Conquer Club

rebelman wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

rebelman wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:Something that doesn't really make sense...FIS AA is pointing more towards V6 than V5 and it can only attack V5 out of the two.

Fair call PC9...if others think this is a real bother it can be changed, but so far you are the onyl one who has mentioned this.

i noticed this before but it didn't bother me enough to post it here s all those guns woiuld be on turrets anyway and could move and not be in one fixed position.

So what are you saying, rebelman. that you want it changed also?

im easy on a change - id leave it up to yourself

if you were going to change i would adjust the graphics not the gameplayby moving the gun so its aimed at v5

looking at it now in hindsight....i think it would also be able to fire at V6 anyway....mmm i'll have to think on this one.

so what's the verdict cairns?

ParadiceCity9 wrote:so what's the verdict cairns?

well...so far only two people have mentioned this.....

Yea. I noticed this too, and it kinda ticked me off a bit. Change it.

three

im not sure if this is mentioned anywhere in the key, or something

but Dry Docks Borders Oil C and Oil A (well according to bob anyway)

Oil A and C can both attack Dry Docks and dry docks can attack Oil C and Oil A

tenio wrote:im not sure if this is mentioned anywhere in the key, or something
but Dry Docks Borders Oil C and Oil A (well according to bob anyway)
Oil A and C can both attack Dry Docks and dry docks can attack Oil C and Oil A

yes that's correct, and there are no one-way arrows on any of those borders; so makes sense that they could all attack each other, and it doesn't need to be mentioned in the legend.

oo ur right, stupid me

didn't see that Dry Docks had that small, narrow section leading to oil C/A

(thank god for bob)

lol

tenio wrote:...
(thank god for bob)
lol

no more stupid than the rest of us tenio...
i too give thanks for Bob, unfortunately some of the connections are not as large as we might like but it pays to make certain of your move before making it. Many a player has fallen down because of being too quite to make judgement incorrectly.

Now that the thread has surfaced again and I have played on it I'll offer some feedback even though it's a bit late to get changes in.

> I have no issue with where the AA turrets are facing but it would have been good with a better spread of what planes they can hit (preferably every plane would have been hittable too).

> The one way attack from "Control Tower" to "California" messes a bit with the balance IMO as it leaves only one road of attack from the bottom half to the top half, hold "Tennessee" and it will severely restrict anyone that (mainly) drops on the bottom half.

> And lastly the plane bonuses, I like them. They are not fair, not in any way (especially in a 1v1 game) but they are fun and make for a bit quicker games so why not? Have to respond to rebelman though...

rebelman wrote:it makes total sense for these bonuses to be so strong

There is no one that disputes that the Japanese had a big advantage because of their armada of planes and I'm quite sure that no one has a problem with the planes giving a high bonus when you have many of them. But the medium bonuses you get for very few planes have no historical logic (or need) at all.

Thezzaruz wrote:Now that the thread has surfaced again and I have played on it I'll offer some feedback even though it's a bit late to get changes in.

> I have no issue with where the AA turrets are facing but it would have been good with a better spread of what planes they can hit (preferably every plane would have been hittable too).

> The one way attack from "Control Tower" to "California" messes a bit with the balance IMO as it leaves only one road of attack from the bottom half to the top half, hold "Tennessee" and it will severely restrict anyone that (mainly) drops on the bottom half.

> And lastly the plane bonuses, I like them. They are not fair, not in any way (especially in a 1v1 game) but they are fun and make for a bit quicker games so why not? Have to respond to rebelman though...

rebelman wrote:it makes total sense for these bonuses to be so strong

There is no one that disputes that the Japanese had a big advantage because of their armada of planes and I'm quite sure that no one has a problem with the planes giving a high bonus when you have many of them. But the medium bonuses you get for very few planes have no historical logic (or need) at all.

I strongly agree for the point 3 .. the aircraft bonuses is really not fair. This winner for this map is already decided before the first dice is thrown. I have played against somebody who got 3 x 3 bonuses in the 1st turn because he had 2 aircraft for every types (Z, K and V). So I only got 4 new soldiers and he got 9 + 4.

