Conquer Club

A slight update, with a slight spruce-up:
[bigimg]http://i1011.photobucket.com/albums/af239/RASSyndrome/Baseball/BMap_72.png[/bigimg]

The caps look sharp.

Idk how I feel about the title. It's clever but misleading...

-Sulyy

Victor Sullivan wrote:Idk how I feel about the title. It's clever but misleading...

-Sulyy

If a lot of people feel misled, I can change it to "Baseball: King of Diamonds". That would also help people find it in the map list.

Evil DIMwit wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:Idk how I feel about the title. It's clever but misleading...

-Sulyy

If a lot of people feel misled, I can change it to "Baseball: The King of Diamonds". That would also help people find it in the map list.

Sounds good except for one small edit (see above). It makes all the difference (Titannic/The Titannic, Expendables/The Expendables, etc.)

Sully

Really? I don't think it makes much difference in this case. I like it better without "the".

One thing I'm not sure about is whether there's any point to the defenders assaulting two territories away. It doesn't make any bonuses less defensible with the exception of the ones next to Hank. Maybe the defenders should go more on the borders of bonus zones.

Somehow, I've been totally neglecting on this map. Sorry.

I don't really know much about baseball, but I think you are imitating the game dynamics well in this map.

I think the mound could use to have more neutrals on it though. There's a danger of first round elimination here (pitcher gets +7 = 17 troops, shortest route to mound = 1+3+1+6 = 11 troops, which makes a total of 21 troops to kill...) 17 v 21 can be pulled off with moderately lucky dice.

natty_dread wrote:I think the mound could use to have more neutrals on it though. There's a danger of first round elimination here (pitcher gets +7 = 17 troops, shortest route to mound = 1+3+1+6 = 11 troops, which makes a total of 21 troops to kill...) 17 v 21 can be pulled off with moderately lucky dice.

First round elimination, but at what risk? The attacker would have nothing left.

Still, you have a point. Perhaps I'll raise it up to, say, 9 or 10.

Well there's more reason than that. In lunar war, the mines objective is currently not being used at all... And in lunar, the missile bases have 15. Ok, the maps are different but you get the point... if assaulting the other players is easier & strategically a better choice than going for the objective, then no one is going to go for the objective.

I think if you want the map truly to mimic baseball dynamics then the objective (holding the bases) should be at least equally viable as elimination.

So yeah, I'd say at least 10 troops on the mound.

You're right. I'll make it 12 just to be safe.

Look much better without those steel walls. I think the bonuses are somewhat defendable, but the awards might be a bit too high. Maybe for the inner outfield, he bit that borders the brown area, there should be just one territory.

Industrial Helix wrote:Look much better without those steel walls. I think the bonuses are somewhat defendable, but the awards might be a bit too high. Maybe for the inner outfield, he bit that borders the brown area, there should be just one territory.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The whole inner outfield? Like one long territory arcing all the way from the left end of the field to the right?

Industrial Helix wrote: brown area.

Infield*

maybe not 1 territory, perhaps four territories.

Industrial Helix wrote:maybe not 1 territory, perhaps four territories.

What's your reasoning behind this?

Evil, a little break in my RL studies...
There is of course great potential for the graphics when they get done. I look forward to seeing that.
But I like what you done here gameplay-wise. I think the Defenders being able to assault two territories away from the outfield is a great replication of the game dynamics, coz I don't think there would be any instance for the Catcher to be aiming out at the Left, Centre and Right Field positions, would there?
You know in my Cricket you've got the minus bonus for batter and fielder, and then the plus bonus if you get those two plus the four runs.
Is there anyway that batter + defender + baseball could amount for a plus or minus bonus (replicating being caught out), and the batter and Home runs could amount for a extra bonus.
Sorry if this has already been discussed.
Re the title: I think "Baseball: King of Diamonds" is best.
Well done so far.

cairnswk wrote:Is there anyway that batter + defender + baseball could amount for a plus or minus bonus (replicating being caught out), and the batter and Home runs could amount for a extra bonus.

No, principally because the batter and balls are all killer neutral.

But thanks very much for dropping in. Cricket was an inspiration for this, as is hinted at by the graphical style I'm slowly shifting away from.

