Conquer Club

the problem is that with 5 troops to start on a basis of 1 for 3 territs, the second player in a 1v1 is HUGELY at a disadvantage right?

I would like to propose a new idea. You get 3 troops always. for every 6 territs you hold however you get a bonus troop, so 1-5 territs yields 3, 6-11 yields 4, 12-17 yields 5? how does that sound?

swimmerdude99 wrote:the problem is that with 5 troops to start on a basis of 1 for 3 territs, the second player in a 1v1 is HUGELY at a disadvantage right?

I would like to propose a new idea. You get 3 troops always. for every 6 territs you hold however you get a bonus troop, so 1-5 territs yields 3, 6-11 yields 4, 12-17 yields 5? how does that sound?

That sounds like the way I was thinking, just slightly different. Would you cap it at 5 or would you allow the troop numbers go up and if so, in what way.

I had an idea that if you got 32 territs (half of the board), this would nearly be the end of the game anyway and it would be a matter of mopping up, giving a large territ/troop count to speed it up, in the region of 10+.

Using these two ideas gives us...
the same small game
expansion in large games
the ability to finish games of faster

Thoughts on this...

EDIT: Just looked at the xml thread and it seems this is not possible. If anyone has an idea on how to code the above idea, can you let me know so it can be done and implemented.

In case you cannot fathom it...

1-5 territs 3 drop always
6-11 territs 4 drop always
12-31 territs 5 drop always
32+ territs 10 drop.

koontz1973 wrote:EDIT: Just looked at the xml thread and it seems this is not possible. If anyone has an idea on how to code the above idea, can you let me know so it can be done and implemented.

In case you cannot fathom it...

1-5 territs 3 drop always
6-11 territs 4 drop always
12-31 territs 5 drop always
32+ territs 10 drop.

It seems like it would be the same code style as Conquer Man. I don't know what that XML looks like, but it seems like it would be something like that.

The quoted proposal would also be fine with me. It not much different from what I said. You asked about using my idea and capping it at 5 instead of 6. That would also be good with me.

I do agree with danryan; the fighting is already locating itself around the middle anyway it seems like. At least in 1v1 games.

chapcrap wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:EDIT: Just looked at the xml thread and it seems this is not possible. If anyone has an idea on how to code the above idea, can you let me know so it can be done and implemented.

In case you cannot fathom it...

1-5 territs 3 drop always
6-11 territs 4 drop always
12-31 territs 5 drop always
32+ territs 10 drop.

It seems like it would be the same code style as Conquer Man. I don't know what that XML looks like, but it seems like it would be something like that.

The quoted proposal would also be fine with me. It not much different from what I said. You asked about using my idea and capping it at 5 instead of 6. That would also be good with me.

I do agree with danryan; the fighting is already locating itself around the middle anyway it seems like. At least in 1v1 games.

The problem I found and this is why I need to check if it can be done is the expansion of territs. A minimum or maximum can be put in place but I do not think it can be done for each set. PMed Sully to see if he can shed some light to this.

As for the middle, found this cartoon a while back...

...the middle will always be what players will go for in all game types. The biggest complaint that I see in the logs is the ability to finish the game of. In chess, you can resign when there is no hope but in this you cannot. I just beat hippo in a no spoils game in round 14, but 6 of those rounds was just finishing him off as by round 8, he was not really able to make a comeback.

Sheesh and I thought it was our dirty little secret!

thehippo8 wrote:Sheesh and I thought it was our dirty little secret!

Nope the dirty little secret is what I made your men, woman and children do afterwards.

koontz1973 wrote:

danfrank wrote: if you adjust it to 1 per 3 then starting with 5 is cool.

This is what I am leaning to.

danfrank wrote: I just thought of this , but possibly making the opponents king square

Not sure the kings square would work as it is one territ but maybe the whole back row or even the light squares for the back row.

I get the feeling that you guys want something to fight towards.

Right , fighting towards something is the whole idea , i think the other way is a totally based on dice outcomes, as i have stated earlier , your thinking outside of the box for the unique movement is awesome..

Got to try and figure out for a Winning/losing condition that would be fair for both small and large games. The only one that I have come up with is to hold a combination of the shields. Maybe hold ten for the win. That seems to be the only way to do it that would be fair to all.

enders has given me the know how to do the changes. I will get the xml and map changes done today.

