Conquer Club

danfrank wrote:OK,,, this i will direct at edbeard since it is you that has been answering the questions.. The game legend states no territory bonus and yet in the game log it states you are receiving 1 army for holding 2 , 19 , 7 however many territories you may hold.. You always get just 1 army .. Then you have a pair and get 3 for the pair and 1 for the territory bonus that doesnt exist according to legend..Toataling 4 for a pair as the legend states. I am not a computer geek so i can only assume that this confusion is due to how the xml must be written.. Unless one reads this thread they will always be confused. I am suggesting this.. If its possible ,, change the word territory or territories to card and cards and have the legend state +1 for holding any cards .Then minus one from each hand bonus on legend..and omit no territory bonus from legends because there are no territories just cards. something like that ... Just a thought .

danfrank wrote:OK,,, this i will direct at edbeard since it is you that has been answering the questions.. The game legend states no territory bonus and yet in the game log it states you are receiving 1 army for holding 2 , 19 , 7 however many territories you may hold.. You always get just 1 army .. Then you have a pair and get 3 for the pair and 1 for the territory bonus that doesnt exist according to legend..Toataling 4 for a pair as the legend states. I am not a computer geek so i can only assume that this confusion is due to how the xml must be written.. Unless one reads this thread they will always be confused. I am suggesting this.. If its possible ,, change the word territory or territories to card and cards and have the legend state +1 for holding any cards .Then minus one from each hand bonus on legend..and omit no territory bonus from legends because there are no territories just cards. something like that ... Just a thought .

Major Roadworks wrote:As a pokerfreak, I love the concept of this map!

Quick question: If a player has less than 5 territories but holds a bonus (e.g. a pair) - should they be given their bonus since technically they don't have a 'hand' of 5 cards?

danfrank wrote:Thirdly i think that each player should start with only one two or three territories .. he started a game with a pair on the drop under fog it seemed pretty even because he could not see me... without fog he clearly would have been a favorite...

yeti_c wrote:

danfrank wrote:OK,,, this i will direct at edbeard since it is you that has been answering the questions.. The game legend states no territory bonus and yet in the game log it states you are receiving 1 army for holding 2 , 19 , 7 however many territories you may hold.. You always get just 1 army .. Then you have a pair and get 3 for the pair and 1 for the territory bonus that doesnt exist according to legend..Toataling 4 for a pair as the legend states. I am not a computer geek so i can only assume that this confusion is due to how the xml must be written.. Unless one reads this thread they will always be confused. I am suggesting this.. If its possible ,, change the word territory or territories to card and cards and have the legend state +1 for holding any cards .Then minus one from each hand bonus on legend..and omit no territory bonus from legends because there are no territories just cards. something like that ... Just a thought .

This isn't possible in the XML - the minimum reinforcements that can be set in the XML is 1 - this is to ensure that no player ends up "stale". Sadly of course in this map - that's not possible - as you always get a bonus. - I asked Lack if this limitation could be removed and he said "maybe".

So - yes you have to add the 2 together.

C.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

danfrank wrote:OK,,, this i will direct at edbeard since it is you that has been answering the questions.. The game legend states no territory bonus and yet in the game log it states you are receiving 1 army for holding 2 , 19 , 7 however many territories you may hold.. You always get just 1 army .. Then you have a pair and get 3 for the pair and 1 for the territory bonus that doesnt exist according to legend..Toataling 4 for a pair as the legend states. I am not a computer geek so i can only assume that this confusion is due to how the xml must be written.. Unless one reads this thread they will always be confused. I am suggesting this.. If its possible ,, change the word territory or territories to card and cards and have the legend state +1 for holding any cards .Then minus one from each hand bonus on legend..and omit no territory bonus from legends because there are no territories just cards. something like that ... Just a thought .

This isn't possible in the XML - the minimum reinforcements that can be set in the XML is 1 - this is to ensure that no player ends up "stale". Sadly of course in this map - that's not possible - as you always get a bonus. - I asked Lack if this limitation could be removed and he said "maybe".

So - yes you have to add the 2 together.

C.

Then this should be explained as such in the legend. Or you will continue to confuse folks. Anything "not normal" should be explained...

