Conquer Club

cairnswk wrote:

fossunited wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

fossunited wrote:I have a quick question, and can't be arsed trawling through 42 pages to see if there is an answer in there. How on earth do you win this map? I've been involved in a terminator game, where obviously you can't terminate because of the bottomleft corner.

I have seen someone take all of the objectives, and they didn't win. So now, I have no idea how on earth we are meant to get rid of this map? If we can't terminate, and a player doesn't win when taking all 4 of the objectives, I can't see how on earth we are meant to clear it.

Ideas anyone?

I have won a game on this 4 player mode by gaining the objective and holding it for one round. That is what is required. You must hold the objectives for one turn, get them and providing no-one takes them from you, at the beginning of your next turn, you will win the game. If you lose them, then it's back to the gaining the objective again. Lesson: make sure that when you get them, you fortify them with plenty of reserves so that they can't be taken. Eventually someone will win.

Aaaahhh... thanks. That should be interesting, considering everyone is on escalating cards.

Kewl, escalating will ensure a win

I'm not sure this is true Cairns. We've got an 8 player escalating game going and I really see no way that anyone can take and hold all the objectives with 7 other players turning in to attack him with.

Let me use an example. Suppose Benji turns in for 500 and takes the 4 objectives wtih enough to hold each with 200 on each of the 4. I then turn in for 505, the next guy turns in for 510, and a third guy turns in for 515. Unless we're fairly stupid at least one of those objectives is going to fall hard.

barterer2002 wrote:I'm not sure this is true Cairns. We've got an 8 player escalating game going and I really see no way that anyone can take and hold all the objectives with 7 other players turning in to attack him with.

Let me use an example. Suppose Benji turns in for 500 and takes the 4 objectives wtih enough to hold each with 200 on each of the 4. I then turn in for 505, the next guy turns in for 510, and a third guy turns in for 515. Unless we're fairly stupid at least one of those objectives is going to fall hard.

I'm sure one of you will overcome the others with the aid of the die.

Is there any way in which you can post the new version under a new name -- like Das Schlos V28 -- so we don't have to wait forever?

mwaser wrote:Is there any way in which you can post the new version under a new name -- like Das Schlos V28 -- so we don't have to wait forever?

is it really ready to go live? I'd like to see a test play or something. Given how complex the gameplay is. Just a thought...

seamusk wrote:

mwaser wrote:Is there any way in which you can post the new version under a new name -- like Das Schlos V28 -- so we don't have to wait forever?

is it really ready to go live? I'd like to see a test play or something. Given how complex the gameplay is. Just a thought...

yes guys....just wait until the poll is over this weekend and i'll have a new play version ready...i'm still working on it.

Just make that it is possible to kill all players.

cairnswk wrote:I'm sure one of you will overcome the others with the aid of the die.

That game will go on until everyone deadbeats. Game 2500904
This is the only map I won't play again. Some maps are prone to stalemates with weak/no cards and good opponents, but this one seems like it will lock up against all but the most foolish players, and on any setting.

Lufsen75 wrote:Just make that it is possible to kill all players.

Well the poll is telling me differently....there is a majority who've voted for retaining the objective.

BaldAdonis wrote:

cairnswk wrote:I'm sure one of you will overcome the others with the aid of the die.

That game will go on until everyone deadbeats. Game 2500904
This is the only map I won't play again. Some maps are prone to stalemates with weak/no cards and good opponents, but this one seems like it will lock up against all but the most foolish players, and on any setting.

Yes well, if everyone wants to sit around playing their version of a build game, then you deserve the game to go on forever. With the escalation now up to 154, i'm surprised someone hasn't got the upper hand. Perhaps what is required for something to change is for some of you to be reckless and others to change their gameplay style. I'm sure if you mix it up enough, it would draw a cloncusion.

cairnswk wrote:Yes well, if everyone wants to sit around playing their version of a build game, then you deserve the game to go on forever. With the escalation now up to 154, i'm surprised someone hasn't got the upper hand. Perhaps what is required for something to change is for some of you to be reckless and others to change their gameplay style. I'm sure if you mix it up enough, it would draw a cloncusion.

