Conquer Club

Raskholnikov wrote:Did you really intend aviation to be so powerful? I've had at least 3 games where I had a substantial advantage in ground territories. only for the opponent to load his 6 or 7 reinforcements on planes (which only had 2 or 3 to start with )and wipe out close to 15 of my ground units, thus totally reversing the game. If it's a question of having given favorable odds for airplane attacks, i'd tone it down, otherwise everyone will have no choice but to kill aviation asap at all costs at the expense of ground movements. Otherwise, the map if fun and has lots of tactical choices - but again, these can be easily negated by airplanes with favorable odds than can basically reach most targets on the map and easily destroy them.

I've experienced opponents having phenomenal attacks WITHOUT dropping on their planes which they were fortunate to have been dropped all but 2.

One suggestion I would make is to relocate R 62nd 92nd Div inf tert to southern sector. I think it would balance the map a bit more.

Raskholnikov wrote:Did you really intend aviation to be so powerful? I've had at least 3 games where I had a substantial advantage in ground territories. only for the opponent to load his 6 or 7 reinforcements on planes (which only had 2 or 3 to start with )and wipe out close to 15 of my ground units, thus totally reversing the game. If it's a question of having given favorable odds for airplane attacks, i'd tone it down, otherwise everyone will have no choice but to kill aviation asap at all costs at the expense of ground movements. Otherwise, the map if fun and has lots of tactical choices - but again, these can be easily negated by airplanes with favorable odds than can basically reach most targets on the map and easily destroy them.

Yes this is deliberate.
As you know, the battle started with lots of bombing so that is historically correct and true for the game.
Then once the planes were wiped out, the fighting moved to ground warfare and snipering.
Fortunately for this game it is not like Pearl Harbor where there are bonuses for planes.

Well I don't agree. The advantage given to airplanes is just too great. It wipes out any other tactical options. A pity, because it is a good map which is being ruined by dice manipulations. I love the map, but if this feature is maintained as is, I will not play it beyond the sets I have started. It's one thing to be historically accurate, it's another to allow one element to dominate to the extent to which the players are forced to play the mapmaker's preferred strategy and no other, if they are to stand a chance.

In addition, players who assume that all units are more or less equal in firepower and develop their strategy accordingly are in for rough surprises when half their units are wiped out by a few airplane units. Combined with the huge amount of taegets airplanes have, this feature simply destroys the game. Obviously, I am not the only one to have experienced this.

An autodeploy factor with equal odds would be much fairer- that way, all players know what to expect. Instead, players now go for the snipers because they are autodeploy, or for two-unit territories, and then see airplanes entirely wipe out their position, and have no clue why. You really need to do something about it, because as it is, the game is seriously unbalanced and players have no wat of knowingg why until they get bombed out of existence a few times and then begin to suspect this is not just their opponent's luck, but a systemic choice mamde by the mapmaker.

cairnswk wrote:

Raskholnikov wrote:Did you really intend aviation to be so powerful? I've had at least 3 games where I had a substantial advantage in ground territories. only for the opponent to load his 6 or 7 reinforcements on planes (which only had 2 or 3 to start with )and wipe out close to 15 of my ground units, thus totally reversing the game. If it's a question of having given favorable odds for airplane attacks, i'd tone it down, otherwise everyone will have no choice but to kill aviation asap at all costs at the expense of ground movements. Otherwise, the map if fun and has lots of tactical choices - but again, these can be easily negated by airplanes with favorable odds than can basically reach most targets on the map and easily destroy them.

Yes this is deliberate.
As you know, the battle started with lots of bombing so that is historically correct and true for the game.
Then once the planes were wiped out, the fighting moved to ground warfare and snipering.
Fortunately for this game it is not like Pearl Harbor where there are bonuses for planes.

Your telling us that my opponents in our trips game, who dropped all but 2 planes, and bombarded us with just 2 attacker dice for an entire round and successfully neutralized about 15 of our terts was intentional?

Yup. That's the plan - to force players to take out airplanes first. Shrugs. Best part, you don't even know it until after you commit yourself to a different strategy and get totally massacred by a few units - like we both did.

that is called learning curve

LOL I don't mind learning curves as long as they are fair. Here, the attacking factor of some units is much higher than others', and players are simply not made aware of it in any way. Even if I disagreed with the principle of it, as long as i knew about it in advance I could make informed choices on how to proceed. Without even knowing, there is only one right strategy which, if not chosen, leads to slaughter. That is inherently unfair.

I hope you guys know that territories can't be given any kind of dice advantage in the XML. The planes may have a tactical advantage but it has nothing to do with dice.

Ah, but with the bombardments, once you've successfully defeated a territory, you do not have to move a troop onto it, thus giving you an extra army to attack with on your next turn

MrBenn wrote:Ah, but with the bombardments, once you've successfully defeated a territory, you do not have to move a troop onto it, thus giving you an extra army to attack with on your next turn

Really? Huh.

MrBenn wrote:Ah, but with the bombardments, once you've successfully defeated a territory, you do not have to move a troop onto it, thus giving you an extra army to attack with on your next turn

Yes but that is a two-edged sword: you can also not use the bombardment to conquer territories. So that kinda balances it out.