My suggestion for this map: the aircraft and the anti aircraft (both give a lot of bonuses) should start neutral than the game will be more balanced.

Pearl Game

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but this map, which I love, has one problem, namely when playing a one on one, the person who goes second is screwed 90% of the time. I just started 4 games and they all got joined by corporals or something. They all started with a hefty bonus AND they all went first.

Something's not right and in an age when we can put a fucking robot on Mars, we can't find a way of programming the game to start in a more even manner.

This will improve the following aspects of the game:

First one to go doesn't pick up his bonus till the next round, say.

or:

Second one to go get's an extra bonus of say 6 armies.

Moved from Suggestions & Bug Reports to Map Foundry.
Foundry Mods please merge with quenched thread.

Cicero

[merged]

Kk-Boy wrote:...

My suggestion for this map: the aircraft and the anti aircraft (both give a lot of bonuses) should start neutral than the game will be more balanced.

I am sorry Kk-boy, but starting the aircraft as neutrals would not be true to history, and that was my intention.
As i have stated before, the aircraft had the advantage of attack and i know everyone doesn't like it, but that is this map/game.

ahote wrote:Pearl Game

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but this map, which I love, has one problem, namely when playing a one on one, the person who goes second is screwed 90% of the time. I just started 4 games and they all got joined by corporals or something. They all started with a hefty bonus AND they all went first.

Something's not right and in an age when we can put a fucking robot on Mars, we can't find a way of programming the game to start in a more even manner.

This will improve the following aspects of the game:

First one to go doesn't pick up his bonus till the next round, say.

or:

Second one to go get's an extra bonus of say 6 armies.

Yes ahote, your request is noted, and if there is a change to xml engine and the way it works that will be a good balancing for the map/game.
We could not have bonuses on this map at all. Also we could make the first round for everyone starting not get a bonus.
All valid suggestions....for the future

cairnswk wrote:

Kk-Boy wrote:...

My suggestion for this map: the aircraft and the anti aircraft (both give a lot of bonuses) should start neutral than the game will be more balanced.

I am sorry Kk-boy, but starting the aircraft as neutrals would not be true to history, and that was my intention.
As i have stated before, the aircraft had the advantage of attack and i know everyone doesn't like it, but that is this map/game.

I don't think the aircraft should start as neutrals and I think the map is frickin' awesome - I play 25% of my games on it - it's my favourite map, though Wales is catching up.

I think the problem of the first turn can be solved by not giving the first turn person all of his or her bonus. They would start with 3 + any bonus from the AAs and be able to neutralize one or two planes and fortify one or two positions - the person to go second would then start with the bonus.

Someone suggested a mirrored drop on a second game a while back, but that seems complicated.

I also don't agree with the criticism of the AA's above - who cares where the AA guns are pointed - it's an amazingly balanced map on a multi-player basis, including access to Ford Island etc.

V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
K1

K1
K2
K3
K4
K5
K6

Z1
Z2
Z3
Z4
Z5
Z6
Z7

OK, oaktown has put in a suggestion to address this issue that we matrix the starting positions (and i think this should only be done for the aircraft as I don't see any other areas as being the issue)

Anyone want to have a go at this (aircraft are above).

cairnswk wrote:OK, oaktown has put in a suggestion to address this issue that we matrix the starting positions (and i think this should only be done for the aircraft as I don't see any other areas as being the issue)

Anyone want to have a go at this (aircraft are above).

Trick is that you get a bonus for having as few as two aircraft, so short of coding the planes as neutral starts (which I agree is not ideal) you are going to end up with aircraft bonuses in two player games. In creating two starting positions I think what you will want to do is this:

1. give each player three of each aircraft: it will give each player three +2 bonuses

2. make it really difficult for player 1 to break player 2's aircraft bonuses by

• coding the AA batteries nuetral, with a bunchof armies on each (at least five)
• starting each player with the boats that border their own planes, so it will take crashing through two boats AND two planes to eliminate any one bonus. eg. the player that gets V1 also gets Ramsey, the player that gets Z1 also gets nevada and, thus, also starts with z2.

