Conquer Club

A beautiful map Cairns I'm really enjoying it. I realized that some of the bonuses seem to give a zero bonus, should these still be bonuses??

cairnswk wrote:Mmmm. (2) i can cope with, but if they were to be coded as starting positions, then it would have to be position 1 and 2 ( tow ensure coverage for 2 player games), and then the question that results from that is: does that still mean there will be even (as far as possible) distribution of other starters on the remainder of the map - will no-one be disadvantaged because of that?

If there are more players than starting positions, then they are ignored.

I think that answers your question?

neanderpaul14 wrote:A beautiful map Cairns I'm really enjoying it. I realized that some of the bonuses seem to give a zero bonus, should these still be bonuses??

those bonuses between Caesar and Cleopoatra and Marc Antony gives 0 bonuses because they were not marriages conducted under Roman Law, but they have been recognised as links to even out that area assault gameplay.

MrBenn wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Mmmm. (2) i can cope with, but if they were to be coded as starting positions, then it would have to be position 1 and 2 ( tow ensure coverage for 2 player games), and then the question that results from that is: does that still mean there will be even (as far as possible) distribution of other starters on the remainder of the map - will no-one be disadvantaged because of that?

If there are more players than starting positions, then they are ignored.

I think that answers your question?

So effectively (if i understand you answer) in order to create even distribution in any game from 1 to 8 players, i would have to code 8 starting player positions?

cairnswk wrote:

MrBenn wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Mmmm. (2) i can cope with, but if they were to be coded as starting positions, then it would have to be position 1 and 2 ( tow ensure coverage for 2 player games), and then the question that results from that is: does that still mean there will be even (as far as possible) distribution of other starters on the remainder of the map - will no-one be disadvantaged because of that?

If there are more players than starting positions, then they are ignored.

I think that answers your question?

So effectively (if i understand you answer) in order to create even distribution in any game from 1 to 8 players, i would have to code 8 starting player positions?

No.... Players will always be given an equal number of territories. Starting positions can be used to help distribute certain territories more evenly... for the full picture, browse through this thread: viewtopic.php?f=127&t=68154

MrBenn wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

MrBenn wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Mmmm. (2) i can cope with, but if they were to be coded as starting positions, then it would have to be position 1 and 2 ( tow ensure coverage for 2 player games), and then the question that results from that is: does that still mean there will be even (as far as possible) distribution of other starters on the remainder of the map - will no-one be disadvantaged because of that?

If there are more players than starting positions, then they are ignored.

I think that answers your question?

So effectively (if i understand you answer) in order to create even distribution in any game from 1 to 8 players, i would have to code 8 starting player positions?

No.... Players will always be given an equal number of territories. Starting positions can be used to help distribute certain territories more evenly... for the full picture, browse through this thread: viewtopic.php?f=127&t=68154

Oh my God! What a discussion. My brain has just collapsed in a heap in my skull.

There's a few other potential neutral tweaks that could be done here, but since my 1v1 game has gone from solid win to probable loss in 3 excruciating turns, I'll have to get to them later when I'm not contemplating building a time machine and going back to ancient Rome and strangling Julius Caesar in his crib to prevent the whole misbegotten clan from sprouting up in the first place.

Incandenza wrote:There's a few other potential neutral tweaks that could be done here, but since my 1v1 game has gone from solid win to probable loss in 3 excruciating turns, I'll have to get to them later when I'm not contemplating building a time machine and going back to ancient Rome and strangling Julius Caesar in his crib to prevent the whole misbegotten clan from sprouting up in the first place.

That's what i mean about that Caesar clan.

The quote from Robert Graves' "I Claudius" is:
"Let all of the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out."
Why change such a classic and well-known line?

Incandenza wrote:just started a 1v1 and each player gets 15 starting terits... think we may need to discuss adding an additional neutral.

excellent early catch! i was initially mystified, as i three times counted only 43 or 44 starting regions (page 24 version showing neutrals), so this ought to yield 14 per player. other than julius caesar having access to the gods (in which case he ought to have 5 neutrals, just like the emperors), the only change to the board that i can see since the gameplay was stamped is that gnaeus pompeus is not starting neutral, producing the extra starting region - this is obviously an xml error.

the minimum change we need is for gnaeus pompeus to start neutral (as on page 24), with julius caesar having 5 neutrals (unless he has 4 neutrals by design).

Incandenza wrote:Oh, and would it be possible for you to add an image of the map with all starting neutral values to the first post? It would be handy to consult for fog games.

i like that idea, especially while the map is still in beta, so that we can look at it for possible gameplay fixes. as for ethics, i used to open the feudal war map thread for fog games, so i think there's nothing wrong with it, but this is a question that andy is better-placed to answer.

ian.

Nanogram wrote:The quote from Robert Graves' "I Claudius" is:
"Let all of the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out."
Why change such a classic and well-known line?

perhaps copyright?!

iancanton wrote:

Incandenza wrote:just started a 1v1 and each player gets 15 starting terits... think we may need to discuss adding an additional neutral.

excellent early catch! i was initially mystified, as i three times counted only 43 or 44 starting regions (page 24 version showing neutrals), so this ought to yield 14 per player. other than julius caesar having access to the gods (in which case he ought to have 5 neutrals, just like the emperors), the only change to the board that i can see since the gameplay was stamped is that gnaeus pompeus is not starting neutral, producing the extra starting region - this is obviously an xml error.

the minimum change we need is for gnaeus pompeus to start neutral (as on page 24), with julius caesar having 5 neutrals (unless he has 4 neutrals by design).

