Conquer Club

Do we agree then?

I noticed that the Christmas map uses a negative bonus for holding multiple starting positions in an attempt to rebalance 1v1 play. Would that technique be of any value here?

ender516 wrote:I noticed that the Christmas map uses a negative bonus for holding multiple starting positions in an attempt to rebalance 1v1 play. Would that technique be of any value here?

Explain?

The Bison King wrote:

ender516 wrote:I noticed that the Christmas map uses a negative bonus for holding multiple starting positions in an attempt to rebalance 1v1 play. Would that technique be of any value here?

Explain?

The eight Main Gifts under the tree are starting positions. In the case of 1v1, each player has four. There is a "2 player adjustment" bonus of -1 for holding four or more of these positions. This reduces the number of deployable troops, and I presume that this is intended to prevent unfair sweeps which can occur in the early stages of many 1v1 games. Was this a problem we were trying to address here, or am I confusing this with another map that I was following? I'm sorry, but I read a lot of this stuff late at night, when I am tired, so I don't always absorb it all properly, and I don't have a lot of time for going back over it again.

(The Christmas map situation is a little different because those Main Gifts cannot be attacked or bombarded, so they mostly just feed troops into the ornaments on the tree, but they can attack the 25th Window on the Advent Calendar, giving access to all those windows, holding one of which is a requirement (losing condition).)

and I presume that this is intended to prevent unfair sweeps which can occur in the early stages of many 1v1 games. Was this a problem we were trying to address here, or am I confusing this with another map that I was following?

No this is exactly the concern that we are addressing.

ender516 wrote:

The Bison King wrote:

ender516 wrote:I noticed that the Christmas map uses a negative bonus for holding multiple starting positions in an attempt to rebalance 1v1 play. Would that technique be of any value here?

Explain?

The eight Main Gifts under the tree are starting positions. In the case of 1v1, each player has four. There is a "2 player adjustment" bonus of -1 for holding four or more of these positions. This reduces the number of deployable troops, and I presume that this is intended to prevent unfair sweeps which can occur in the early stages of many 1v1 games. Was this a problem we were trying to address here, or am I confusing this with another map that I was following? I'm sorry, but I read a lot of this stuff late at night, when I am tired, so I don't always absorb it all properly, and I don't have a lot of time for going back over it again.

(The Christmas map situation is a little different because those Main Gifts cannot be attacked or bombarded, so they mostly just feed troops into the ornaments on the tree, but they can attack the 25th Window on the Advent Calendar, giving access to all those windows, holding one of which is a requirement (losing condition).)

This seems like it could find a real practical here. Someone help me math this out,

If I'm getting this right in a 1 v 1 we could set it up with 4 start positions starting at 5 on each. All start with a +1. So that's 6 each 24 troops starting in Europe. Plus an additional +6 -1 (because of the adjustment bonus) so +5. That's 29 troops he can have in Europe vs. Player 2's initial 20. However, Player 1 can really only stack/attack with 11 on 1 territory. So it'd probably be an initial battle of 11 vs. 5. He'd probably win but the impact would probably not be enough to effect the final outcome of the game, presuming Player 1 didn't have crazy good rolls and player 2 can bounce back.

I don't know I think this could work. What do you think?

I'm not sure if I like the negative bonus idea. If one player manages to take enough territories away from the other, the colonial powers become a liability instead of an asset, and that seems to me like it would go against the idea of the map...

I still think it's the best option to just limit the colonial powers to 2 per player.

natty_dread wrote:I'm not sure if I like the negative bonus idea. If one player manages to take enough territories away from the other, the colonial powers become a liability instead of an asset, and that seems to me like it would go against the idea of the map...

I still think it's the best option to just limit the colonial powers to 2 per player.

At the start you mean right? That could probably work too. Would you have the Colonial powers start with 3, 5 or 8 in that scenario?

I think 6 would work.

Then we'll try 6


So to recap:

In 4 player and under games each player will start with 2 Colonial powers with 6 each.

tokle wrote:And if we're talking late 19th century then Portugal should be changed too. It changed to the current one in 1910.

