Conquer Club

cairnswk wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:cairns, sure it has been discussed, but after having finished my first game (and won) on this fine map, can I please ask for a slight revision. For the Motu tribe, it took me a long time to find them. This was because I was looking for a tribesman, and not the boat. Any chance of getting rid of the sail and putting a tribesman into it instead so all the tribes have the same type of symbol?

What you should have been looking for was something that said "Tribe", and considering this a clearly marked, i have to no to this request.
You simply didn't look hard enough. Besides the Motu Tribe are seafaring peoples.

I agree with you on this one, cairsnwk. It seems to me that the name is well written, readable and visible. Yeah it's a sort of exception and it could be considered "hidden" for the first game you play. But it's "hard" to spot only once...at least this is what i think.
Cairnswk, I think have promised a more thoughtful comment on the starting drop in 1vs1 games some time ago. Sorry for the delay but i had to come in and out from hospital and doctors these days...but now things should be back to normality and I'm trying to look at all the things I had to look at asap. So, I have not forgotten to give you a reply, just i had a few messy days.

Nobodies

Not a map for 1vs1, but otherwise cool!

cairnswk wrote:What you should have been looking for was something that said "Tribe", and considering this a clearly marked, i have to no to this request.
You simply didn't look hard enough. Besides the Motu Tribe are seafaring peoples.

Fine, it was just hard for me to see them in the first game. But now that I know where it is I will find them easier.

ManBungalow wrote:Not a map for 1vs1, but otherwise cool!

As an 8 player esc game, this map rocks.

koontz1973 wrote:

ManBungalow wrote:Not a map for 1vs1, but otherwise cool!

As an 8 player esc game, this map rocks.

let's do everything possible to keep the latter, while making 1v1 more playable than it currently is.

cairnswk wrote:

iancanton wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Can we compromise on 5 buffer in front of tribe... because i am still not convinced that in 2 players games, the first player is going to have enough deployment if he gets a tert adjacent to the 3 buffer to be able to come very close to wiping that buffer out, thus immediately placing the opponent in a defensive position to have to countermand that almost wipeout.

how about 15 and 3 on each tribe and buffer respectively? the 15 prevents someone from having to defend immediately against a possible wipeout, while the 3 forces all players to deploy or fort consciously to any regions from which they want to attack.
ian.

the 15 is fine, although i still prefer 12.
the 3 is too low....it might force conscious deployment, but it doesn't stop someone in 1v1 from wiping that buffer out...i'd still like it to be 5 or 6.

if u wipe out someone's buffer, then u'd better ensure that u pummel his 15-stack into something insignificant, otherwise that 15-stack, increased by 7 additional troops from enemy deployment, is going to do some damage to u before ur next turn. given the likelihood of failing to reduce the 15-stack to less than a 10 stack, ur opponent will be able to attack with 16 troops or more. i'd certainly want my opponent to conquer my buffer region on turn 1 if it meant a 16-troop attack for me.

ian.

iancanton wrote:...

cairnswk wrote:

iancanton wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Can we compromise on 5 buffer in front of tribe... because i am still not convinced that in 2 players games, the first player is going to have enough deployment if he gets a tert adjacent to the 3 buffer to be able to come very close to wiping that buffer out, thus immediately placing the opponent in a defensive position to have to countermand that almost wipeout.

how about 15 and 3 on each tribe and buffer respectively? the 15 prevents someone from having to defend immediately against a possible wipeout, while the 3 forces all players to deploy or fort consciously to any regions from which they want to attack.
ian.

the 15 is fine, although i still prefer 12.
the 3 is too low....it might force conscious deployment, but it doesn't stop someone in 1v1 from wiping that buffer out...i'd still like it to be 5 or 6.

if u wipe out someone's buffer, then u'd better ensure that u pummel his 15-stack into something insignificant, otherwise that 15-stack, increased by 7 additional troops from enemy deployment, is going to do some damage to u before ur next turn. given the likelihood of failing to reduce the 15-stack to less than a 10 stack, ur opponent will be able to attack with 16 troops or more. i'd certainly want my opponent to conquer my buffer region on turn 1 if it meant a 16-troop attack for me.

ian.

OK i can see what you're trying to achieve.
15 on the tribe, and i'll give 4 on the buffer.

iancanton wrote:so i recommend a maximum of exactly 3 2-region start positions per player

I'm fine with the above

cairnswk wrote:1. Divisor of 4

I'm fine also with this. Must be said that players prefer to have it written somewhere on the map. Personally I hope a day we will be able to not have to write all these details on the map, but for now a note it is preferable. The only place i can see right now is where you have the killer neutral explanation. I think it's really long and that it can be shortened a bit to make room for the uncommon divisor. If players wonder what a KN is, then the player can go to read instructions.

cairnswk wrote: iancanton wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

both regions of each start position ought to be coded as underlying neutral to avoid potential bonus drops.


OK, that can be done also, although is it too much! are we going for overkill here?


an underlying n10 and n2 on each tribe and buffer region respectively will be acceptable.


i see you changed your mind from 12 to 10.
OK, but this doesn't have to be mentioned in the legend.

10 and 2 look good also to me. And yes you don't have to note it somewhere. When the underlying neutrals come into action, they are visible from the very start so a note is 100% useless.

cairnswk wrote:15 on the tribe, and i'll give 4 on the buffer.

If I've understood correctly what you guys are trying to achieve, I think that 15 and 4 are good numbers even if also 12 and 4 work for me....personally I like the current 12 troops on tribes, it's the 7 on the buffer that I don't like.

