1 v 1
Alright test this out for posting. I think some things need to be considered for 1 v 1 games. I feel for small maps there is little that can be done. But for large maps, I think it is good when there is a cap on the most territories that contribute to max troop income. I.e. Hive and Eurasia, where max is 40 for 10, and 36 for 12 I believe, and a large surplus for losses - excellent. This keeps 1st player and 2nd player somewhat at even odds.
However, its a big problem I find when maps are made with initial 15 territories, and all 1st player has to do is take 1 territory, and it drops second player to 4 troops, instead of 5. And when you think about it, 17 starting territories doesn't make a big difference. Once you are getting more than 3 troops, it is quite easy to start taking more than 1 territory. Will 5 initial troops always be able to take 3 territories lowering 2nd player to 14 for example? No, sometimes bad dice will prevent it. But often enough, good dice will allow big 1st player advantage. These are a few issues I think.
Beyond altering map making techniques, I think we should look into actual game settings as well, and have started some threads with those. Also was suggested to post here.
The_Samurai wrote:On another note than region counts and bonuses, a map like Conquer Rome would be a perfect 1 vs 1 map if there were not all these neutral territories spread across the country regions. Why are they there, when they don't actually exist in all other settings (i.e. standard multi-player, and team games) ?
Armandolas wrote:Well, in any big map(for ex +6 or more for the starting player) is almost lost for the 2nd player, only dice can save him in 95% of the cases(umless other player really sucks)...when u play trench the situation is even more dramatic.
Thats why i try to avoid big maps in 1vs1, but i also like to play random maps so i have to deal with it.
I dont have a solution for this and dont know if its possible to change bonus per territs only in 1vs1 games.
Dukasaur wrote:What the site really needs is a Limited Random function
Dukasaur wrote:Given what rules they have to work with, the foundry does a good job of keeping the maps balanced for all types of gameplay.
thenobodies80 wrote:Dukasaur wrote:What the site really needs is a Limited Random function
I have received in more than an occasion a request to not have some maps listed into the random selection. Someone ask for not having supersized maps in the drop, someone else ask for not have too big maps for 1vs1 games.
Personally I think that all supersize maps should be taken out from the list of random maps and mostly I agree that all big maps (number of regions) should be kept out when the players are less than 3.
But as you said it's not exactly foundry stuff...Dukasaur wrote:Given what rules they have to work with, the foundry does a good job of keeping the maps balanced for all types of gameplay.
I think that at some point we should seriously consider the possibility to not follow this rule in all cases. Actually we have a so large amount of game types/options that it's always more hard to fit all maps for all game types.
I mean, is there a moment in which the necessity to fit all game option will become a problem instead of a point of strenght? I prefer to not have a map available for a game type instead of having one that fit all them but really in a bad way. Just a thought.
greenoaks wrote:however the Start A Game page still lets you create them
ender516 wrote:The sooner we have a map browser that is more than an alphabetical list of all maps, the sooner we can consider designating maps as limited to certain game parameter combinations.
greenoaks wrote:ender516 wrote:The sooner we have a map browser that is more than an alphabetical list of all maps, the sooner we can consider designating maps as limited to certain game parameter combinations.
are you asking for my help ?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users