Conquer Club

Kabanellas wrote:Why complicate what should be simple....

'Region Number Bonus' is what it is, everyone knows that usually, region number bonus will give 1 additional troop for each 3 regions above 9 (on a minimum of 3)

12 = 4
15 = 5
18 = 6
...

so when you read that the 'Region Number Bonus' will give you 1 troop for every 2 regions above 6 - it's pretty self-explanatory imo

8 = 4
10 = 5
12 = 6
14 = 7
...

I don't think its self-explanatory, and judging by the number of people who have been confused by it, I don't think I'm alone. Here are some reasons for confusion with the way it is currently written:

-Not everyone knows that 'Region Number Bonus' means this is revising the normal bonus and is not a new bonus.
-Saying it will "give you 1 troops for every 2 regions above 6" is incomplete because it is actually 3 troops plus 1 troop for every 2 regions above 6. It is not a given that the minimum deployable is +3.

On the instructions page, the formula for the number of troops is given by "regions ÷ 3, minimum of 3". This map changes this to "regions ÷ 2, minimum of 3", so why not put it in those terms?

Other maps that use an adjusted territory bonus explain it thusly:

AoR 3 wrote:Regardless of how many terits you own the terit bonus is +3

City Mogul wrote:There's no free ride in CC City Mogul! The only armies you get each turn are those collected by bonuses

Conquer Man wrote:Territory bonuses are adjusted. 1 army for every 3, 1-30 occupied terr. 1 army for every 4, 31-60 occupied terr.....

Poker Club wrote:No territory bonus

Route 66 wrote:Troops distributed at a rate of 1 army per 2 cities as follows; up to 7 cities receives 3 armies. 8 cities receives 4 armies. 10 cities receives 5 armies etc.

Good Morning Woodboro wrote:No regular territory bonus. Minimum troop deploy is 2

World Cup wrote:No territory bonus. Every player receives +3

Where the bonus is changed, previous maps have been quite explicit about what/how it changes. Territory Adjustments are still pretty uncommon (more maps have no territory bonus rather than an adjusted one).

carlpgoodrich wrote:-Saying it will "give you 1 troops for every 2 regions above 6" is incomplete because it is actually 3 troops plus 1 troop for every 2 regions above 6. It is not a given that the minimum deployable is +3.

one will immediately get it in the first round/turn/deployment (if any doubt exists) - for they will have 3 to deploy

this is the neutral troops displacement across the map (empty regions will have 2 troops)

[bigimg]http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/Clandemonium_Neutral_troops_img.png[/bigimg]

I agree with carlpgoodrich but I have said this before already with no acknowledgement but it would be better to describe the bonus
exactly as in the XML:

+1 troop per 2 regions, minimum of 3 troops

The current legend is obvious if you already know what it means. It is confusing for new players.

pascalleke wrote:

pamoa wrote:Game 8413313
xml code error
I din't get my +3 for berthren

Game 8408440
seems we have the same problem

that has since been fixed.

I believe the clans listed should be from oldest to newer as long as the clan still exists. That is the fair way to honour the clans with a spot on the map.

With regards to the neutrals, I have a query against immortal assassins. From what I can determine, there are 3,4 neutral spots before approaching the clan grounds from the landing points when it's a maximum of 2 regions between them (A bit tough to explain but hopefully you get the gist). In that guise, don't IA2/3 and IA5/6 also need 3's and 4's respectively?

Also, I echo shocked sentiments about the 2-player. Is it not possible to decrease the starting spots by 1 or 2? I would think it'd make more sense for FoW to put some doubt in the opponents mind

Leehar wrote:With regards to the neutrals, I have a query against immortal assassins. From what I can determine, there are 3,4 neutral spots before approaching the clan grounds from the landing points when it's a maximum of 2 regions between them (A bit tough to explain but hopefully you get the gist). In that guise, don't IA2/3 and IA5/6 also need 3's and 4's respectively?

you are completely right (how did I missed that!! )

yup, that should be fixed

Leehar wrote:Also, I echo shocked sentiments about the 2-player. Is it not possible to decrease the starting spots by 1 or 2? I would think it'd make more sense for FoW to put some doubt in the opponents mind

That would be great. Well I'm not the XML expert, but I believe it can be done...