Nobodies

I've just started a game 1v1...where my opponent got regions adjacent to my buffer...game start he gets 10 troops same as me.
With 12 and 7 as it is now, if he has good dice, he could roll my 7 buffer with his 10, exposing one of my tribes.

If we are to make these changes to tribe and buffer numbers, i also recommend that all regions surrounding tribe and buffers be made neutral.
What say ye?

Hasn't been that big of an issue so far in the three games I've played. One double, a 8 player single, and a quads.

are the starting positions going to be reduced for 1v1?

as it is now there is no strategy, just cross your fingers and hope to go first.

cairnswk wrote:I've just started a game 1v1...where my opponent got regions adjacent to my buffer...game start he gets 10 troops same as me.
With 12 and 7 as it is now, if he has good dice, he could roll my 7 buffer with his 10, exposing one of my tribes.

in 1v1 (and also in trips or quads), i'd welcome it if my opponent exposed one of my tribes, thereby allowing me to use my 12-stack (or 15-stack) to attack him. 6-12 therefore doesn't defend as well as 3-15 (or 4-14, for that matter).

ian.

Have we decided on what we're going to do as far as XML changes? I can have a new file uploaded by this weekend.

nolefan5311 wrote:Have we decided on what we're going to do as far as XML changes? I can have a new file uploaded by this weekend.

I beleive it's going to be...


1. Divisor of 4
2. max of 3 x 2 region start positions/player
3. reduce the 7 (buffer) in front of tribe to 4....with the tribe at 15 for starts.

I'll get onto the map.

cairnswk wrote:

nolefan5311 wrote:Have we decided on what we're going to do as far as XML changes? I can have a new file uploaded by this weekend.

I beleive it's going to be...


1. Divisor of 4
2. max of 3 x 2 region start positions/player
3. reduce the 7 (buffer) in front of tribe to 4....with the tribe at 15 for starts.

I'll get onto the map.

Thanks.

Version 20 with new notations and starting numbers.







http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... V20Scd.png
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... V20Lcd.png

Just to confirm cairns...it's a max of 2 starting positions (to only affect 2 & 3 player games), or a max of 3 starting positions?

nolefan5311 wrote:Just to confirm cairns...it's a max of 2 starting positions (to only affect 2 & 3 player games), or a max of 3 starting positions?

as per discussion top of page 25 which you wrote...<positions max="2">

cairnswk wrote:

nolefan5311 wrote:Just to confirm cairns...it's a max of 2 starting positions (to only affect 2 & 3 player games), or a max of 3 starting positions?

as per discussion top of page 25 which you wrote...<positions max="2">

Just making sure we're still at 2. Thanks.

The updated XML is linked and attached.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/5/13/3303803/Classic_Cities__Pot_Mosbi_01-10.xml

nolefan5311 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

nolefan5311 wrote:Just to confirm cairns...it's a max of 2 starting positions (to only affect 2 & 3 player games), or a max of 3 starting positions?

as per discussion top of page 25 which you wrote...<positions max="2">

Just making sure we're still at 2. Thanks.

you could confirm that with iancanton.
although when i wrote it, there was no dicsussion on it, os i assume it was OK.

cairnswk wrote:

nolefan5311 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

nolefan5311 wrote:Just to confirm cairns...it's a max of 2 starting positions (to only affect 2 & 3 player games), or a max of 3 starting positions?

as per discussion top of page 25 which you wrote...<positions max="2">

Just making sure we're still at 2. Thanks.

you could confirm that with iancanton.
although when i wrote it, there was no dicsussion on it, os i assume it was OK.

I will just go with 2 right now. If ian wants it different, I'm sure he'll let us know

nolefan5311 wrote:I will just go with 2 right now. If ian wants it different, I'm sure he'll let us know

OK, thanks.

IDK if it was proposed or not(27 pages... too much) but I think that Utilities should have 6-7 neutrals on them... as it is they are too powerful(especially for team games and unlimited reinforcements)

GoranZ wrote:IDK if it was proposed or not(27 pages... too much) but I think that Utilities should have 6-7 neutrals on them... as it is they are too powerful(especially for team games and unlimited reinforcements)

GoranZ. thanks for feedback.
i don't beleive it was proposed...
are you saying it is too strong as a bonus when collected in those games...
and how many bad experiences did you have with this...
and where would you put the 6-7 neutrals if you had them?

No they are too powerful when it comes to ease of connecting remote areas of the map. And since they are initially ether to some player or neutral it gives them very powerful role(Almost all attack will go threw them, and defenders cant defend since no one will know where the attack force will go to). But if they are initially neutral with certain amount of units on them their role for blitzkrieg attack in the beginning stages of the game will be reduced although they will still be quite powerful later in the game. Cretan amount of neutrals on them(it doesn't have to be 6-7... it can be 5) will probably render their usefulness in round 1, but not for later rounds. If there is a change in them then probably the utilities bonus should be changed also.

cairnswk wrote:and how many bad experiences did you have with this...
and where would you put the 6-7 neutrals if you had them?

All Utilities territories should start with neutrals on them... I had surprising experience(not bad) in one of the games I play on the map when I realized what can be done with those connecting territories ... Generally the goal for my proposal is to make the map littlebit slower when it comes to eliminating an enemy in the begining stages of the game, especially in unlimited reinforcements.

Other then this the map looks quite impressive.

Losing conditions don't work or are badly described!!!

I am holding all tribes and my opponent still lives!!!