Conquer Club

cairnswk wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:...
I currently have the starting positions coded to include each tribe's adjacent territory, and I'll probably edit the XML so that tribes start with more than 3 troops. No neutrals necessary
-Sully

Mmmm, OK did we discuss that...it's been so long i don't remember.

So what value should the tribes start with?

I was thinking around 6.

cairnswk wrote:And what is your view on the probability criteria Sully?

I like to keep it as low as possible. Ideally, >2%.

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:...
I currently have the starting positions coded to include each tribe's adjacent territory, and I'll probably edit the XML so that tribes start with more than 3 troops. No neutrals necessary
-Sully

Mmmm, OK did we discuss that...it's been so long i don't remember.

So what value should the tribes start with?

I was thinking around 6.

OK. Now i was just thinking about this further...
when start occurs, wouldn't it also be better to code the region in front of tribe as a high value also...if another player get one of the surrounding territories, in any game your opponent could still take you out in a couple of rounds if they have good dice.
I'd be inclined to code both of those with 6.

cairnswk wrote:And what is your view on the probability criteria Sully?

I like to keep it as low as possible. Ideally, >2%.
-Sully

Well what would you propose for those 2 and 3 regions...more neutrals ?

cairnswk wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:...
I currently have the starting positions coded to include each tribe's adjacent territory, and I'll probably edit the XML so that tribes start with more than 3 troops. No neutrals necessary
-Sully

Mmmm, OK did we discuss that...it's been so long i don't remember.

So what value should the tribes start with?

I was thinking around 6.

OK. Now i was just thinking about this further...
when start occurs, wouldn't it also be better to code the region in front of tribe as a high value also...if another player get one of the surrounding territories, in any game your opponent could still take you out in a couple of rounds if they have good dice.
I'd be inclined to code both of those with 6.

Perhaps a compromise of 9 and 3? That way, the high troop can't be accessed until the second turn.

cairnswk wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

cairnswk wrote:And what is your view on the probability criteria Sully?

I like to keep it as low as possible. Ideally, >2%.
-Sully

Well what would you propose for those 2 and 3 regions...more neutrals ?

I'll see if I can't make some magic with the starting positions, otherwise, yes, we would have to resort to neutrals.

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:...
Perhaps a compromise of 9 and 3? That way, the high troop can't be accessed until the second turn.

That's sound like a plan, I'll change the above graphic to reflect start positions rather than nuetrals.

cairnswk wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

cairnswk wrote:And what is your view on the probability criteria Sully?

I like to keep it as low as possible. Ideally, >2%.
-Sully

Well what would you propose for those 2 and 3 regions...more neutrals ?

I'll see if I can't make some magic with the starting positions, otherwise, yes, we would have to resort to neutrals.
-Sully[/quote]
OK, that would be a preferred solution. Thanks!

Here is the adjusted version 8 showing those starting positions.
Apart from the neutrals all the other territories will be normal random drop play positions unless we have to adjust for probability drop situations.

Oops! You mixed up the 3's and 9's. The 9's should be on the tribes.

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:Oops! You mixed up the 3's and 9's. The 9's should be on the tribes.

-Sully

If that's the case, then i'd prefer to go back to the 6 & 6.

6 & 6 would be good if you're not going to start the tribes as starting positions. Though with the idea of these tribes arriving in Pot Mosbi, it would go with the theme of using them as starting positions. To me it doesn't matter as it isn't a game changer. It looks fair and balanced to me so let's get these neutrals settled and I might be able to stamp it tomorrow. If not then it will have to wait until next week when my Thanksgiving and wedding anniversary is over.

isaiah40 wrote:6 & 6 would be good if you're not going to start the tribes as starting positions. Though with the idea of these tribes arriving in Pot Mosbi, it would go with the theme of using them as starting positions. To me it doesn't matter as it isn't a game changer. It looks fair and balanced to me so let's get these neutrals settled and I might be able to stamp it tomorrow. If not then it will have to wait until next week when my Thanksgiving and wedding anniversary is over.

Well. i think 6 & 6 would be better on each of the tribes and the region in front...
isaiah40 - it can wait until next week in case some others want to comment.
and happy TG and WA all round eh?!

I don't have any idea really what the values should be, but if Isaiah thinks 6&6 is alright, and if some others chime in, it sounds fine to me.

Keep up the good work.


--Andy

cairnswk wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:6 & 6 would be good if you're not going to start the tribes as starting positions. Though with the idea of these tribes arriving in Pot Mosbi, it would go with the theme of using them as starting positions. To me it doesn't matter as it isn't a game changer. It looks fair and balanced to me so let's get these neutrals settled and I might be able to stamp it tomorrow. If not then it will have to wait until next week when my Thanksgiving and wedding anniversary is over.

Well. i think 6 & 6 would be better on each of the tribes and the region in front...
isaiah40 - it can wait until next week in case some others want to comment.
and happy TG and WA all round eh?!

My thinking behind it is that there is a delay in being able to use all of those troops (as you would have to reinforce them from the tribe), so the taking over of your adjacent bonus area would not be immediate.