PLAYER57832 wrote:Second: In game 3254290 my opponent got the high card bonus, then I also got it in the next turn. Unless this is a "per person" this should not be possible. That is, is it the overall high card OR just having the high card for that person ... that is, essentially a default bonus? Either way, it should be explained a bit better.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

danfrank wrote:OK,,, this i will direct at edbeard since it is you that has been answering the questions.. The game legend states no territory bonus and yet in the game log it states you are receiving 1 army for holding 2 , 19 , 7 however many territories you may hold.. You always get just 1 army .. Then you have a pair and get 3 for the pair and 1 for the territory bonus that doesnt exist according to legend..Toataling 4 for a pair as the legend states. I am not a computer geek so i can only assume that this confusion is due to how the xml must be written.. Unless one reads this thread they will always be confused. I am suggesting this.. If its possible ,, change the word territory or territories to card and cards and have the legend state +1 for holding any cards .Then minus one from each hand bonus on legend..and omit no territory bonus from legends because there are no territories just cards. something like that ... Just a thought .

This isn't possible in the XML - the minimum reinforcements that can be set in the XML is 1 - this is to ensure that no player ends up "stale". Sadly of course in this map - that's not possible - as you always get a bonus. - I asked Lack if this limitation could be removed and he said "maybe".

So - yes you have to add the 2 together.

C.

Then this should be explained as such in the legend. Or you will continue to confuse folks. Anything "not normal" should be explained...


Second: In game 3254290 my opponent got the high card bonus, then I also got it in the next turn. Unless this is a "per person" this should not be possible. That is, is it the overall high card OR just having the high card for that person ... that is, essentially a default bonus? Either way, it should be explained a bit better.

yeti_c wrote:So apart from the visibility issues...

Any gameplay issues?

C.

Knight2254 wrote:

yeti_c wrote:So apart from the visibility issues...

Any gameplay issues?

C.

A couple suggestions:

If there is a way, perhaps through BoB even, to show what cards you have and what your opponent has. Knowing what cards his full house comes from makes it easier to figure out where to attack. Also, knowing what you have without writing everything down would help you figure out what cards you should focus on. Right now you can do it, but it is difficult to see and hard to follow.

edbeard wrote:not that hard guys. notice that you get 1 army for holding a territory. add this to your bonus and voila. you've got the same total as shown in the legend.

happy2seeyou wrote:I have 10 games going on this map right now. It's looking pretty fun. Do the same cards get picked for every game with 4 player doubles? I

edbeard wrote:

happy2seeyou wrote:I have 10 games going on this map right now. It's looking pretty fun. Do the same cards get picked for every game with 4 player doubles? I

certain cards were picked out to be the starting areas on the map. all the other cards were made to have a neutral start. they were done so that the best start anyone could have is 2 pair and they made they as unlikely as possible. I can't remember how many starting cards they picked. I believe it was 16 so that every game type starts everyone with a minimum of 2 cards and a max of 5.

G_M wrote:Great idea and really fun as well.

My one problem I find however is that the games are really one sided. If someone grabs an early bonus if a straight or flush (very likely with a good drop) he is virtually unbeatable.
The player without a bonus has to fight through 2/3 neutral fields each with 3 troops before he can break the bonus. This will take 2-3 turns, during which the player with the bonus can just deploy and wait.

Maybe one must stick to 8 player games.

A suggestion is to start all fields off with 2 troops instead of 3.

pamoa wrote:

G_M wrote:Great idea and really fun as well.

My one problem I find however is that the games are really one sided. If someone grabs an early bonus if a straight or flush (very likely with a good drop) he is virtually unbeatable.
The player without a bonus has to fight through 2/3 neutral fields each with 3 troops before he can break the bonus. This will take 2-3 turns, during which the player with the bonus can just deploy and wait.

Maybe one must stick to 8 player games.

A suggestion is to start all fields off with 2 troops instead of 3.

I agrre there is a balance problem.
Either you lowerneutral to 2 or even 1.
Or you lower the bonus scale, lets say divide by 2.

yeti_c wrote:Remember - you can only drop with 2 pair at best - so if player 1 gets a straight - then you've gotta get yourself something better - I can't legislate for that. It's upto you to get the hands.

C.