Anyone who plays recklessly will have no chance to win. That's why I said you need bad players to finish a game. Anyone with a modicum of strategy won't let other players get enough of a lead to take and hold all 4 places. I have no doubt that we could finish the game if everyone autoattacked as much as they could on each turn, but no one is foolish enough to do that.

The fact that you can't kill people means escalating cards won't ensure a win. I have 2 games active and I really can't see how it'll be possible to finish. Holding the objective against 7 other people just seems impossible. One of my games is doubles, so that might finish, but damn. :/

I hadn't played an 8 player of this. I could see why that'd be difficult. We should give cairns ideas for how to maybe modify gameplay for 8 player without necessarily changing the you cannot die thing...

[quote="cairnswk]
Yes well, if everyone wants to sit around playing their version of a build game, then you deserve the game to go on forever. With the escalation now up to 154, i'm surprised someone hasn't got the upper hand. Perhaps what is required for something to change is for some of you to be reckless and others to change their gameplay style. I'm sure if you mix it up enough, it would draw a cloncusion. [/quote]

Come on Carins, there isn't even a way to do this. Suppose I take my 200 armies from Wilhelm and add 160 from the next cards and manage to grab each of the other objectives. There are two choices there, either go through the helipad, (with 160 on it) or up the cable cars, get to hold Millinus and Funkraum. It'll take me lets be optimistic and say I win 2/3 of my rolls. To go up the cable cars rather than through the Helipad will mean that I'll have gone through 202 armies to get to both along with Helipad C. If I started at 360 and left one behind on everything I'm basically out of armies everywhere and what I've done is handed the objectives to orange instead.

Now, after my sucicidal play I'm essentially out of the game. Orange then grabs what I just fought to took and lets suppose he turns in for 170 meaning he's got 500 or so armies to work with. Optimistically he's got 475 armies to protect 5 areas with right. Spread them over the 5 areas and you've got roughly 90 armies on each of the five objectives.

Now he has to hold these 5 through all 8 opponents. This means that the 90 armies will have to withstand 7 direct attacks, probably to the same areas. Even supposing it was possible for him to put every extra army he has on Wilhelm and have only the opponents attack that slot he's going to lose it.

The major problem I see here is the holding of the objectives through an entire set of turns when you can't get rid of the other players. I like the idea of the objectives but it seems to me that merely grabbing all five of the objectives should be the goal, not holding them through the gauntlet. This would encourage players to actually make the play to grab them instead of just sitting back and waiting.

barterer2002 wrote:The major problem I see here is the holding of the objectives through an entire set of turns when you can't get rid of the other players. I like the idea of the objectives but it seems to me that merely grabbing all five of the objectives should be the goal, not holding them through the gauntlet. This would encourage players to actually make the play to grab them instead of just sitting back and waiting.

The requirement that an objective be held for a round is an xml issue. None of us can get around that at this time.

I see, And here I thought I had the simple solution. I'll admit I don't understand the code but let me ask a question.

My assumption is that when I start my turn the program looks to see if I hold all the objectives and if I do the game is over.

Is it possible to have the code look to see if ANYONE holds all the objectives?

Essentially what this will mean as a practical matter is that I won't win the game when I grab the fifth objective but rather as soon as the next turn begins?

barterer2002 wrote:I see, And here I thought I had the simple solution. I'll admit I don't understand the code but let me ask a question.

My assumption is that when I start my turn the program looks to see if I hold all the objectives and if I do the game is over.

Is it possible to have the code look to see if ANYONE holds all the objectives?

Essentially what this will mean as a practical matter is that I won't win the game when I grab the fifth objective but rather as soon as the next turn begins?

Is that not the same thing?

You are just delaying the winning turn til the next player.

But No - I disagree with the concept of getting objective winning...