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:6 & 6 would be good if you're not going to start the tribes as starting positions. Though with the idea of these tribes arriving in Pot Mosbi, it would go with the theme of using them as starting positions. To me it doesn't matter as it isn't a game changer. It looks fair and balanced to me so let's get these neutrals settled and I might be able to stamp it tomorrow. If not then it will have to wait until next week when my Thanksgiving and wedding anniversary is over.

Well. i think 6 & 6 would be better on each of the tribes and the region in front...
isaiah40 - it can wait until next week in case some others want to comment.
and happy TG and WA all round eh?!

My thinking behind it is that there is a delay in being able to use all of those troops (as you would have to reinforce them from the tribe), so the taking over of your adjacent bonus area would not be immediate.

-Sully

Mmmm. I understand where you're coming from Sully.
Let's look at this from another angle.

How many bonus troops is each player likely to get in the first round for each 2-8 player game?

cairnswk wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:6 & 6 would be good if you're not going to start the tribes as starting positions. Though with the idea of these tribes arriving in Pot Mosbi, it would go with the theme of using them as starting positions. To me it doesn't matter as it isn't a game changer. It looks fair and balanced to me so let's get these neutrals settled and I might be able to stamp it tomorrow. If not then it will have to wait until next week when my Thanksgiving and wedding anniversary is over.

Well. i think 6 & 6 would be better on each of the tribes and the region in front...
isaiah40 - it can wait until next week in case some others want to comment.
and happy TG and WA all round eh?!

My thinking behind it is that there is a delay in being able to use all of those troops (as you would have to reinforce them from the tribe), so the taking over of your adjacent bonus area would not be immediate.

-Sully

Mmmm. I understand where you're coming from Sully.
Let's look at this from another angle.

How many bonus troops is each player likely to get in the first round for each 2-8 player game?

In terms of the territory bonus?

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:

cairnswk wrote:....
Mmmm. I understand where you're coming from Sully.
Let's look at this from another angle.
How many bonus troops is each player likely to get in the first round for each 2-8 player game?

In terms of the territory bonus?
-Sully

Well, on round one, first player is likely to get how many troops - you know 3 for 12 etc.

(Answer my own question?)
3 for 12
4 for 15
5 for 18
6 for 21
7 for 24
8 for 27
9 for 30
Is this correct?

Anyone want to assist on the above question?

I have a question first. How many territories are starting neutral besides the 3 killer neutrals? If I read right, the territories in front of the tribes start neutral as well, right? If so I count 3 Killers, 8 adjacent to the tribes, 1 in the 2 territory bonus comes to 12 territories starting neutral. That leaves 92 starting territories, not exactly one of the sweet starting numbers. As a matter of fact, the next best starting number is 80. Here's the break down based on 92 starting territories:
2 players --> 30 territories
3 players --> 30 territories
4 players --> 23 territories
5 players --> 18 territories
6 players --> 15 territories
7 players --> 13 territories
8 players --> 11 territories

Out of the above starting territories the following is the break down of tribes that actually start:
2 players --> 4 tribes
3 or 4 players --> 2 tribes
5 - 8 players --> 1 tribe each

So the total territories left to be doled out would be
2 players --> 26 territories
3 players --> 28 territories
4 players --> 28 territories
5 players --> 17 territories
6 players --> 14 territories
7 players --> 12 territories
8 players --> 10 territories
Only 7 player games is bad. So I think this is pretty darn good. I'm okay with these numbers, as long as I counted everything right.

isaiah40 wrote:I have a question first. How many territories are starting neutral besides the 3 killer neutrals? If I read right, the territories in front of the tribes start neutral as well, right? If so I count 3 Killers, 8 adjacent to the tribes, 1 in the 2 territory bonus comes to 12 territories starting neutral. That leaves 92 starting territories, not exactly one of the sweet starting numbers. As a matter of fact, the next best starting number is 80. Here's the break down based on 92 starting territories:
2 players --> 30 territories
3 players --> 30 territories
4 players --> 23 territories
5 players --> 18 territories
6 players --> 15 territories
7 players --> 13 territories
8 players --> 11 territories

Out of the above starting territories the following is the break down of tribes that actually start:
2 players --> 4 tribes
3 or 4 players --> 2 tribes
5 - 8 players --> 1 tribe each

So the total territories left to be doled out would be
2 players --> 26 territories
3 players --> 28 territories
4 players --> 28 territories
5 players --> 17 territories
6 players --> 14 territories
7 players --> 12 territories
8 players --> 10 territories
Only 7 player games is bad. So I think this is pretty darn good. I'm okay with these numbers, as long as I counted everything right.

isaiah40, unfortunately you didn't look at the map above which is on the previous page, nor did you follow some of the discussion that Sully and i had had, where Sully had proposed that the territories in front of the tribes also start not as neutrals but as same starting positions.
At this point in the discussion, there are only 4 neutrals.

We then needed to determine how many troops should start on these two territiories.
My last question was "How many bonus troops is each player likely to get in the first round for each 2-8 player game?"
Is it:
3 for 12
4 for 15
5 for 18
6 for 21
7 for 24
8 for 27
9 for 30

My objective is to determine how many troops need to be placed in front of the tribe to ensure that a tribe is not taken out in the first round.

