Baseball: King of Diamonds (v15 p.27)

[natty dread]

Another option is to give a maximum of 2 pitchers per game, and to reduce all the starting positions by a bit, say 2 troops. It would slow down 5+ player games a bit, but now 2-4 player games would start with only 22 reinforceable troops per player.

I like this idea.

[osujacket]

Think of it is starting pitcher vs bull pen pitcher.

Starting pitcher can go 9 innings so he gets 9 armies..
Middle relievers can go 5 so they start with 5 armies.
Closers get 1 so he starts with one army.

Fits into the mold of the game

[Wolffystyle]

I think gameplay considerations should be first priority in this situation. The number of starting pitchers should be decided based on what works for the gameplay.

That's my tendency as well. I'm willing to change the starting pitchers back to the 'mistake compromise'; my only issue with that is that players are going to get confused as to why the game is set up that way.

The justification is that your "relief pitchers" do not have as much stamina or endurance as a starting pitcher. Your main pitcher usually takes you 7+- 2 innings whereas your pitchers in relief will only take you 1,2 or 3 innings max. (or 5 as osujacket says)...

If 12, 5, and 5 troops are too much for the pitcher in 1v1s, then it's possible to code three of the pitchers neutral, so that players start with 12 and 5 each for 1v1, and then only have one pitcher each for 3 and 4 player games. I don't know that that's the best idea.

Let's look at unlimited: 15 takes Babe with 13 left and then takes an infield ball and an infield region and reinforces all to there (10+4+4=18). Player B follows player A's path but has to take another infield and has 15 v 1,1,1,18 ( I cant get my assault odds up but I am guessing player A ends with around 5 or 6 left on average. Player B forts 4 and 4 to his infield region.

Round 2: Player A drops 3 on a pitcher and takes babe and ball again and can hit Player B's 9 or 10 troop infield with his 6 and with 4 from his pitcher route. Okay now anything can happen round 2 and beyond.

Another option is to give a maximum of 2 pitchers per game, and to reduce all the starting positions by a bit, say 2 troops. It would slow down 5+ player games a bit, but now 2-4 player games would start with only 22 reinforceable troops per player.

I don't get this. Sorry.

[carlpgoodrich]

Another option is to give a maximum of 2 pitchers per game, and to reduce all the starting positions by a bit, say 2 troops. It would slow down 5+ player games a bit, but now 2-4 player games would start with only 22 reinforceable troops per player.

I like this idea.

So far I haven't heard anyone complain about 5+ player games. I would be very careful about changing what seems to be working.

Also, for everyone who says you can't win 1v1 when you attack first, why don't you just leave some troops on your pitcher? Attack Babe, a baseball and one territory, while leaving x troops on your pitcher. The other person (in a foggy game) won't know how many you left, and won't know until he has already committed a certain number of troops to attacking. If you make x large, then you get to do the attacking next turn. Now, I haven't done this (I don't usually play 1v1), but maybe a different strategy makes this a moot point.

[Evil DIMwit]

I can buy the relief pitcher thematic argument.

[PLAYER57832]

have not followed the discussion so far, sorry

I am sure this latest change makes it better for multiple player play. However, I think the earlier version (but where the 2 homes could not attack each other directly) were better for 1 vs 1 play.

Not saying you should change the map back, but it might be useful to consider for future maps.

[neanderpaul14]

Does everyone realize if this map is played just right/wrong it can wind up in a total stalemate with only the 2 Homeruns being held by 2 players????

[greenoaks]

Does everyone realize if this map is played just right/wrong it can wind up in a total stalemate with only the 2 Homeruns being held by 2 players????

how would that become possible ?

[Evil DIMwit]

Does everyone realize if this map is played just right/wrong it can wind up in a total stalemate with only the 2 Homeruns being held by 2 players????

how would that become possible ?

You'd have to be playing Nuclear and really luck out with the spoils to have three or fewer non-homerun territories and have every one of them nuked. Not likely to happen, though.

[PLAYER57832]

Does everyone realize if this map is played just right/wrong it can wind up in a total stalemate with only the 2 Homeruns being held by 2 players????

Actually, it can be a stalemate from the very start.

The first person to attack instantlt has a disadvantage, unless maybe they get very lucky and the opponent does not.

I mean, to start, you have to take out at least Babe, then either a ball or homerun, either way, then next player now has an easier path... unless you are dumb enough to leave all your armies on the batter or a ball. (leaving some really doesn't solve this problem because you cannot take enough bonuses to make up for the lost armies).

I am not sure how to solve this. Maybe there needs to be some kind of penalty if you don't bat or such? I think this map has real potential.

I misplayed here (did not intend to attack homerun), but this is an example
Game 9089002
I took out second base, was down to 6 armies. My opponent came, had 17 standing. My only real chance was to try to take him out with my 5.

[osujacket]

horrible horrible map for singles now.

Please please change it....

Attack first kill three neutrals and most likely lose.

[Evil DIMwit]

I don't really know to what extent I can change it and still stick with the theme.

[HighlanderAttack]

In my opinion not much of the field matters at all. As stated in a few earlier posts (which I only read a few) the first person to attack in a 1v1 game now has the disadvantage of the second player getting attackers advantage. Really with normal dice the first player to attack has no real chance of winning. I have tried it in a few and failed miserably just because I got tired of stacking.

Unfortunately you need to have some armies starting out in the field or this becomes the worst 1v1 style map that CC has. This is my opinion and I just wanted to get it out there.

