Conquer Club

Well, I think it could work if the penalty is only for 5 powers or more.

It would discourage taking extra powers unless you have the african resources to support them. So you can't overextend in Europe, you'd have to think a bit before going on an European campaign.

Although, when you hold the corresponding african bonuses, they more than offset the slight penalty you get from Europe. But it would also give the smaller players a good opportunity to knock you down if you don't defend your african bonuses well enough.

So yeah, I'm warming up to the idea. I think it can work. In fact, it could even be taken further... you could make it a tiered penalty, like -2 for 5, -3 for 6 and so on...

looks awesome!

we haven't got a real colonization map of africa yet, on eastern hemisphere its usually africa and austalia colonizing europe lol

The Bison King wrote:What if we bumped them back up to 8.

if there's a big number of starting troops, then player 1 in 1v1 will simply use his three attacker's dice to trim player 2 down to 1 or 2 troops on each power, then steamroller europe either immediately or on turn 2. yet, if there are only 3 troops per power, then player 2 is reasonably likely to lose at least two powers on turn 1 if one of them isn't ottoman. how do we solve that one?

ian.

Germ of an idea: Europe tried to avoid wars by treaties which established mutual defense pacts. Smaller countries served as buffer zones. Maybe we should introduce some of those with large neutral values and only allow attacks between colonial powers to proceed through them. In some cases, the new territory might be a body of water. (This would work better if the Netherlands, not a power on this map, lay between Belgium and France. It could then be the buffer between Belgium, France and Britain.)

Or perhaps we could depict the treaties themselves on the map in some fashion, but still direct attacks through them.

Or maybe we just need one Continental War territory which is the only connection between the powers.

ender516 wrote:Or maybe we just need one Continental War territory which is the only connection between the powers.

This would be a good addition. Solves problems and allows the advancement of the game. ender even gave you a name for free.

ender516 wrote:Germ of an idea: Europe tried to avoid wars by treaties which established mutual defense pacts. Smaller countries served as buffer zones. Maybe we should introduce some of those with large neutral values and only allow attacks between colonial powers to proceed through them. In some cases, the new territory might be a body of water. (This would work better if the Netherlands, not a power on this map, lay between Belgium and France. It could then be the buffer between Belgium, France and Britain.)

Or perhaps we could depict the treaties themselves on the map in some fashion, but still direct attacks through them.

Or maybe we just need one Continental War territory which is the only connection between the powers.

An interesting idea but I doubt there's enough space to pull it off. Besides I too have had a Eureka moment!!! I was looking at this when it came to me:

ender516 wrote:

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.

If we can choose the groups we can arrange them so that no 2 pairings have more than 1 border. I just worked it out, If I add the Alps back in as a border between Germany and Italy if you arrange the groups as such:

Group A) Britain, Ottoman
Group B) Spain, Portugal
Group C) France, Italy
Group D) Germany Belgium

No matter how a 1 v 1 starts it'll be impossible for player 1 to take both European terts from player 2.

Games that start Group B Vs. Group D wont even have a single shared border.

koontz1973 wrote:

ender516 wrote:Or maybe we just need one Continental War territory which is the only connection between the powers.

This would be a good addition. Solves problems and allows the advancement of the game. ender even gave you a name for free.

WEll really that could work. I'll save that for a back up solution. I want to hear what people think of above mentioned solution first

ender516 wrote:Or maybe we just need one Continental War territory which is the only connection between the powers.

this certainly provides a good buffer zone.

The Bison King wrote:

ender516 wrote:you can only group territories into start positions.

If we can choose the groups we can arrange them so that no 2 pairings have more than 1 border. I just worked it out, If I add the Alps back in as a border between Germany and Italy if you arrange the groups as such:

Group A) Britain, Ottoman
Group B) Spain, Portugal
Group C) France, Italy
Group D) Germany Belgium

No matter how a 1 v 1 starts it'll be impossible for player 1 to take both European terts from player 2.

this is at least fair for 2 to 4 players. in 5-player to 8-player games, do all powers start neutral? if so, then it's still fair, but the large multi-player games lose the colony-plus-powers bonuses.

ian.

iancanton wrote:

ender516 wrote:Or maybe we just need one Continental War territory which is the only connection between the powers.

this certainly provides a good buffer zone.

The Bison King wrote:

ender516 wrote:you can only group territories into start positions.

If we can choose the groups we can arrange them so that no 2 pairings have more than 1 border. I just worked it out, If I add the Alps back in as a border between Germany and Italy if you arrange the groups as such:

Group A) Britain, Ottoman
Group B) Spain, Portugal
Group C) France, Italy
Group D) Germany Belgium

No matter how a 1 v 1 starts it'll be impossible for player 1 to take both European terts from player 2.

this is at least fair for 2 to 4 players. in 5-player to 8-player games, do all powers start neutral? if so, then it's still fair, but the large multi-player games lose the colony-plus-powers bonuses.

ian.

No, in +5 player games each player would start with 1 Colonial power and any extra's would be under lying Neutrals.