Ah! I'm sorry, cairns. The breakdown looks like this:

8 starting positions of 2 territories each (16 total territories) + 3 killer neutrals + 1 neutral + 84 deployable/droppable territories = 104 total territories, as per the first post.

2 players --> 36 [+12] (no position max); 32 [+10] (max="2"); 30 [+10] (max="1")
3 players --> 32 [+10] (no position max & max="2"); 30 [+10] (max="1")
4 players --> 25 [+8] (no position max & max="2"); 23 [+7] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+6]
6 players --> 16 [+5]
7 players --> 14 [+4]
8 players --> 12 [+4]

Hm, doesn't look good... And the starting values would have to be increased fairly substantially. I suggest we change the standard +1 per 3 territory bonus to +1 per 5, so the values will look much more manageable:

2 players --> 36 [+7] (no position max); 32 [+6] (max="2"); 30 [+6] (max="1")
3 players --> 32 [+6] (no position max & max="2"); 30 [+6] (max="1")
4 players --> 25 [+5] (no position max & max="2"); 23 [+4] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+3]
6 players --> 16 [+3]
7 players --> 14 [+3]
8 players --> 12 [+3]

Hm, still not fantastic, but this could be remedied with a neutral:

2 players --> 35 [+7] (no position max); 31 [+6] (max="2"); 29 [+5] (max="1")
3 players --> 31 [+6] (no position max & max="2"); 29 [+5] (max="1")
4 players --> 24 [+4] (no position max & max="2"); 22 [+4] (max="1")
5 players --> 18 [+3]
6 players --> 15 [+3]
7 players --> 13 [+3]
8 players --> 12 [+3]

Of course, I still need to look into those 3-territory bonuses, which could mess with these values a bit.

-Sully

Okay, I guess I totally misunderstood everything. Now if the adjacent territories also are starting territories then that will leave you with 100 territories which is not a golden number. Here is the break down of how many men each player gets on his/her first turn. Notice that in 3 and 8 player games the first player to go first can take 1 territory from another player:

2 players --> 50 territories --> 16 men
3 players --> 33 territories --> 11 men
4 players --> 25 territories --> 6 men
5 players --> 20 territories --> 6 men
6 players --> 16 territories --> 5 men
7 players --> 14 territories --> 4 men
8 players --> 12 territories --> 4 men

With these numbers I would go with something like 10 on the tribe and 9 on the adjacent territory. This will take care of the 1v1 games. I believe that this will be way too much, so I suggest on having those adjacent territories start as the nine neutrals,and the tribes start with 5. Here is the break down for the 92 starting territories:

2 players --> 46 territories --> 15 men
3 players --> 30 territories --> 10 men
4 players --> 23 territories --> 7 men
5 players --> 18 territories --> 6 men
6 players --> 15 territories --> 5 men
7 players --> 13 territories --> 4 men
8 players --> 11 territories --> 3 men

So there it is as long as my math is correct.

isaish40...doesn't 12 territories = 3 men ?

cairnswk wrote:isaish40...doesn't 12 territories = 3 men ?

No, because 12 ÷ 3 = 4

-Sully

isaiah40 wrote:Okay, I guess I totally misunderstood everything. Now if the adjacent territories also are starting territories then that will leave you with 100 territories which is not a golden number. Here is the break down of how many men each player gets on his/her first turn. Notice that in 3 and 8 player games the first player to go first can take 1 territory from another player:

2 players --> 50 territories --> 16 men
3 players --> 33 territories --> 11 men
4 players --> 25 territories --> 6 men
5 players --> 20 territories --> 6 men
6 players --> 16 territories --> 5 men
7 players --> 14 territories --> 4 men
8 players --> 12 territories --> 4 men

With these numbers I would go with something like 10 on the tribe and 9 on the adjacent territory. This will take care of the 1v1 games. I believe that this will be way too much, so I suggest on having those adjacent territories start as the nine neutrals,and the tribes start with 5. ...

I'm in favour of something like 10 on the tribe and 9 on the adjacent territory, with both as starting territories.

What about you Sully? Let's get this settled, please.

Hm, I'm more in favor of 15 on the tribe and 4 on the adjacent territory, so there's more delay with accessing those extra troops.

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:Hm, I'm more in favor of 15 on the tribe and 4 on the adjacent territory, so there's more delay with accessing those extra troops.

-Sully

So, Sully you want 4 on Gerehu Faiv and 15 on Enga Tribe.
What happens in a 1v1 game where you opponent gets 15 men to add to his territories, and suppose your opponent gets Gerehu Sikis and Gerehu Wan on the drop. Very likely your tribe will be near wiped out if your opponent is lucky with thier dice.
That's not a position i'd like to be in, and i think we can do better.

I think that 19 troops between the two territories would be good as this will prevent any chance of anyone getting wiped out first turn. Actually, if some one had really lucky dice - like I did once on Classic, taking 30 troops with my lowly 17 and breaking 2 continents in the process - they could do it, but the probabilities of that happening that often are like getting struck by lightening.