Kabanellas wrote:

Leehar wrote:Also, I echo shocked sentiments about the 2-player. Is it not possible to decrease the starting spots by 1 or 2? I would think it'd make more sense for FoW to put some doubt in the opponents mind

That would be great. Well I'm not the XML expert, but I believe it can be done...

Yeah, It should be pretty simple. If I remember correctly, 4 player dubs have 2 starting positions each (?) so it should follow easily from there.

Also, I've been wondering, but have there been any considerations with regards to making the landing spots maybe with +5 per turn, instead of +3? It helps a bit with the feudal analogy, and gives more incentive to go for the opponents or neutral Landing point I guess.
Similarly, is 6 neutrals really the best for neutral landing points? Idk, I guess I'm just used to those main spots where you get dropped being worth more.

Also, I don't like the naming of the Brethren clan ground very much. I think using the acronym Bofm would be a lot more appropriate since other applicable names like Nemesis etc have been compressed.
In regards to that as well, have you considered maybe developing a key and making those with acronyms in the map because of space constraints have their full name in the drop-down? Divine Domination etc. I think it'd be an added aid to increase those clans recognition instead of leaving it shortened everywhere just for the clan grounds.

There are 10 starting positions in the XML and these are always divided evenly among the players. Unlike the regular territories, no allowance is made for a third neutral player. So 2 players will start with 5 starting positions each; 3 players start with 3 each; 4 players, 2 each; 5 players, 2 each; 6, 7 or 8 players, 1 apiece. Leftover starting position territories are coded as starting neutral with 6 troops. The 10 starting positions were included, I believe, in the hope that the site would soon expand the number of players in a game beyond 8. See this suggestion.

ender516 wrote:There are 10 starting positions in the XML and these are always divided evenly among the players. Unlike the regular territories, no allowance is made for a third neutral player. So 2 players will start with 5 starting positions each; 3 players start with 3 each; 4 players, 2 each; 5 players, 2 each; 6, 7 or 8 players, 1 apiece. Leftover starting position territories are coded as starting neutral with 6 troops. The 10 starting positions were included, I believe, in the hope that the site would soon expand the number of players in a game beyond 8. See this suggestion.

Isn't there some way to set the number of starting spots in a 2 player game? King's Castle had set the start spots to 2 castles instead of 4, for example.

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:

ender516 wrote:There are 10 starting positions in the XML and these are always divided evenly among the players. Unlike the regular territories, no allowance is made for a third neutral player. So 2 players will start with 5 starting positions each; 3 players start with 3 each; 4 players, 2 each; 5 players, 2 each; 6, 7 or 8 players, 1 apiece. Leftover starting position territories are coded as starting neutral with 6 troops. The 10 starting positions were included, I believe, in the hope that the site would soon expand the number of players in a game beyond 8. See this suggestion.

Isn't there some way to set the number of starting spots in a 2 player game? King's Castle had set the start spots to 2 castles instead of 4, for example.

What she/he said.
Would it be that hard to change the starting positions for 2-player from 5 to 4(at the least)?
It would be a significant addition to the gameplay without really costing much.

why cant you play manual on it?

Leehar wrote:

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:

ender516 wrote:There are 10 starting positions in the XML and these are always divided evenly among the players. Unlike the regular territories, no allowance is made for a third neutral player. So 2 players will start with 5 starting positions each; 3 players start with 3 each; 4 players, 2 each; 5 players, 2 each; 6, 7 or 8 players, 1 apiece. Leftover starting position territories are coded as starting neutral with 6 troops. The 10 starting positions were included, I believe, in the hope that the site would soon expand the number of players in a game beyond 8. See this suggestion.

Isn't there some way to set the number of starting spots in a 2 player game? King's Castle had set the start spots to 2 castles instead of 4, for example.

What she/he said.
Would it be that hard to change the starting positions for 2-player from 5 to 4(at the least)?
It would be a significant addition to the gameplay without really costing much.

What is King's Castle? I don't see it in the Game Finder. If you mean King's Court, right now, it has 8 starting positions, so it will give 4 to each. There is a debate going on in the King's Court topic, and the problem, I think, is similar. Over there, apparently, if you fix 1v1, you mess up doubles games. It might be the same here, but I'm not sure.