Good luck with any adjustments.

I also want to note I have not played team or multi player games yet--I am sure it is suited better for those styles.

[DaveH]

I'd just like to add my endorcement to the previous posts about how inadequate the map now is for 1 v 1 games. Who has the patience to go second will win, provinding the dice are not totally against him.

Looking at earlier games though, there are singles games with all players shared out and this seems to be a more naturalk way of playing singles games. I don't know why it was changed, but it does need to be changed back asap - unless there were also errors with this format that I have not picked up in these posts.

Good idea but needs tweeking for singles
Dave

[carlpgoodrich]

You know, one thing that would help is to change the neutral on the babe back down to 1. If I remember correctly, the reason its 2 is to prevent people from stacking on the pitcher and taking the babe for a card. I know this wouldn't completely solve the problem, but it might help.

[RedRover23B]

Echoing a few recent posts, 1v1 games on this map almost are always stalemates from the start because there is no advantage for either player to attack. I think I missed this in the conversation but why did you take the second starting pitcher away in 1v1 games? People seemed not to stack as much while that pitcher was there.

If for some reason that I am missing, the pitcher needed to be taken out then there needs to be another point at which you can attack from. Maybe starting the game with a pitcher and a base? Or a pitcher and an outfielder? Justified by either starting the game in mid inning (pitcher and base) or by having offense and defense (pitcher and fielder).

Not sure if that would completely solve the problem but it could work knowing that someone is working on a bonus from their fielder and the other player has no direct contact with him without either going across the field or coming down from the pitcher.

[Kiko13]

Echoing a few recent posts, 1v1 games on this map almost are always stalemates from the start because there is no advantage for either player to attack.

I disagree. In my last 5 games I attacked first (either on my 1st or 2nd turn) I won 2, lost 1 and 2 are ongoing, but I think I have sufficient control that I am going to win both of those, so likely 4 and 1. And the one game I lost I had ridiculously bad dice where I attacked Babe, then a ball and then couldn't even win an assault to get off the ball and of course was completely screwed at that point.

I will say that attacking first is probably only a good idea if you have the first turn in the game:

1st player attack:
1st player - attacks with 17, takes some region in the field
2nd player - attacks with 17, may or may not be able to take out 1st players region

2nd player attack:
1st player - does nothing, has 17 on pitcher
2nd player - attacks with 17, takes some region in the field
1st player - now has 22 to attack with

In both cases, the first attacker has 17 troops, but for the 2nd player to attack, there is a big difference between the 2 scenarios.

[melech14]

I think the one v. one game was better when the pitchers were divided up (no pitcher was neutral). Maybe a compromise would help: for 2-player games each starts with 2 or 3 pitchers.

This is a good map overall.

[mr. CD]

I do not agree with earlier statements that there should be more pitchers in 1v1. Picking the right moment to move out is very tricky and with multiple pitchers it's rather impossible to win without starting (One pitcher attacks and takes a base, other pitcher reinforces there - game is won (with normal dice, that is))

[AndyDufresne]

We received an e-ticket about this map and a possible issue:

.... I \"hit a home run\". That is the only player I have left on the board. I can't attack anyone from my \"home run\" so each turn I just keep adding armies, I now have 37 on my home run. There will be no way to end this game since my opponent will never have enough armies to conquer me because I get 5 more each turn!...

Game 9135840


--Andy

[drunkmonkey]

We received an e-ticket about this map and a possible issue:

.... I \"hit a home run\". That is the only player I have left on the board. I can't attack anyone from my \"home run\" so each turn I just keep adding armies, I now have 37 on my home run. There will be no way to end this game since my opponent will never have enough armies to conquer me because I get 5 more each turn!...

Game 9135840


--Andy

The opponent simply needs to take the Winning Condition of holding all the bases.

"My opponent will ever have enough armies"? His opponent is currently getting 21 more troops than him each turn. He could also just build up until he has enough.

[isaiah40]

Looks like red is just delaying the game by taking every territory, and/or bombarding the same territory over and over.

[Renee_W]

Also, for everyone who says you can't win 1v1 when you attack first, why don't you just leave some troops on your pitcher? Attack Babe, a baseball and one territory, while leaving x troops on your pitcher. The other person (in a foggy game) won't know how many you left, and won't know until he has already committed a certain number of troops to attacking. If you make x large, then you get to do the attacking next turn. Now, I haven't done this (I don't usually play 1v1), but maybe a different strategy makes this a moot point.

Interesting idea but it ignores one basic point, you still have the disadvantage. By going first you have to attack neutral 2. Anyone who follows you just attacks your 1 or you have to leave a second troop behind to be annihilated. Over many games you'll lose more troops simply getting on the batter than they will and that leaves you at a disadvantage.

[Renee_W]

To keep the 2 neutral batter I think there should be a bit of a redesign. Change the mound to a pitcher since it makes no sense to have no pitcher. Change the starting pitchers to starting bench. And give each bench their own batter. That keeps the have to spend troops to see the balls element in fog, requires everyone to hit 2 to get on the batter instead of second movers only hit 1, and allows first movers to see what balls are hit instead of having access to the balls blanked out by the second mover(who can see what balls the first mover hit).

Could also make the pitcher(current mound) attack the batter instead of the bench and the batter able to attack the bench to keep that thematic element.

[acrazyfella]

bug in the game, I just got a bonus and did not actually hold all the territories to warrant the bonus. It is right infield. Did not own RI6. Reference game Game 8869100