Incandenza wrote:Oh, and would it be possible for you to add an image of the map with all starting neutral values to the first post? It would be handy to consult for fog games.

i like that idea, especially while the map is still in beta, so that we can look at it for possible gameplay fixes. as for ethics, i used to open the feudal war map thread for fog games, so i think there's nothing wrong with it, but this is a question that andy is better-placed to answer.

ian.

Thanks ian.

EDIT: I've changeed J Caesar to 5 neutrals, and Gnaeus Pompeus is at 3 neutrals (as per page 23)

But i still think that one of Caesar's wives need a small neutral start.

I see that most of the 2 territory bonuses have a neutral to avoid getting them from the start, but what about Julia/Gnaeus Pompeus?

Gilligan wrote:I see that most of the 2 territory bonuses have a neutral to avoid getting them from the start, but what about Julia/Gnaeus Pompeus?

Gill. that's what i have fixed in the previous post to yet be uploaded.

this is NOT a horrible map, I just find it rather visually difficult, the red color in the background + the crowded map make it difficult to see.

andreslh wrote:this is a HORRIBLE map

And your reasons for saying such....?

cairnswk wrote:

Gilligan wrote:I see that most of the 2 territory bonuses have a neutral to avoid getting them from the start, but what about Julia/Gnaeus Pompeus?

Gill. that's what i have fixed in the previous post to yet be uploaded.

D'oh! Maybe I'll read next time....

iancanton wrote:

Incandenza wrote:Oh, and would it be possible for you to add an image of the map with all starting neutral values to the first post? It would be handy to consult for fog games.

i like that idea, especially while the map is still in beta, so that we can look at it for possible gameplay fixes. as for ethics, i used to open the feudal war map thread for fog games, so i think there's nothing wrong with it, but this is a question that andy is better-placed to answer.

ian.

Really quickly, I don't see what the ethics issue is. Since there doesn't seem to be the motivation to include starting neutrals in the actual map image on the game finder page, the least we could do for all maps with starting neutrals is to have an image in the first post of the map thread for easy access, much like yeti did for poker club... It's a pain in the ass having to search for active sunny games on conquest maps to see all the neutral values.

Incandenza wrote:

iancanton wrote:

Incandenza wrote:Oh, and would it be possible for you to add an image of the map with all starting neutral values to the first post? It would be handy to consult for fog games.

i like that idea, especially while the map is still in beta, so that we can look at it for possible gameplay fixes. as for ethics, i used to open the feudal war map thread for fog games, so i think there's nothing wrong with it, but this is a question that andy is better-placed to answer.

ian.

Really quickly, I don't see what the ethics issue is. Since there doesn't seem to be the motivation to include starting neutrals in the actual map image on the game finder page, the least we could do for all maps with starting neutrals is to have an image in the first post of the map thread for easy access, much like yeti did for poker club... It's a pain in the ass having to search for active sunny games on conquest maps to see all the neutral values.

Well, you know how some players are. I just wanted to make sure that no-one in the hierarchy had any objections.
And, what is your stance on placing a neutral on one of Caesar's wives.

Okay, I would be very much in favor of:

1. having the "missed" neutral start be Julia instead of Gnaeus Pompeous, gives 2 people a chance at the bonus
2. starting Pompeia Sulla with a neutral 2
3. perhaps lowering a couple of the Emperors from 5 to 4 and maybe bumping Dicator JC up to a 5... One of the problems with Dictator JC is that you can have a pretty unassailable bonus behind that neutral, as long as you control Julia, Gnaeus, and Cornelia Cinna, but it's worth keeping DJC high-ish to keep a player from scooping up what amounts to a 1-border +4. Conversely, Emperors Augustus and Tiberius are much more high-traffic areas, and by keeping those neutrals high, I think it overly segments the map. Consider bringing them down to a 4 or maybe even a 3, to improve the map's overall flow, especially for Augustus, since it would make DJC more vulnerable.
4. In the spirit of cleaning up lines of advance, consider moving the neutral from Octavia Minor to Claudius Marcellus.

Part of me wants to knock the gods down to a neutral 2, since atm they aren't particularly attractive targets, but I can see how they'd be more effective in multiplayer games (I've only played 1v1 and 2v2 thus far).

If I think of anything more, I'll let ya know. I know it's a lot, but a map like this is pretty hard to gameplan ahead of time, which is why the Beta system works (kinda).

Oh, yeah, and I think an argument could be made for removing the neutral start from Agripinnella. It's another map-clogger, you can't drop a bonus with it, and all the terit can do that's special is bombard one other terit... might as well let someone start with it and open up that area of the map a bit.

i really dont understand bonuses in this map--can you PM to let me know? I am trying it now.

Also...how do you attack a GOD if there are no pathways?

dyrtydog wrote:i really dont understand bonuses in this map--can you PM to let me know? I am trying it now.

Also...how do you attack a GOD if there are no pathways?

The answers to both of your questions are contained in the map legend.

sorry, but to me the map legend is confusing....i read thru all 34 pages of this also.

Incandenza wrote:

dyrtydog wrote:i really dont understand bonuses in this map--can you PM to let me know? I am trying it now.

Also...how do you attack a GOD if there are no pathways?

The answers to both of your questions are contained in the map legend.

The legend does not explain what the reward is for holding bonuses