Conquer Club

The classic map is horrid !!!
Please could we have country's instead of cities and get rid of the wavy attack lines and go back to straight ones. I know it sounds condescending but why not use a classic risk board as you inspiration instead of changing everything you can for the sake of it. Put your new map with all the other variables and call it 'The messed up map' and I am sure some people will play on it and return the original

The classic map is horrid !!!
Please could we have country's instead of cities and get rid of the wavy attack lines and go back to straight ones. I know it sounds condescending but why not use a classic risk board as you inspiration instead of changing everything you can for the sake of it. Put your new map with all the other variables and call it 'The messed up map' and I am sure some people will play on it and return the original

So don't play it. There's 200 other maps to choose from.

skylark4 wrote:The classic map is horrid !!!
Please could we have country's instead of cities and get rid of the wavy attack lines and go back to straight ones. I know it sounds condescending but why not use a classic risk board as you inspiration instead of changing everything you can for the sake of it. Put your new map with all the other variables and call it 'The messed up map' and I am sure some people will play on it and return the original

These things were not changed for the sake of change. They were changed to avoid copyright infringement on Hasbro's property. The gameplay is identical, having equivalent connections and bonuses.

Is there any way to redo the XML to have 1 territ in each continent always neutral?

Current XML would allow the development of a map with fixed starting neutral territories, but the gameplay of this map is pretty much sacrosanct.

Classic should never change.

Hello everybody!
I'm pretty new at Conquer Club.

This map is wonderful, really. But this is not exactly the classic World map.
The connection Kamchatcka - Mongolia (in this case Magadan - Manila) is missing.

Is it intentional or mistaken?
Let me know your point please

I don't recall ever seeing a sea route from Magadan to Manila on any board.

The_Bishop is right.
If we compare the real classic map with our classic map, we can see the difference.



Said that, it doesn't mean they must be identical.

Holy crap.

My mind is blown. How has this not been seen before?

It'd have to be a weird-ass route from Magadan to Manila.

After all the discussions that went on for this map, I'm genuinely shocked. How did we all get this wrong?

Sorry, I didn't want to throw you into a panic... LOL

I noticed that problem at the first sight. Just because I know very well the classic world map and I always remember the connections.

It will be hard to add one line?

The_Bishop wrote:Sorry, I didn't want to throw you into a panic... LOL

I noticed that problem at the first sight. Just because I know very well the classic world map and I always remember the connections.

It will be hard to add one line?

Not that it'd be hard to add a single line, it wouldn't make much sense without changing the cities. You'd have to fly around Tokyo, or something.

i thought that was done for copyright reasons? i'm not sure if i heard that somewhere or just assumed it

john9blue wrote:i thought that was done for copyright reasons? i'm not sure if i heard that somewhere or just assumed it

I think you assumed it. The map was made to avoid copyright, I don't think that one connection made a difference.

WOW. MY MIND HAS BEEN BLOWN TWICE IN ONE FUCKING DAY!!!!!

Well, this map was made to match the connections on the Classic Shapes/Classic Art maps, which were made to match the connections on the original map here on CC, which was the first one which might have been infringing. Does anyone know what that one looked like?
Is this issue due to a variation in terms of what Hasbro and the earlier publishers of R*sk put on their maps over the years?

New site leadership - why not revamp this revamp?

RjBeals wrote:New site leadership - why not revamp this revamp?

Because changing connections isn't a revamp, right? It would have to be an entirely new map that goes through the Beta stage, otherwise it would greatly affect in-progress games.

There is a really good question above... did this match classic shapes/art or did that totally get screwed up when we changed? You'd think it would have got caught then if it was a change.

It was missed in classic art.

In game 2 there was a reinforcement from magadan to Manila (adjacent). This is a newish problem.

DoomYoshi wrote:In game 2 there was a reinforcement from magadan to Manila (adjacent). This is a newish problem.

In game 2 it was the actual Classic map. The problem arose when classic shapes and art happened.

Gilligan wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:In game 2 there was a reinforcement from magadan to Manila (adjacent). This is a newish problem.

In game 2 it was the actual Classic map. The problem arose when classic shapes and art happened.

Yea, I'm just providing log proof. I am surprised the log doesn't melt when that happens.

DoomYoshi wrote:

Gilligan wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:In game 2 there was a reinforcement from magadan to Manila (adjacent). This is a newish problem.

In game 2 it was the actual Classic map. The problem arose when classic shapes and art happened.

Yea, I'm just providing log proof. I am surprised the log doesn't melt when that happens.

Well, if ORIGINAL Classic became Classic Shapes and this version of Classic came from Classic Art... then it all makes sense. That would mean Classic Art was just a new map and wasn't vetted properly (given how it came about, that's no surprise).

If ORIGINAL Classic became Classic Art, then you're right and I don't understand how it was missed.