They will be...
1-5 territs 3 drop always
6-11 territs 4 drop always
12-31 territs 5 drop always
32+ territs 10 drop.

Winning condition will be any 9 shields.

Since you are quoting me here, I thought I should pop in and make sure I see the progress. I will try to read through this thread, but 26 pages may take a while.

ender516 wrote:Since you are quoting me here, I thought I should pop in and make sure I see the progress. I will try to read through this thread, but 26 pages may take a while.

Save your time, 22 pages is an argument between me and natty over the shield bonuses. He won and was right about it, as was DiM who first suggested them.

New map and xml with changes.
[bigimg]http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/7725/nkl.png[/bigimg]

Been playing a few 1v1 on this and really enjoying it. Nice job koontz. Thanks

koontz1973 wrote:Save your time, 22 pages is an argument between me and natty over the shield bonuses. He won and was right about it, as was DiM who first suggested them.

i'm always right

DiM wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Save your time, 22 pages is an argument between me and natty over the shield bonuses. He won and was right about it, as was DiM who first suggested them.

i'm always right

I once thought I was wrong, but turns out I was mistaken...

koontz1973 wrote:
New map and xml with changes.
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/7725/nkl.png
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/350/nks.png

koontzhopesthisworksbutitshouldasItookmytimeandranitthoughthexmlchecker.xml

Sent to lackattack

This is the most revolutionary map we have had in CC for a long long time.

It is a masterpiece imo.

Good job and thank you.

I hope this opens up a lot of eyes and convinces people to think outside of the box. Seems to me the maps coming out are bland re-runs.

THis is a complete breath of fresh edit-air. It is wonderfully deep in game play yet I do not have to read hieroglyphics and study the damn instructions for hours trying to figure out what is going on.

It is NOT another map of england or europe and not a map of a state. It is very very very nice. I am about to start up about 50 games on this map.

So, maybe it's time to institute a new award. Like innovation of the year award? A bit like the Conqueror title but for map makers, programmers and others in the site mechanics? I vote Koontz for the first award!

thehippo8 wrote:So, maybe it's time to institute a new award. Like innovation of the year award? A bit like the Conqueror title but for map makers, programmers and others in the site mechanics? I vote Koontz for the first award!

There should be yearly awards. These guys work really hard for little reward and mostly just criticism.

ND had a pretty innovate lunar map. Its not my cup of tea so much but it is innovative. Das schloss as well.

But this is just "in my opinions". To me the real genius maps have always been visually simple to understand maps with deep deep gameplay, like a duck and cover, feudal, and now like this knights map. Everyone likes something different in a map. Heck HIVE was actually fairly innovative as well as oasis.

I think the new XML changes will be a benefit.

And you are right about fighting for the middle. It will happen a lot, but I don't have a problem with that.

chapcrap wrote:I think the new XML changes will be a benefit.

And you are right about fighting for the middle. It will happen a lot, but I don't have a problem with that.

Probably correct on both counts. I think fighting for the middle will only happen on some settings.

Esc and flat rate will sort of nullify that, as well as team play. In teams on small maps you gun for elimination (in higher teir sort of matchups) not necessarily a position on a map. But sometimes depending on the drop.

I used pencil and paper (I should scan it in) and drew a linear box and line map of this map to understand it better... since all the attacks jump this is a good way to conceptualize it. I do it ofter for new maps.


This is a very deep map

Thanks a lot guys, high praise from some of you indeed. Others just tooting there own trumpet. And thanks nobodies.

Koontz! Thanks so much for the change, I really appreciate the change in the drop! Great modification! I would like to propose one more diea, simply because this map, I'm positive, will become a favorite of mine! I think that there really ought to be a bonus that continues for increasing territs, if you want it to be a larger gap thats fine, but I would think you would just continue the "ladder" created, so it continues being objectively helpful to get more territs, and I lvoe the objective

Just a tip: if you change the title of the topic to point to the post with the latest update, don't say "last page", because pretty soon it is not. Say "page 26".

Yeah, objective has completely changed the game ... in a good way, but!

I'm loving the difference in number of troops deployed and the winning objective. However, I'm not too into all of the neutrals being 3's instead of 1's. It makes it a lot harder to move around the board.