This is a very good map! it takes a little getting used too, but it a lot of fun!

40kguy wrote:why cant you play manual on it?

You can, it just doesn't serve much purpose, which some would say is a problem with the setting and not the map.

ender516 wrote:

Leehar wrote:

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:

ender516 wrote:There are 10 starting positions in the XML and these are always divided evenly among the players. Unlike the regular territories, no allowance is made for a third neutral player. So 2 players will start with 5 starting positions each; 3 players start with 3 each; 4 players, 2 each; 5 players, 2 each; 6, 7 or 8 players, 1 apiece. Leftover starting position territories are coded as starting neutral with 6 troops. The 10 starting positions were included, I believe, in the hope that the site would soon expand the number of players in a game beyond 8. See this suggestion.

Isn't there some way to set the number of starting spots in a 2 player game? King's Castle had set the start spots to 2 castles instead of 4, for example.

What she/he said.
Would it be that hard to change the starting positions for 2-player from 5 to 4(at the least)?
It would be a significant addition to the gameplay without really costing much.

What is King's Castle? I don't see it in the Game Finder. If you mean King's Court, right now, it has 8 starting positions, so it will give 4 to each. There is a debate going on in the King's Court topic, and the problem, I think, is similar. Over there, apparently, if you fix 1v1, you mess up doubles games. It might be the same here, but I'm not sure.

Yes, but it has been changed to 2 castles each before as well. If that was possible, I don't see why something similar can't be attempted here. Also, the problem with the 1v1 fix if I remember correctly, was that they had changed the deploy to just nobles, and not the castles, which made it harder to get the castle bonus early in the game(?). I don't think thats the case here.

yes, you can do that. Instead of having 10 starting points. You change them to the only 10 playable regions (all the other will be set as neutral)

I think that this was the way chip managed to get 2 starting nobles in 1v1 for the King's Court map.

maybe chip could shed some light here...

Kabanellas wrote:yes, you can do that. Instead of having 10 starting points. You change them to the only 10 playable regions (all the other will be set as neutral)

I think that this was the way chip managed to get 2 starting nobles in 1v1 for the King's Court map.

maybe chip could shed some light here...

Setting all of those to neutral would allow manual and also 1v1 gets each player 3 positions instead of 5.

chipv wrote:

Kabanellas wrote:yes, you can do that. Instead of having 10 starting points. You change them to the only 10 playable regions (all the other will be set as neutral)

I think that this was the way chip managed to get 2 starting nobles in 1v1 for the King's Court map.

maybe chip could shed some light here...

Setting all of those to neutral would allow manual and also 1v1 gets each player 3 positions instead of 5.

Which can only be a good thing, right?

To implement it I suppose we'd need a bit more feedback, before sending it to ManB? But for a quick fix chipv telling what to change so Kab could do it would work?

Leehar wrote:

chipv wrote:

Kabanellas wrote:yes, you can do that. Instead of having 10 starting points. You change them to the only 10 playable regions (all the other will be set as neutral)

I think that this was the way chip managed to get 2 starting nobles in 1v1 for the King's Court map.

maybe chip could shed some light here...

Setting all of those to neutral would allow manual and also 1v1 gets each player 3 positions instead of 5.

Which can only be a good thing, right?

Just a quick note:
Landing points have now an autodeploy bonus of +3 and they start with 6 neutrals if not assigned.
If you turn your starting positions to normal territories they can have the +3 autodeploy but they'll start with 3 neutrals and not 6 if not assigned.

I haven't read previous post(87 pages... a lot lol) so I dont know if what I will propose was considered or proposed previously. So far I haven't played the map but it looks promising

I think that the map will be more interesting if in 1v1 game every player receives 4 landing points instead of 5... 2 neutral landing points will make the map very interesting in games with fog.

P.S. I haven't played the map yet but looks very promising, good work from the creators

king15 wrote:This is a very good map! it takes a little getting used too, but it a lot of fun!

thx a lot king


the great thing about this map is that there are several options to win.

Great fun to play,some insane bonuses to be picked up.Not sure the the gameplay is entirely balanced yet,will post again after I've played a few more games.