Beautiful and interesting map tbk

Don't know if I'm correct but I'm placing the historical context on a pre-20 century Africa, as you've named the map 'The Colonization of Africa'. If that's so, this would be a better option for the Portuguese flag. This is the Monarchic flag which was replaced on 1911 for the Republican (actual) one, which is btw, quite ugly.

The Bison King wrote:Then we'll try 6


So to recap:

In 4 player and under games each player will start with 2 Colonial powers with 6 each.

Natty, Ian, Ender, what do you think?

So there will be eight starting positions, each consisting of one Colonial power territory, with a starting troop count of six, and a maximum of 2 per player. That sounds okay. And to confirm what I recall, the leftover Colonial Powers will be underlying neutrals. Will they be neutral sixes, or do we want the extra powers to be easier or harder to get?

ender516 wrote:So there will be eight starting positions, each consisting of one Colonial power territory, with a starting troop count of six, and a maximum of 2 per player. That sounds okay. And to confirm what I recall, the leftover Colonial Powers will be underlying neutrals. Will they be neutral sixes, or do we want the extra powers to be easier or harder to get?

I'm thinking 6 should be sufficient.

[bigimg]http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/76/colonialafricaupload.jpg[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/1976/colonialafricasmalluplo.jpg[/bigimg]
I changed the German and Italian flag. I might still change the Portuguese flag.

Well, this is just great. The awesomeness of this map blew up my monitor. Thanks a lot, TBK. I'll be sending you a bill.

-Sully

I have to say that this map is the first one in a long time that I don't find myself squinting at to see the text. Bravo!

Changing the Portuguese flag might be fun just for variety, or to point out the monarchy had more to do with the colonization than the republic did.

The Bison King wrote:If I'm getting this right in a 1 v 1 we could set it up with 4 start positions starting at 5 on each. All start with a +1. So that's 6 each 24 troops starting in Europe. Plus an additional +6 -1 (because of the adjustment bonus) so +5. That's 29 troops he can have in Europe vs. Player 2's initial 20. However, Player 1 can really only stack/attack with 11 on 1 territory. So it'd probably be an initial battle of 11 vs. 5. He'd probably win but the impact would probably not be enough to effect the final outcome of the game, presuming Player 1 didn't have crazy good rolls and player 2 can bounce back.

4 start positions per player in 1v1 and a -1 bonus for holding 4 colonial powers? rather than 11v5, player 1 will probably use 8v5, 8v5 and 7v5, leaving ottoman alone. he'd probably gain 2 colonial powers, with a chance at 3. if we do this, then it will have to be a -2 or -3 bonus, not -1. this is not necessarily detrimental because it helps to ensure that the battles take place in africa and not in europe. having all 8 start positions non-neutral lets all of the bonuses have potential use during a 1v1 game.

The Bison King wrote:In 4 player and under games each player will start with 2 Colonial powers with 6 each.

ender516 wrote:So there will be eight starting positions, each consisting of one Colonial power territory, with a starting troop count of six, and a maximum of 2 per player. That sounds okay. And to confirm what I recall, the leftover Colonial Powers will be underlying neutrals. Will they be neutral sixes, or do we want the extra powers to be easier or harder to get?

a typical initial strategy will be 10v6 and 10v6, with a 50%+ chance of gaining both colonial powers from ur opponent, unless he holds ottoman. this means most games where ottoman is neutral will have player 1 being european with 4 auto-deploys and player 2 being african and starting with no auto-deploys. only half of the colony-plus bonuses are likely to be part of a 1v1 strategy.

how about 4 start positions per player in 1v1 and a -2 bonus for holding 5 or more colonial powers? in this case, u must make a conscious decision to attack someone else's colonial power (in other words, start a european war) to be penalised with the -2, but it might be worth it in the middle game, to break a colony-plus bonus.

ian.

how about 4 start positions per player in 1v1 and a -2 bonus for holding 5 or more colonial powers? in this case, u must make a conscious decision to attack someone else's colonial power (in other words, start a european war) to be penalised with the -2, but it might be worth it in the middle game, to break a colony-plus bonus.