If you play mission cards in Risk - except for "eliminate player X" - all the missions require you to hold the objectives til the beginning of your next turn!!

C.

seamusk wrote:I hadn't played an 8 player of this. I could see why that'd be difficult. We should give cairns ideas for how to maybe modify gameplay for 8 player without necessarily changing the you cannot die thing...

That would be nice.

barterer2002 wrote:Come on Carins, there isn't even a way to do this.....

i don't believe you on this one barterer2002....i simply think you just haven't found a way to achieve it yet. i am in an 8 player game also at the mo, and that will have a resolution i am confident. Perhaps for this game you are playing, one has to go outside of the box that you guys normally play with.

Right now there are 57 games still in progress, and i see from looking at some of them, they will have outcomes.

i hear what you guys are saying about your big games. New testing ground eh? Well, the new gameplay map is almost finished....soon.

Still believe you must have the oportunity to kill the other players. Or not have escalating as an option at this map.

Lufsen75 wrote:Still believe you must have the oportunity to kill the other players. Or not have escalating as an option at this map.

Well, see what you make of the new gameplay map below.

OK.....the poll has indicated that people still want the objective only game.
So here is Version 28 with that still in gameplay....you won't be able to eliminate opponents in this map, but there are several factors that map assist in making it easier to gain an upper hand.

1. The bombarding terts AB & AC have been removed completely, and there is only 1 territory that can do this now.
2. The checkpoints were 4, now reduced to 1, which is a killer neutral and reduced to -1 each turn.
3. Static Bonuses from the starting positions have now been reduced to +1 so that starting players don't gain an advantage in 1vs1 games.
4. Re-arrangement of the bonuses for the castle (SChloß), and the airport (Flughafen) and the village(Dorf)
5. Militärlager has been re-arranged.
6. Bonuses now included for the roads.
7. Higher neutral numbers to start on the airport and other terts including the helipads.
8. Helipads are now killer neutrals also, reverting to 14 after each players turn....so don't leave piles of armies on the killer neutrals otherwise they might desert somewhere.
9. Small re-arrangement of the terts in the castle to allow for inclusion of the new road in there.

See what you make of it now.

I like the new map. It seems a lot fairer.

what does CP-Killer neutral: reverts each to to -1 mean exactly? is that suppose to be a two neutral?

cairnswk wrote:OK.....the poll has indicated that people still want the objective only game.
So here is Version 28 with that still in gameplay....you won't be able to eliminate opponents in this map, but there are several factors that map assist in making it easier to gain an upper hand.

1. The bombarding terts AB & AC have been removed completely, and there is only 1 territory that can do this now.
2. The checkpoints were 4, now reduced to 1, which is a killer neutral and reduced to -1 each turn.
3. Static Bonuses from the starting positions have now been reduced to +1 so that starting players don't gain an advantage in 1vs1 games.
4. Re-arrangement of the bonuses for the castle (SChloß), and the airport (Flughafen) and the village(Dorf)
5. Militärlager has been re-arranged.
6. Bonuses now included for the roads.
7. Higher neutral numbers to start on the airport and other terts including the helipads.
8. Helipads are now killer neutrals also, reverting to 14 after each players turn....so don't leave piles of armies on the killer neutrals otherwise they might desert somewhere.
9. Small re-arrangement of the terts in the castle to allow for inclusion of the new road in there.

See what you make of it now.

love it when does it come back out now?

I like the changes, Looking forward to playing..

Tisha wrote:what does CP-Killer neutral: reverts each to to -1 mean exactly? is that suppose to be a two neutral?

Sorry Tisha....CP = Checkpoint. I guess i should explain that - somewhere

A killer neutral territory means that is you have 5 on there at the beginning of you next turn, it will revert to neutral and you lose your armies. I guess -1 is superfluous, should be just 1...i'll change that shortly...f5 to see it.
on second thoughts i made it 2.

I still dont see how the second player in 1v1 has a chance...