If you only code 4 starting positions, the positions will be ignored in 5-8 player games. Then if the territories under the positions are neutrals, they will start neutral in those games.

The Bison King wrote:

iancanton wrote:

ender516 wrote:Or maybe we just need one Continental War territory which is the only connection between the powers.

this certainly provides a good buffer zone.

The Bison King wrote:

ender516 wrote:you can only group territories into start positions.

If we can choose the groups we can arrange them so that no 2 pairings have more than 1 border. I just worked it out, If I add the Alps back in as a border between Germany and Italy if you arrange the groups as such:

Group A) Britain, Ottoman
Group B) Spain, Portugal
Group C) France, Italy
Group D) Germany Belgium

No matter how a 1 v 1 starts it'll be impossible for player 1 to take both European terts from player 2.

this is at least fair for 2 to 4 players. in 5-player to 8-player games, do all powers start neutral? if so, then it's still fair, but the large multi-player games lose the colony-plus-powers bonuses.

ian.

No, in +5 player games each player would start with 1 Colonial power and any extra's would be under lying Neutrals.

I don't think you can do that, Bison If you set up four starting positions of two territories each, there won't be enough positions for 5+ player games, therefore they would all drop as the underlying neutrals, since each player would not be able to get at least one position each.

-Sully

oh....


Well then. I guess we're going to have to add a colonial power war territory that's a killer neutral, sans any other suggestion.

Well... then again maybe not.

I'm think I'm going to reconsider the negative bonus strategy.

natty_dread wrote:Well, I think it could work if the penalty is only for 5 powers or more.

It would discourage taking extra powers unless you have the african resources to support them. So you can't overextend in Europe, you'd have to think a bit before going on an European campaign.

Although, when you hold the corresponding african bonuses, they more than offset the slight penalty you get from Europe. But it would also give the smaller players a good opportunity to knock you down if you don't defend your african bonuses well enough.

So yeah, I'm warming up to the idea. I think it can work. In fact, it could even be taken further... you could make it a tiered penalty, like -2 for 5, -3 for 6 and so on...

Ok the more I think about it the more I'm warming up to this idea as well. I think that this could be a very effective way of focusing the gameplay on Africa, while Europe stays a strategic support area.

I was thinking that if we keep the 2 start territory limit it could be something like

-2 for 3
-3 for 4
-4 for 5
ect...

Yeah, that could work, but maybe step it for every two powers, like this:

-2 for 3
-3 for 5
-4 for 7
-5 for 8

Ok update time:

[bigimg]http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/76/colonialafricaupload.jpg[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/1701/colonialafricasmalluplom.jpg[/bigimg]

Alright! hopefully these negative bonus penalties will sufficiently deture people from blitzing Europe and force them to calculate their moves in Africa. I'm still thinking that each European start postition should start with 5 troops though, unless there's a big opposition to that.

Hopefully with this addressed the GP stamp isn't too far off.

Thoughts? Opinions? Gameplay stamps?

Lol. I was just going to come in and say that it is too easy to blitz Europe, but I guess others disagree.

Also, which territories are starting as neutral? Just the ones with the numbers?

Lol. I was just going to come in and say that it is too easy to blitz Europe, but I guess others disagree.

well we've modified so that that is now a poor strategy

Also, which territories are starting as neutral? Just the ones with the numbers?

yup

I'm thinking that the negative bonuses will work. I'll let ian comment on it as he's been following this a little longer than me

Ok, I don't quite understand why anyone would attack the landing points, but I guess that will have to be hashed out in Beta.

As it stands, I don't think they should start neutral, but like I said it needs to be figured out in Beta.

isaiah40 wrote:I'm thinking that the negative bonuses will work. I'll let ian comment on it as he's been following this a little longer than me

I think so too. I was hesitant at first because (as the republicans say) It punished success, but I think that it'll work better than the earlier solutions because it actually changes the motivation for taking all of Europe. It can still be an advantagous strategy but only if you can support the penalty by having a strong presence in Africa. It adds a whole new layer to the gameplay that promotes a 2 front war, which was always how I intended this to play. An all out land war in Africa, and a strategic numbers war in Europe.

DoomYoshi wrote:Ok, I don't quite understand why anyone would attack the landing points, but I guess that will have to be hashed out in Beta.

As it stands, I don't think they should start neutral, but like I said it needs to be figured out in Beta.

The landing points are just there for greater mobility. They are so that if someone has been restricted to Europe or select part of Africa they still have a way of getting back into the map. They also allow a path back to Europe.

Any one else have any gameplay concerns? I'm thinking it's stamp time... or at least sticky time.

All I have are graphical things at this point.

natty_dread wrote:All I have are graphical things at this point.

You might as well hit me with them while I wait.

For example in the mean time:

[bigimg]http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/76/colonialafricaupload.jpg[/bigimg]
I know the whole African Lion thing is totally over played and dorky, but I got to put something in that corner, and honestly, who doesn't think Lions are cool?