...No I don't like that. What we're aiming for is making it implausible to perform a European sweep in the early part of the game. Not making it undesirable for the entire game.

a typical initial strategy will be 10v6 and 10v6, with a 50%+ chance of gaining both colonial powers from ur opponent, unless he holds ottoman. this means most games where ottoman is neutral will have player 1 being european with 4 auto-deploys and player 2 being african and starting with no auto-deploys. only half of the colony-plus bonuses are likely to be part of a 1v1 strategy.

What if we bumped them back up to 8. Then it's 15(max) vs. 8 That's a 50% chance of getting 1 European territory from you opponent and a significant exhausting of your troops (permitting you don't have god rolls).

Just a comment on iancanton's passing suggestion of making the start positions non-neutral: that could lead to a 1v1v1 game where one player starts with 4 powers versus 2 for each of the others. I think they have to be underlying neutrals.

The Bison King wrote:

a typical initial strategy will be 10v6 and 10v6, with a 50%+ chance of gaining both colonial powers from ur opponent, unless he holds ottoman. this means most games where ottoman is neutral will have player 1 being european with 4 auto-deploys and player 2 being african and starting with no auto-deploys. only half of the colony-plus bonuses are likely to be part of a 1v1 strategy.

What if we bumped them back up to 8. Then it's 15(max) vs. 8 That's a 50% chance of getting 1 European territory from you opponent and a significant exhausting of your troops (permitting you don't have god rolls).

the 50%+ i mentioned is actually 60%+. if both players start with 2 colonial powers and each colonial power starts with 8, then deployment becomes 12v8 and 12v8 and there is still a 60%+ chance of taking both powers from ur opponent.

ender516 wrote:Just a comment on iancanton's passing suggestion of making the start positions non-neutral: that could lead to a 1v1v1 game where one player starts with 4 powers versus 2 for each of the others. I think they have to be underlying neutrals.

yes, that's correct. i meant underlying neutrals for all powers, but 4 each (therefore all non-neutral) for 1v1.

The Bison King wrote:

how about 4 start positions per player in 1v1 and a -2 bonus for holding 5 or more colonial powers? in this case, u must make a conscious decision to attack someone else's colonial power (in other words, start a european war) to be penalised with the -2, but it might be worth it in the middle game, to break a colony-plus bonus.

...No I don't like that. What we're aiming for is making it implausible to perform a European sweep in the early part of the game. Not making it undesirable for the entire game.

the -2 is actually a very marginal penalty. each player starts with +4 auto. if player 1 takes one power from player 2, then player 1 has +5 auto but a -2 penalty to his free deploy, while player 2 has +3 auto. as the auto-deployed stacks keep growing, there comes a point (perhaps 11v11 or 12v12) when attacker's advantage alone makes it worthwhile to be aggressive in europe.

a maximum of 2 starting colonial powers, combined with a -2 penalty for holding more than 2 powers, is another possible twist, though this has a bad effect on 3-player games, where no-one will want to attack the neutral powers. any other ideas that are more workable?

ian.

uh... I'm still not sure about that. I really don't want to penalize players for having to many European territories. Also I don't like the idea of a solution that effects gameplay through out the course of the entire game to discourage one particular move on the first turn of 1 v 1 games. I don't know, again I'd like to hear what Natty and Ender think about your proposal.

Wait a second?!!?!?!?!?!

Do we get to choose the start positions for a 1 v 1? Can't we just make them non-adjacent territories, like Portugual and Germany?

The Bison King wrote:Wait a second?!!?!?!?!?!

Do we get to choose the start positions for a 1 v 1? Can't we just make them non-adjacent territories, like Portugual and Germany?

No, you can only group territories into start positions. The start positions are still distributed randomly and evenly among all players, up to a maximum number if so coded.

I don't know... I'm a bit on the fence about the negative bonus. I'll have to think about this more.

natty_dread wrote:I don't know... I'm a bit on the fence about the negative bonus. I'll have to think about this more.

Cool I would appreciate it.