[Capital Competition] Middle Ages

by **thenobodies80** on Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:08 pm

These are the changes i would like to do:
1. connect gate b to aery square
2 remove connection gate c - gate b
3. remove connectiontower f gate E
4. remove connection tower E gate C

What do you think?

by **MrBenn** on Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:44 pm

thenobodies80 wrote:These are the changes i would like to do:
1. connect gate b to aery square
2 remove connection gate c - gate b
3. remove connectiontower f gate E
4. remove connection tower E gate C

What do you think?

by **Commander62890** on Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:12 pm

Sounds good. I think the Gate B to Aery Square connection will at least give the Aery player another goal to work towards, instead of just playing defense.

And less connections for Gate C makes it harder for players to get into Aery. Looks good.

On second thought, I still think the Aery player will have to be a lot more cautious than the other players...
Aery has to worry not only about Loent and Tayt, but because of Gate C, they need to worry about Yana and Nyw as well.

What if Gate C only connected to Carpentry and Gate A? And maybe make it not neutral... it really impedes the Aery player's line of attack.

Just throwing it out there... and note that I have only played team games on the map.

by **thenobodies80** on Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:33 am

thenobodies80 wrote:These are the changes i would like to do:
1. connect gate b to aery square
2 remove connection gate c - gate b
3. remove connectiontower f gate E
4. remove connection tower E gate C

Here the files with the changes listed above

http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/3/21/2373685/competition/final_files/M_A.xml
http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/3/21/2373685/competition/final_files/M_A.S.jpg
http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/3/21/2373685/competition/final_files/M_A.L.jpg

by **MrBenn** on Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:46 am

The updated files have been sent to lack ;-)

by **Konrad** on Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:20 pm

haven't read the thread, so sorry if this is a dublicate:

There is a bug in the map.. i can attack Tower G from Bucher but acording to the map that shouldn't be posible

otherwhise a GREAT map

by **natty dread** on Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:22 pm

It's not a bug... they're connected by the road.

by **Mr_Adams** on Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:46 pm

I'm not going to read all of this, but I'd just like to point out that it seems slightly unfair that Noem has to worry about the witch AND a mine entrance. What if the witch were put by tower J? It could be "witch's tower"

by **Victor Sullivan** on Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:42 pm

Lol, just noticed this, but the word "Assault" in the legend, should be plural: "Assaults", as in, "Assaults are allowed..."

by **Mr_Adams** on Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:57 pm

Victor Sullivan wrote:Lol, just noticed this, but the word "Assault" in the legend, should be plural: "Assaults", as in, "Assaults are allowed..."

Grammar Nazi.

by **Konrad** on Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:18 pm

natty_dread wrote:It's not a bug... they're connected by the road.

right.. my bad... it is a bit hard to spot thoe.. could be made clearer

by **thenobodies80** on Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:46 pm

Victor Sullivan wrote:Lol, just noticed this, but the word "Assault" in the legend, should be plural: "Assaults", as in, "Assaults are allowed..."

Done

Click image to enlarge.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:17 pm

That's right - abide to the Grammar Nazi's doctrine...

by **MrBenn** on Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:00 pm

Did you update the links or post new images with new urls? As it looks like we're still waiting for lack to make the update, it might be as easy to upload the images to the previous url to make it easier for the turtle ;-)

by **thenobodies80** on Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:34 pm

MrBenn wrote:Did you update the links or post new images with new urls? As it looks like we're still waiting for lack to make the update, it might be as easy to upload the images to the previous url to make it easier for the turtle

The old links didn't show on the site, so I hosted the images on another site. Both links work now so you can use the one you prefer.

EDIT: nvm, i replaced the old links also on the first page

by **MrBenn** on Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:34 pm

I have just forwarded the updated map images to lack. Once they're up, then I say we can push the quench boat out...

edit:

Quenching

---The Beta period has concluded for the Middle Ages Map. All objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready to be released into live play.

Congratulations thenobodies80 and Evil DIMwit, your shiny new medals are well-earned =D>

Conquer Club, enjoy!

--MrBenn

by **natty dread** on Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:29 pm

Congrats guys! Well done =D>

by **Mr_Adams** on Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:27 pm

Mr_Adams wrote:I'm not going to read all of this, but I'd just like to point out that it seems slightly unfair that Noem has to worry about the witch AND a mine entrance. What if the witch were put by tower J? It could be "witch's tower"

This game play comment seems to have been overlooked. The game is fine as is, but this was my one comment to make on the set up, and I got no response.

by **Riskismy** on Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:30 am

Mr_Adams wrote:
Mr_Adams wrote:I'm not going to read all of this, but I'd just like to point out that it seems slightly unfair that Noem has to worry about the witch AND a mine entrance. What if the witch were put by tower J? It could be "witch's tower"

This game play comment seems to have been overlooked. The game is fine as is, but this was my one comment to make on the set up, and I got no response.

Imagine that!
With 1500 post under your belt, however, I would've thought you had gotten used to it by now

by **Mr_Adams** on Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:18 pm

Well, very few of them were in the foundry, and I was under the impression that there was supposed to be a response to every suggestion to the map' game-play before a map was "quenched". However, it is a minor issue, I have won 3 of the 6 games I've played here (all 8 players), and never once used it. it's not to big a deal, as I said initially. I was just hoping for the map designer's input on this situation.

by **natty dread** on Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:22 pm

Mr_Adams wrote:I'm not going to read all of this, but I'd just like to point out that it seems slightly unfair that Noem has to worry about the witch AND a mine entrance. What if the witch were put by tower J? It could be "witch's tower"

What's so unfair about them - they're borders like any other territory, they just happen to connect across the map?

by **Mr_Adams** on Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:07 pm

But the bonus doesn't seem to reflect the fact that there are 4 borders to that city, so if you move the witch, the city has 1 fewer border that the others

(eg Loent, 4 borders, 5 bonus)

by **natty dread** on Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:18 am

Yes, the bonus could be higher.

by **Mr_Adams** on Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:40 pm

higher bonus or move the extra border. I like the witches tower idea.

by **Dukasaur** on Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:35 am

Mr_Adams wrote:higher bonus or move the extra border. I like the witches tower idea.

In almost every game I've played, people seem to deploy very heavily on the Alchemist, especially in team play. The Alchemist and Witch attack 4 cities, which is perhaps too much of an advantage for someone who starts out with them or gets them early on. I think moving the Witch to some less-prime real estate would reduce this unbalancing effect.