Conquer Club

edit: natty beat me to it

natty_dread wrote:Closest golden numbers are 44 and 52.

So either 5 more neutrals or 3 less.

I think the easiest solution would now be to add one territory, and remove all neutrals. Adding 5 more neutrals to the map just seems, eh... seems like too many neutrals

If we're going to consider adding a territory, then Ithera looks prime for dividing into two. Either that, or you could turn that lake into a territory. Or Both?

What about adding another Island?

You could add another island at the top-left of the map, connecting to Neilkush Taiga.

You could also make the green bit of land South of Chunjaris into another territory in that region.... there are lots of options.

The key thing is to ensure that the number of starting territories is bumped up to 52.

The starting neutrals can be likely removed with creative use of starting positions, although there's no reason for not adding a couple of small territories in out-of-the-way places if you wanted to keep those neutral starts.

MrBenn wrote:You could add another island at the top-left of the map, connecting to Neilkush Taiga.

You could also make the green bit of land South of Chunjaris into another territory in that region.... there are lots of options.

The key thing is to ensure that the number of starting territories is bumped up to 52.

The starting neutrals can be likely removed with creative use of starting positions, although there's no reason for not adding a couple of small territories in out-of-the-way places if you wanted to keep those neutral starts.

I'm definitely most in favor of dropping the neutrals and adding 1 territory. Most likely an Island. Of the coast of Neilkush isn't a bad suggestion. There could also be one connecting Thessisamess and Chunjaris. I'll draw up some options either today or this weekend.

How would an extra island affect the bonus (if at all)?

It would be the same you'd just have more options.

The Bison King wrote:

matt was just mad cuz i beat his ass! just messin mattttt

but seriously! one of my fav maps as of NOW

-griff

Thanks glad to hear it.

My comment stand on it's own griffon I have no problem losing a game. Although next time you won't be so lucky

Okay, if we remove the starting neutrals, then we have four bonus zones with three territories: Arleus, Ifnal, Itherania, and the Chunjaris-Theraland road bonus. Using MrBenn's Bonus Probability Calculator, we find that on a map with 51 starting territories, with only one such bonus, 6.53% of 1v1 games, 9.80% of 1v1v1 games, and 4.23% of 4 player games would have someone drop the bonus. Of course, with four such bonuses, we would have even more games where these bonuses were dropped, granting an unfair advantage. The scheme we had been discussing, where we put one territory from each bonus into starting positions would only help 1v1 and 1v1v1 games. WIth only three starting positions, they would be ignored in games with 4 or more players. However, if we were to distribute the twelve territories among 4 starting positions, we could extend the benefit.

So far, so good. However, a different problem occurred to me as I examined MrBenn's spreadsheet: with 51 territories, in a 4 player game, everyone starts with 12 territories, which is not a very good number, since the first player can take a territory from someone else, and knock that player's initial deployment from 4 to 3. So, maybe we are better off with three starting positions, to block those bonus drops on the 1v1 and 1v1v1 games, but with one territory from each of those bonuses set as starting neutral. That way, there would be 47 territories to divide 4 ways, which would give 11 to each player, which means an initial deployment of 3 for everyone, and no opportunity for the first player to put the screws to someone else.

Hey ender, how would your proposal for 47 territories effect other games outside of 4 player games like 2 players, 3 players, 5-8 players? Can you still make a code for 34 starting territories (17 each) in a 2 player game outside of this?

With three starting positions of four territories, in the full map of 51, in the 1v1v1 games, each player gets one of the groups of four. Then the remaining 39 territories are divided three ways for 13 each, giving a total of 17. In case of the 1v1 game, I am a little less certain, but I believe it works out like a 1v1v1 game with one player's set of territories being declared neutral. For 5-8 players, with one neutral in each 3-territory bonus, there are 47 territories to divvy up, so each player starts with 9, 7, 6, and 5 territories, respectively. These counts are each one territory less than they would get if all 51 territories were available for distribution.

I'm having a hard time grasping the full detail of what you are saying. Are you claiming that the problem can be solved entirely through modifications of the XML?

ender516 wrote:With three starting positions of four territories, in the full map of 51, in the 1v1v1 games, each player gets one of the groups of four. Then the remaining 39 territories are divided three ways for 13 each, giving a total of 17. In case of the 1v1 game, I am a little less certain, but I believe it works out like a 1v1v1 game with one player's set of territories being declared neutral. For 5-8 players, with one neutral in each 3-territory bonus, there are 47 territories to divvy up, so each player starts with 9, 7, 6, and 5 territories, respectively. These counts are each one territory less than they would get if all 51 territories were available for distribution.

but the problem with 51 territories is not in 3-player games, it's in 4-player games where everyone gets 12...

MrBenn wrote:edit: natty beat me to it

natty_dread wrote:Closest golden numbers are 44 and 52.

So either 5 more neutrals or 3 less.

Regardless of what we do with the XML, we still need to fix the number of starting territories.

