Conquer Club

The title says it all. When designing/playing maps, which do you prefer, and why?

I personally prefer to play both. Your average straightforward map has tons of possibilities for play, but they're all the same, only player decisions mix it up. A complex one throws in those extra mechanics that makes it a blast to "figure out" how to play on it, and then school others on how you play on the map.

Design-wise, I'm a mix of the two as well. A straightforward map offers opportunities for interest in how continents and connections are defined, and not having to worry about balancing complex mechanics and focus more on the graphics is good. With a complex one, my mind can go wild trying to think of how to change the gameplay to make it balanced (something I like, thank you), add in appropriate mechanics to the theme, and the like. It's two different experiences, and I like both.

I prefer straightforward maps, having some gimmicks is fun but too many is just annoying. I especially enjoy maps where you start with only 1 territory. However, I like designing maps with alot of gimmicks. Weird.

This is the age old question, and has been debated many times... I think that as long as the Foundry keeps pumping out both we're doing a fine job, but I'm concerned that the "straightforward" maps that have recently hit the foundry are, well, lacking.

The rules say... "A map should be inherently unique either in gameplay, location, or theme." I'd like to change "location" to read "style," because how many more of the same 24-36 territory maps do we really need? And I'm speaking as somebody who prefers to play the straightforward maps.

I don't play any maps with gameplay gimicks. I just don't find them fun. Classic gameplay all the way!

I suppose I'm inclined to developing maps like that too, though I haven't had much time in the foundry, so I suppose this could change.

I love teh complex!

C.

I prefer straightforward as well. But a little gimmick is okay with me. Too many and I always get back-doored. I'm not that good of a player

i like both types, but my only exception is bamboo jack, i cant figure that map out

RjBeals wrote:I prefer straightforward as well. But a little gimmick is okay with me. Too many and I always get back-doored. I'm not that good of a player

Although when you pump out maps like dustbowl it makes me happy

i like complex. i'm bored of straightforward maps from all the years of playing risk at home with my friends.

as complicated as possible pls - as long as it is justified.

RjBeals wrote:I prefer straightforward as well. But a little gimmick is okay with me. Too many and I always get back-doored. I'm not that good of a player

everything apart from the part about not being a good player! :p

I guess it's a matter of taste. Some people like simple maps while others like more complicated maps. Some of the news maps however are so complicated that I don't even bother trying them. When I play CC I want to relax and play immediately not try to figure out how the map works because there is too much going on. But that's me.

Put up a poll. It will be interesting.

RjBeals wrote:I prefer straightforward as well. But a little gimmick is okay with me. Too many and I always get back-doored. I'm not that good of a player

It's really frustrating when you just cannot work something out - when I lose, I prefer to know that it's because of either a)being outplayed, b)being out-lucked; rather than from stupid mistakes rising from things you didn't know about.

bryguy wrote:i like both types, but my only exception is bamboo jack, i cant figure that map out

glad you ask that question....i have been wanting to enlighten someone....

Bamboo Jack is a map taken from the Prisoner of Wars Railway constructed in between Thailand and Burma.

The map is classic play.

There are only two gimmicks to this map, i have to question whether one might call them gimmicks at all:

1. Crossing the Rivers.
Like all rivers, these two have several section where it is impossible to cross - these are the dark blue sections.
So you can attack any territory across a river as long as there is a light blue section of river to the other side.
The bridge over the River Kwai is surrounded by a dark blue section, therefore you use the bridge to cross the river and that has a bonus attached.

2. The Railways Camps.
Along the line that runs from Non-Pladuk to Thanbyuziat, there are several territories with white dots. These are the Railway station territories on this line. All of these railway stations had POW camps attached to them, and because of space limitations, I have only put four of these POW camps on the left side of the map.

Each camp consists of a railway station, two guard units, and several cook, barracks and hospital territories inside the camp.

One can only attack the POW camps from territories that border the POW camp sections.
I.e. Non Pladuk can only be attacked from Tha Maka (across a light blue section of river) and Rutke (a bordering territory) But when attacking Non-pladuk one must attack the two guard units in order to get inside the POW Camp to take it. This would be considered probably a normal strategy in real warfare. Once you have conquered a guard unit, then you can attack other territories inside the POW Camp, and conseqeuntly fortify.
You cannot attack from the Cooks terit to the railway station for instance because the guard units are in the road, therefore you must hold the guard unit. You don't have to hold the railway station in order to attack the guard units. The Railway Station is actually the railway territory on that railway line and simply appears on the POW Camp diagram rather than on the railway line on the map itself.

Hope this helps.

If still in doubt, then the thread for Bamboo Jack is
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=24920
Please read through and that might enlighten you further.

Personally I'm a great fan of simple maps. I'm not adverse to one with some simple but different gameplay though, DiM's first two AoR maps are pretty good examples of that which is why they're so successful.

I like semi-complex maps that are very different from traditional risk.

AoR, Feudal, Oasis (see my sig), Pearl Harbor, etc.

Complicated, but not too extreme.

I tend to peel my bananas from the tip to the stem, so that must mean I like more traditional maps. **Nods a few times approvingly**


--Andy

BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:as complicated as possible pls - as long as it is justified.

What the general said.

I would love more complex maps, if for no other reason than that we already have a metric assload of classic-style ones. And for the record, I don't consider maps like pearl harbor or AoR to be particularly complex, which is not to say that they're classic-style. By complex I'm talking maps where you really gotta read the damn legend and play them a few times to get your sea-legs, maps that should have as a mandatory part of their legend "abandon all hope, ye who enter, especially if you're playing benjikat".

The question is who makes the most complex maps? I'd say Cairn's. After playing Waterloo myselfe, i cant see how he isnt a colonel or sumthing

hulmey wrote:The question is who makes the most complex maps? I'd say Cairn's. After playing Waterloo myselfe, i cant see how he isnt a colonel or sumthing

I think Cairns beats DiM for complexity. But it's basically just those 2.

my maps aren't complex and neither are carinswk's. if you have an average iq and you read the legend then no map on CC will pose a problem.

DiM wrote:my maps aren't complex and neither are carinswk's. if you have an average iq and you read the legend then no map on CC will pose a problem.

'cept for bamboo jack

bryguy wrote:

DiM wrote:my maps aren't complex and neither are carinswk's. if you have an average iq and you read the legend then no map on CC will pose a problem.

'cept for bamboo jack

Classic gives me a head-ache.
I prefer Doodle Earth.

Kaplowitz wrote:

bryguy wrote:

DiM wrote:my maps aren't complex and neither are carinswk's. if you have an average iq and you read the legend then no map on CC will pose a problem.

'cept for bamboo jack

Classic gives me a head-ache.
I prefer Doodle Earth.

i know its like the simplest map

DiM wrote:my maps aren't complex and neither are carinswk's. if you have an average iq and you read the legend then no map on CC will pose a problem.

im unsure how you view the world DIM!! Id love to be you for a day and see how you tick tock (if you do at all).

Because i was wondering if you agree that waterloo is more complex than classic. If the answer is yes than it would be a complex map. It would hardly be a map that you play speed on for the first time!!

hulmey wrote:

DiM wrote:my maps aren't complex and neither are carinswk's. if you have an average iq and you read the legend then no map on CC will pose a problem.

im unsure how you view the world DIM!! Id love to be you for a day and see how you tick tock (if you do at all).

Because i was wondering if you agree that waterloo is more complex than classic. If the answer is yes than it would be a complex map. It would hardly be a map that you play speed on for the first time!!

waterloo is definately more complex, and bamboo jack is THE most complex