it.

by **Rih0** on Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:03 pm

Well, here it is: last version made into GP workshop (I hope so):

V 4.2

by **iancanton** on Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:12 am

this is a peru map, but the biggest bonus is for holding all regions that are not part of peru? a bit strange!

there appears to be a big mistake on the map. the rio ucayali is supposed to join together with others in loreto region to form the amazon (rio amazonas), which flows into brazil. it does not flow into the pacific ocean. the map below shows that the andes mountains are to the west of the rio ucayali, not to the east. u can correct this by swapping the position of the river with that of the mountains, so that the mountains are between north-west and center, while the river is between north-east and center.

for more peruvian flavour, i suggest that u use descriptive spanish names, instead of directional english names, for the bonus zones, for example selva baja (which means low jungle) instead of north-east.

u've done well on actual gameplay so far and u haven't tried to over-complicate the bonuses.

ian.

by **MarshalNey** on Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:56 am

iancanton wrote:this is a peru map, but the biggest bonus is for holding all regions that are not part of peru? a bit strange!

When you put it like that it does seem a bit funny.

However, considering that the map is essentially saying that whole countries when put together barely exceed the bonus for the center of Peru, it doesn't seem so bad to me.

In gameplay terms I don't think it detracts any focus from Peru itself. The External Countries are all neutral, which makes them likely to be a secondary target for most players.

iancanton wrote:for more peruvian flavour, i suggest that u use descriptive spanish names, instead of directional english names, for the bonus zones, for example selva baja (which means low jungle) instead of north-east.

Agreed.

by **Rih0** on Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:36 am

For Iancanton

Hey Ian, I understand your point, but people aren`t here to learn geography. I haven't even added the river name on the map.

Also, as Marshal said, the external countries are made for being a second option for unlucky players on 1st round, and for adding some movement on the players troops. And it isn't incoerent if you take a look at the capital(Lima) bonus. I think its ok

for more peruvian flavour, i suggest that u use descriptive spanish names, instead of directional english names, for the bonus zones, for example selva baja (which means low jungle) instead of north-east.

Agreed.

well, I made it in english because I think it will e a lot easyer for people to understand. I personaly would prefer in spanish (Im brazilian if you haven't noticed yet), but Im doing in english for a good reason. I mean: more than 50% of players are from USA.

Thanks for your atention, Rih0

by **iancanton** on Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:55 am

Rih0 wrote:Hey Ian, I understand your point, but people aren`t here to learn geography. I haven't even added the river name on the map.

it's good practice to avoid making up rivers and mountains where none exist. sometimes, u must do so, to help the gameplay. here, it doesn't help gameplay because swapping the river with the mountains has no effect on gameplay if u use bridges at certain points - they are both used as impassables. conquer club maps usually don't show river names, unless they are playable regions.

Rih0 wrote:Also, as Marshal said, the external countries are made for being a second option for unlucky players on 1st round, and for adding some movement on the players troops. And it isn't incoerent if you take a look at the capital(Lima) bonus. I think its ok

the capital bonus is a nice original touch and i understand the function of the foreign countries. the foreign bonus does look big when u consider that there are only 5 foreign regions.

Rih0 wrote:
Rih0 wrote:
iancanton wrote:for more peruvian flavour, i suggest that u use descriptive spanish names, instead of directional english names, for the bonus zones, for example selva baja (which means low jungle) instead of north-east.

Agreed.

well, I made it in english because I think it will e a lot easyer for people to understand. I personaly would prefer in spanish (Im brazilian if you haven't noticed yet), but Im doing in english for a good reason. I mean: more than 50% of players are from USA.

there are good arguments for using either english or spanish. however, i encourage u to use, in the language that u choose, descriptive names for the bonus zones and not colourless directional names that could be for anywhere. do the peruvians really use north-east for that big green jungle zone? i doubt it! examples of descriptive names might relate to the forest, the mountains, the coast, language areas or the incas.

peru has 25 regions (26 including the port of callao, which is too small to show on our map). this use of the word region relating to peru matches that of normal conquer club usage. in the legend, instead of regional bonuses, use zone bonuses or area bonuses to avoid confusion.

http://www.latinotravel.com.pe/regions.htm

ian.

by **Rih0** on Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:34 pm

Well, the so much asked improvements had to be done, and here it is. Changed, mountains with rivers and made better regional names:

V4.3:

by **natty dread** on Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:09 am

Bonus calculator sez:

Rainforest 4,5
N. highlands 5,571429
N. Desert 5
S. highlands 3,214286
S. Desert 5
Ports 4,214286

by **MarshalNey** on Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:03 pm

Apurimac, Ucayali and Cajamarca aren't going to be coded as starting neutrals, are they? That would lower the number of open regions for deployment to 21. I like 24 much better.

by **Rih0** on Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:23 pm

of course not, marshal. that's just the configuration of a 4 players game, and those neutrals are random.

by **Evil DIMwit** on Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:02 pm

At the moment you can't just configure how many random neutrals you have. You set the number of possible territories to deploy, that's divided by the number of players, and any that are left over become neutral. So with 24 deployable territories, each player gets 6.