Personally, I beleive it would be preferable to add another territory to the map, so that we can minimise the number of neutrals where possible.

natty_dread wrote:

ender516 wrote:With three starting positions of four territories, in the full map of 51, in the 1v1v1 games, each player gets one of the groups of four. Then the remaining 39 territories are divided three ways for 13 each, giving a total of 17. In case of the 1v1 game, I am a little less certain, but I believe it works out like a 1v1v1 game with one player's set of territories being declared neutral. For 5-8 players, with one neutral in each 3-territory bonus, there are 47 territories to divvy up, so each player starts with 9, 7, 6, and 5 territories, respectively. These counts are each one territory less than they would get if all 51 territories were available for distribution.

but the problem with 51 territories is not in 3-player games, it's in 4-player games where everyone gets 12...

Reread the second paragraph of my post before this one, and you will see I did consider that.

ender516 wrote:So far, so good. However, a different problem occurred to me as I examined MrBenn's spreadsheet: with 51 territories, in a 4 player game, everyone starts with 12 territories, which is not a very good number, since the first player can take a territory from someone else, and knock that player's initial deployment from 4 to 3. So, maybe we are better off with three starting positions, to block those bonus drops on the 1v1 and 1v1v1 games, but with one territory from each of those bonuses set as starting neutral. That way, there would be 47 territories to divide 4 ways, which would give 11 to each player, which means an initial deployment of 3 for everyone, and no opportunity for the first player to put the screws to someone else.

Admittedly, it might be better to add a territory to reach the golden number 52, and eliminate starting neutrals, but it is not the only way to go.

MrBenn, this approach does fix the number of starting territories: it just makes it vary a bit with the number of players.

apologies ender - I'd overlooked that part of your post.

To reply properly to your proposal:

51 starting territories;

3 starting positions groups with 4 terrs = 12 terrs.
39 other "standard start" terrs.

In a 1v1 game, then each player gets a group from the starting position. (4 terrs each). The remaining terrs (4) are added to the general pot (39), to leave 43 terrs to be distributed amongst the players, 14 each, with 15 going neutral. What we end up with here, is with each player getting 18 territories to start; and having fixed the bonus/drop issue, we've created a terr-bonus advantage to player 1.
If one territory from each starting position was coded neutral, this would reduce the available terrs in the general pot from 43 to 42, although this has no effect on the number of territories dropped.

Sadly, this doesn;t fix the starting number of territories

Ok so what do I need to know other than that I need to add a territory? anything?

OPTIONS

#1
[bigimg]http://i51.tinypic.com/1zh029g.jpg[/bigimg]

#2
[bigimg]http://i52.tinypic.com/25re90n.jpg[/bigimg]

#3
[bigimg]http://i54.tinypic.com/3021cuo.jpg[/bigimg]

#4
[bigimg]http://i55.tinypic.com/n6q3j9.jpg[/bigimg]

#5
[bigimg]http://i54.tinypic.com/2j435zt.jpg[/bigimg]

Ok here are some options for you to consider, for the addition of a new territory. My favorites are #2 and #3. but especially #2

The Bison King wrote:Ok so what do I need to know other than that I need to add a territory? anything?

All you need to know is that you need to add enough territories, so that if starting neutrals are employed, the total number of territories in the starting pot is equal to 52 or 53.

I quite like #4, although I'd prefer the island to connect to Talus rather than Garrea, so that it doesn't affect any border changes (ie territories on a border). This also boosts the number of terrs in that region, making it less likely to be dropped, and without effecting the bonus value.

I also like #1, if you were to add some mountains between the new territory and the Northern Frontier.

Currently you have 51 terrs, and 2 starting neutrals (Rolloland and Dalmus). To get up to 52 starting territories, would require the addition of three territories; I'd actually like to see #1, '#2, AND #4 (with my suggested amendments). This would obviously increase the number of islands by two, which would increase the chance of getting 3 islands on the drop. I would accordingly reduce the islands to +2 for any three, or make it +3 for any four.

Going along with what MrBenn said with 3 territories needed to be added I like the addition of #2, #3, #5.

#2 but I would also have it connected with Chancella

#3 because this would open up the bottle neck in Itherania and this would also make it more deserving of a +2 bonus

#5 because it would go with the other islands to spread them all out.

Also I'd like to propose connecting Chunjaris & Cancallus Desert. I think this would improve gameplay by opening up the bottom/right part of the map and not make it so easily defendable. The games I've played of Thyseneal I've noticed how easy it can be to keep anyone from coming into Ithernia or The Desert from Tytheria. Connecting Chunjaris & Cancallus would fix this gameplay flaw.

quite like #4, although I'd prefer the island to connect to Talus rather than Garrea, so that it doesn't affect any border changes (ie territories on a border). This also boosts the number of terrs in that region, making it less likely to be dropped, and without effecting the bonus value.

I considered that, If I go with #4 that's probably what I'll do

are you talking about the Island bonus because that's the only bonus it belongs to

Currently you have 51 terrs, and 2 starting neutrals (Rolloland and Dalmus). To get up to 52 starting territories, would require the addition of three territories; I'd actually like to see #1, '#2, AND #4 (with my suggested amendments). This would obviously increase the number of islands by two, which would increase the chance of getting 3 islands on the drop. I would accordingly reduce the islands to +2 for any three, or make it +3 for any four.

That's a thought but I'm thinking we'll just drop the 2 neutral starts. They were never really important any ways.

I also like #4.