Victor Sullivan wrote:

Industrial Helix wrote:maybe not 1 territory, perhaps four territories.

What's your reasoning behind this?

I echo that. Do you have a good reason?

It just looks impossible to defend effectively and I doubt the actual territories will come in to play a whole lot. Personally, I'd go for the players and hog the auto bonus rather than try an conquer anything in the outfield.... hmm, now that I think about it the map has a nice dynamic where once in the outfield players will likely head in towards the plates, which is true to the baseball in game. So if that's the case, why bother with regional bonuses at all?

Industrial Helix wrote:It just looks impossible to defend effectively and I doubt the actual territories will come in to play a whole lot. Personally, I'd go for the players and hog the auto bonus rather than try an conquer anything in the outfield.... hmm, now that I think about it the map has a nice dynamic where once in the outfield players will likely head in towards the plates, which is true to the baseball in game. So if that's the case, why bother with regional bonuses at all?

I think it's more productive than just having dead space there. It gives players more of a choice of what to go for.

New version, adjusted to put more defenders on region borders:

[bigimg]http://i1011.photobucket.com/albums/af239/RASSyndrome/Baseball/BMap_8.png[/bigimg]
(on second thought, maybe I should make Willie's sector worth 3 now)

Evil DIMwit wrote:(on second thought, maybe I should make Willie's sector worth 3 now)

YES

Are there going to be impassible borders around parts of the bonus regions? I agree with IH that the regions seem really hard to defend, especially for the small bonus they come with. In other words, If I am getting +4 on the pitcher for free, why would I want to protect 4 regions, which can be attacked from many places, just for +3? If I were playing this I wouldn't leave the pitcher for a few rounds, just attack the batter for a card.

You really think the map would play well with only the defender and pitcher autos, the plate bonus, and the home runs? There's not much deployment but I suppose the large autos make up for it. Hmm...

No, I guess I was not clear. I like the bonus regions, I just think that right now they are too hard to hold because there are no impassible borders (like in the first version?). In order to expand into the field, there has to be a hope of gaining more troops from bonuses than you would lose to battle, and I don't think that is currently the case, at least not in many player games. This is the reason DasSchloss is not one of my favorite maps in CC.

One other possibility is to create more opportunities to get bonuses. Maybe have the bonus for fielders increase if you have more than 1 of them (1 for 1, 3 for 2, etc.)?

carlpgoodrich wrote:No, I guess I was not clear. I like the bonus regions, I just think that right now they are too hard to hold because there are no impassible borders (like in the first version?). In order to expand into the field, there has to be a hope of gaining more troops from bonuses than you would lose to battle, and I don't think that is currently the case, at least not in many player games. This is the reason DasSchloss is not one of my favorite maps in CC.

One other possibility is to create more opportunities to get bonuses. Maybe have the bonus for fielders increase if you have more than 1 of them (1 for 1, 3 for 2, etc.)?

I'm not really in agreement, for several reasons.

First, I think that the outfield in particular has defensible bonuses. The corners (worth +2) only need to have 2 regions held to defend. Also, +4 for defending 4 regions is still not bad at all.

Second, "In order to expand into the field there has to be a hope of gaining more troops from bonuses than you would lose to battle..." Not a bad maxim, but only looks from a purely attritional standpoint. A defensive player's motto, in other words. The name of the game is Risk, at its heart, and the best players on CC know that attacks can make sense from a strategic standpoint and be a losing proposition from a troop loss/gain standpoint.

Particularly in a game that has a victory objective, playing the waiting game can be a losing strategy. Oasis and Third Crusade prove that.

Third, you're going to have to move off of the pitcher at some point. So one may as well take something that gives a bonus rather than not. Additionally, even if you don't defend a bonus, someone still has to devote the troops to break it- not a given in conquest maps, especially not in fog of war games.

----------------
I'm a big fan of the current bonus structure and gameplay flow.

That said, I think the +4 auto deploy might be a bit much. A large initial stack and a smaller autodeploy might make the game less crazy and benefit "lurking stackers" a lot less. Maybe, 10-12 initial troops (10 at present, yes?) and a +2 autodeploy?

Anyway, great map and good work on a complicated game.

Marshal Ney