So long as player 2 also gets to start with all of his/her aircraft bonuses this will actually be a pretty good two player map; how often is player two in a head to head game guaranteed a +9 bonus?

oaktown wrote:

cairnswk wrote:OK, oaktown has put in a suggestion to address this issue that we matrix the starting positions (and i think this should only be done for the aircraft as I don't see any other areas as being the issue)

Anyone want to have a go at this (aircraft are above).

Trick is that you get a bonus for having as few as two aircraft, so short of coding the planes as neutral starts (which I agree is not ideal) you are going to end up with aircraft bonuses in two player games. In creating two starting positions I think what you will want to do is this:

1. give each player three of each aircraft: it will give each player three +2 bonuses

2. make it really difficult for player 1 to break player 2's aircraft bonuses by

• coding the AA batteries nuetral, with a bunchof armies on each (at least five)
• starting each player with the boats that border their own planes, so it will take crashing through two boats AND two planes to eliminate any one bonus. eg. the player that gets V1 also gets Ramsey, the player that gets Z1 also gets nevada and, thus, also starts with z2.

So long as player 2 also gets to start with all of his/her aircraft bonuses this will actually be a pretty good two player map; how often is player two in a head to head game guaranteed a +9 bonus?

Oaktown...
1. as i understand it, you can't simply code each player to start with three +2 bonuses.
If you code for player one and two (as per two player game) what happens to the rest of the planes in the random drop.
Because there are 19 planes in all, taking out 6 for a two player game will leave 13 planes, divide that by three and you still have four at least for player one and two, which means that any one of the players could still end up with a sizeable bonus.

2. I don't see any benefit either in placing player's starting positions on ships next to their planes. the idea of the battle is to allow other players to gain an upper hand with the planes on the ships.

3. coding the AA batteries to neutral start however, i can concur might work since it would have taken time for USA navy to get to the AA batteries. That's not a bad idea.

My preference would be to have an adjustment to the xml engine so that each player doesn't get a bonus on the drop.

cairnswk wrote:My preference would be to have an adjustment to the xml engine so that each player doesn't get a bonus on the drop.

I agree, fixing the issue with bonuses on round 1 helps out a lot more maps than this one. And having fixed starting positions is not really a good solution for this map.

cicero wrote:Moved from Suggestions & Bug Reports to Map Foundry.
Foundry Mods please merge with quenched thread.

Cicero

MrBenn wrote:[merged]

Sorry guys but that wasn't such a good move IMO. It might be a bit poorly worded thread title but the main issue in his posts was changing round 1 bonuses and that is an issue that goes better in S&B than in a specific map thread. Could have asked him to rename/remake the thread instead.

cairnswk wrote:My preference would be to have an adjustment to the xml engine so that each player doesn't get a bonus on the drop.

Which is physically impossible on this map.

C.

yeti_c wrote:

cairnswk wrote:My preference would be to have an adjustment to the xml engine so that each player doesn't get a bonus on the drop.

Which is physically impossible on this map.

C.

Why is it physically impossible?

i don't really care about issues that have arisen with the popularity of 1v1 games. this map is clearly meant for larger games, and if you choose to play 1v1, deal with the issues that happen. the only problem that i see often in my team games, is that the plane bonus (multiple at times), is far too easy to land on with only needing 2. bump that up to 3, and the game is more fair. other than that, i love the map... still one of the best on the site!!-0

p.s.-hey, cairns, remember when me and cooper played you and lack on the day it was released, and we were passing armies from the guns to the planes and onto the center island?!! ha!!! that was a GREAT bug that you had to run off and fix, missing turns in the process!!!!

cairnswk wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

cairnswk wrote:My preference would be to have an adjustment to the xml engine so that each player doesn't get a bonus on the drop.

Which is physically impossible on this map.

C.

Why is it physically impossible?

Well for 2 player games - as it stands - you cannot create a drop that doesn't give a bonus...

Or do you mean - in the first round - continent bonuses aren't awarded?
In that case :- Poker Club wouldn't work - as that map relies on people holding a bonus straight up.

C.