Conquer Club

I have played a couple of 4 player doubles, and right now it looks like there is a very heavy first turn advantage to the team that goes first. With each player starting with 4 bases and every base being used the bases end up just a little too close to each other. The first team goes all out and takes as many territories as possible and the second team can't catch up without the dice affecting play significantly. Since the teams are just far enough away the second team gets far more reinforcements on the second turn. They then go right after the bonus of the other team and in effect force them back to base. This then ensures that they can never catch up as they don't have enough reinforcements to force the other team back.

I think that it might be good to have some of the bases remain neutral at the start keeping players farther away. This means that it would likely take 3 or 4 turns before they meet and go to war. Either that or increase the neutral count of each territory as you get farther from home base making it harder to travel.

I may be wrong and I haven't played too many turns on the map but by turn 3 in one game my team was getting only 7 reinforcements (non auto-deploy) and the other had almost 30. no way to catch back up.

I do like the graphics and I believe the map has a lot of potential.

what I am really saying is that if you can slow down the player growth a bit (in terms of additional reinforments) then strategy relating to where you attack from and how you counter the opposition will mean more than luck. Or at least be a closer contest, luck can never be eliminated.

Dibbler, thanks for your input. We have decided to increase the base autodeploy to +2. This should also address the problem you have somewhat... if it doesn't, we can look at it again afterwards.

I think the bonus need to be more define.Alot of the map is really soft colors so it a bit hard to tell the bonus land lines.Just make the border of each bonus teritory a bit darker

TY

Overall I like this map .It should be a good play

Fuzzylogic99 wrote:I think the bonus need to be more define.Alot of the map is really soft colors so it a bit hard to tell the bonus land lines.Just make the border of each bonus teritory a bit darker

I haven't heard of anyone else having any problems with the bonuses. Are you sure your monitor settings are correct?

Update time!

XML: http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/2/7/2 ... ctica3.xml

Large [bigimg]http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/1616/antarctic13.png[/bigimg]

Small [bigimg]http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/5157/antarctic13s.png[/bigimg]

Changes:

- Bases autodeploy +2
- Sectors start with 5 neutrals each
- Maximum amount of starting bases is 4 (affects 2 & 3 player games only)

Also, 2 graphical tweaks: made the SP region look a bit more frosty, and fixed the connection between Peter I & MBL.

The graphical fix for the connection looks good to me (the one who complained).

Do you mean SL? I see no SP...

Victor Sullivan wrote:Do you mean SL? I see no SP...

You don't see SP? Are you blind old man!? Look at the SP!! From the SP you can only travel north!

Maybe it's in his blind spot

Am I right that if you loose your bases you are eliminated?

couldn't it be changed to something a little bit smoother like:
without bases your territories with one troops become neutral or
without bases you accrue one troop only every two territory on the same region?

giuppichan wrote:Am I right that if you loose your bases you are eliminated?

couldn't it be changed to something a little bit smoother like:
without bases your territories with one troops become neutral or
without bases you accrue one troop only every two territory on the same region?

Nope. But we're giving the bases a higher autodeploy so they won't be so easily taken.

I hope this might be the answer, right mow it seems to me that it's better to stay on the bases rather than move around, and when you get enough troops you go for the south pole and take down who instead went out for territories.

or maybe what can be done is to reduce the 3 troops minimum standard deployment so that players are stimulated to move out from the base.

a part from that, great map, I like it, graphic, gameplay, it's cool

The update are in the queue to be uploaded. Hopefully they're not to cold to handle

Cheers MrB.

Let's hope these updates won't freeze the CC server

While I still think their is a first turn bias, the additional auto deploys do seem to reduce that bias, at least in 4 player doubles. I also think I have a few ideas for strategies to counter the first turn bias but will have to see if they work.

Good job on the map, I like it for doubles, and I think it will be a good quad map too, if someone would join my game I might find out.

It's WAY to late to bring this up, but why did you choose the geographic poll instead of, say, the poll of inaccessibility, which is the land mass's center? Would have made it even easier to make even from all sides.

You're right, it's way too late to bring that up.

eh guys, this can't be right!
2011-05-01 17:14:40 - Faro ended the turn and got spoils
2011-05-01 17:47:42 - SirSebstar lost Fimbul Shelf to neutral player
2011-05-01 17:47:42 - SirSebstar lost Ronne Shelf to neutral player
2011-05-01 17:47:42 - SirSebstar got bonus of -1 troops added to HL 3

not only did it loose my territs. which is right, but I had 8 troops comming, and now the territs disappeared before I was granted to territory bonus (12+) that sucked.

also +2 deploy? that hurt... now it is all about drop instead of anything else... this can never be good

I believe killer neutrals are always enforced before the territory bonus is calculated. The log seems fine to me.

SirSebstar wrote:also +2 deploy? that hurt... now it is all about drop instead of anything else... this can never be good

Can you elaborate why you think so?

natty_dread wrote:

SirSebstar wrote:also +2 deploy? that hurt... now it is all about drop instead of anything else... this can never be good

Can you elaborate why you think so?

I managed a 14-1 victory on the map in 1vs1.. that was near equal in first or second starter. (note, this was with +1 and all bases devided)
But with the +2 it means it is very hard to get into an area where your opposition has closed you off. Also, with the limited 4 stacks instead of the regular all devided on 1vs1, this means that the first starter now really has the upper hand. He can simply go allout for the biggest bonus. with good placement he is near untouchable. but with the bonusses accumulating he has a much better chance to break 2nd's bonussess.
the previous setting for 1vs1 at least gave a running shot, but this might be a killer.

also the map is not balanced. it is not equal for all sides. so starting in a particular place, or being dominant there really is going to help the win

Interesting. Thanks for your feedback, I'm going to have a chat with Isaiah about this. Meanwhile, if anyone else has any further input about the map wrt. 1v1 games, please share! The more opinions/experiences we hear of, the better we can decide our future course of action for this map.

i am recruiting for a tournament on this map that will have hundreds of 1v1 games.

i will suggest to the participents to provide you with feedback if it is still in beta.

greenoaks wrote:i am recruiting for a tournament on this map that will have hundreds of 1v1 games.

i will suggest to the participents to provide you with feedback if it is still in beta.

Ok, thanks.