It's not a two-edged sword, it's a bombshell! (see what happens when you mix metaphors )

well if some guy is just slaughtering others in multi-player game of that map, then he is the one who is the one who is going to be in bigger dis advantage like over 99,5% of the time. and that less than ,5% or sumttin comes in play when he is having superb ridiculous luck with dices and honestly guys matter of that happening don't depend on map. u guys also realize that there is 7 of those aircraft which can bombard 43 places and 3 of those which can bombard 38 places (if i counted right) so u can feel to do the same, cos it's also highly unlikely that the same guy just every single one of those.

so my point was that u are clearly talking about too extremely unlikely situation or at least Raskholnikov is so it shud not even be taken in count. well it's true that if let's say it's 3-man game and there is suicide bomber in airplanes and one of his opponents own like more than 80% of that land then it hurts quite a lot, but still in most cases the third player out of this action wud be most likely to win.

well that was just too long explanation for one guy ^^

btw aircraft can be two-edged bombshell as natty said in case that if u have lots of troops in there and u get wiped out from all the other places than from aircraft. then you can't possibly win the game anymore ^^

also heck yeah it's shud be more historically correct. like did those planes just do tricks above the area for ppls amusement. i doubt xD

also as i play mainly escalating; it's just soooo much easier to figure good attacking route at the end (well as that said i'm propably one of the better escalating players around and can figure it without too, but that wasn't the point ^^). i mean situations where u kill sumone for spoils and u notice that "oh f sake there is that 1 bloody stack in un reachable place" and then it's obviously too late. well obviously those snipers most likely make u pass by there (since most of the bombarding is there). well yeh obviously ment like recashing and having left ur own troops ahead after prev. kill ^^

btw yeh last time i commented about snipers i didn't even take in count +1 bonus. if snipers have that bonus too then they shud be like 4 neutral and if they don't have that bonus then 2 or 3 neutral ^^

I'm playing stalingrad for the first time; I am absolutely gobsmacked that a risk type map can actually capture the feeling of a world war 2 tactical battle. I take my hat of to you. We are so fortunate to have a brilliant map designer. Thankyou. This in my opinion is your best of all your mainly great maps!!!!!!!

Cairnswk you have outdone yourself. It is a very clever design with a lot of moving parts. Beta will make this map even better, I suspect this one may top Waterloo for quads complexity. I suspect I'll never be any good on it but it is an enjoyable experience.

I like the fact that the planes although very powerful initially quickly lose their power because there are ways to avoid the spots planes can hit, and AA guns can retaliate just as fiercely as the planes can bombard.

Hey there. New to the map - and I have to say, the "Artillery Bombardment Range" is not clear. That legend and chart work as a mnemonic if you already know it, but if you don't...well, IMO, it needs a rewrite.

How about replacing the ABR bit at the bottom center with this text: "Artillery in W can bombard S, and vice versa. Artillery in N can bombard E, and vice versa. See marker near Refinery."

Raskholnikov wrote:Well I don't agree. The advantage given to airplanes is just too great. It wipes out any other tactical options. A pity, because it is a good map which is being ruined by dice manipulations. I love the map, but if this feature is maintained as is, I will not play it beyond the sets I have started. It's one thing to be historically accurate, it's another to allow one element to dominate to the extent to which the players are forced to play the mapmaker's preferred strategy and no other, if they are to stand a chance....

Well Rash, that is your option not to play anymore.
Pearl Harbor is also configured this way where the drop on the planes has a massive advantage if you get a good drop but that has bonuses. This doesn't have bonuses attached to those planes.
And i don't agree with you. There is no harm in a game being slightly out of balance to maintain its historical aspect IMHO.

jefjef wrote:...
Your telling us that my opponents in our trips game, who dropped all but 2 planes, and bombarded us with just 2 attacker dice for an entire round and successfully neutralized about 15 of our terts was intentional?

Yes, if that's how the drop eventuated and then the subsequent game from that drop.
This map was never going to be a totally balanced map. You will have to get into real fighting to win this map, and if your opponent has better placement, then that is your opponent's good luck. There are planty of maps out there that are totally balaned to play.

Raskholnikov wrote:Yup. That's the plan - to force players to take out airplanes first. Shrugs. Best part, you don't even know it until after you commit yourself to a different strategy and get totally massacred by a few units - like we both did.

I agree with pamao...learning curve. Tisk that got screwed, That's what happens sometimes.

natty_dread wrote:

MrBenn wrote:Ah, but with the bombardments, once you've successfully defeated a territory, you do not have to move a troop onto it, thus giving you an extra army to attack with on your next turn

Yes but that is a two-edged sword: you can also not use the bombardment to conquer territories. So that kinda balances it out.

Agreed

Backside wrote:btw yeh last time i commented about snipers i didn't even take in count +1 bonus. if snipers have that bonus too then they shud be like 4 neutral and if they don't have that bonus then 2 or 3 neutral ^^

Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

coolake wrote:I'm playing stalingrad for the first time; I am absolutely gobsmacked that a risk type map can actually capture the feeling of a world war 2 tactical battle. I take my hat of to you. We are so fortunate to have a brilliant map designer. Thankyou. This in my opinion is your best of all your mainly great maps!!!!!!!

danryan wrote:Cairnswk you have outdone yourself. It is a very clever design with a lot of moving parts. Beta will make this map even better, I suspect this one may top Waterloo for quads complexity. I suspect I'll never be any good on it but it is an enjoyable experience.

I like the fact that the planes although very powerful initially quickly lose their power because there are ways to avoid the spots planes can hit, and AA guns can retaliate just as fiercely as the planes can bombard.

Thanks guys for those comments. It's nice to hear some compliments in amongst all the other