Eastern Hemisphere [Quenched]

[apb23]

I personally think that this map needs no more adjustments...I played it fairly recently in a 1v1 and found it to be great.

[iancanton]

part of the reason why hardly anyone deploys in europe in a multiplayer game is because of the start positions there: it's likely that no-one has more than 3 or 4 out of the 12 regions, in which case just about any other bonus is easier. more on this once i'm back from holiday. happy conquering in the meantime!

ian.

[oaktown]

part of the reason why hardly anyone deploys in europe in a multiplayer game is because of the start positions there: it's likely that no-one has more than 3 or 4 out of the 12 regions, in which case just about any other bonus is easier. more on this once i'm back from holiday. happy conquering in the meantime!

I'm willing to discuss eliminating some or all of the starts altogether, but months ago when it was decided to code europe as starts we had good reasons for doing so. While it does make conquering Europe a bitch, it guarantees that a variety of players will have access to the Colonial Powers bonuses.

Here's a thought... what if we coded starts, but coded fewer than eight? Because in a seven or eight player game on this map it is already highly unlikely that a singl player is going to score a dominating start in either europe or the far east. Eight player games start with only 8 terits each, seven player games start with 9, and six players start with 11. A good start in Europe would be, what, 6 of the 12 European territories? There's less than a .02% chance (yes that's right, less than 1%) of this happening. And there's less than a 2% chance that any one player would score three or more of the six european imperial powers.

But as soon as you get to six players, there's a 5% chance of somebody getting three or more European powers, and about 10% chance of scoring half of Japan... so maybe we just code six starts, with two territories per start? The six powers, and six eastern countries.

that would mean... umm... 25 starting territories/player in a 1v1, instead of 23 if we had no starts at all. (Whatever - 1v1s are a joke on big maps anyway, as I've said many times.) Adding starts has no effect on games of other sizes.

Anyway, the earlier changes have been forwarded to Andy. Changing the starts is easy as it has zero effect on games already underway. We can has this out when iancanton is back from what I'm sure is an alcoholiday.

[Shertenn]

Just finishing my first game.. and had some observations..

1. Naval Superiority is pretty useless as far as I can see. One player in ur game
took it and bombarded 3 colonies.. costing my partner and I builds for India and
SE Asia.. okay.. but it cost him whatever he needed to do that,, and he was left with
6 on the ship.. which disappeared. Sooo.. I figure we came out ahead.

2. I am rather surprised that there is no sea movement between the Home country and a colony or between colonies. This is very a-historical, as everybody.. the Brits especially..
transferred troops (from India to the Sudan.. England to S. Africa vs the Boers..
and everybody to Peking for the Boxer rebellion.. )

I'd like to see something like "In Transit" boxes.. you could reinforce from any port to
a 'in transit' box.. and from the box to any port you own. (No amphibious assaults)

Some of the territorial groups could be better colored..
the pale pastels need to be not quite so pale..

Other than that.. it's been a fun game so far..

Just my 2 cents..

Jim

[AlbroShlo]

I'm playing in game 4794953,http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=4794953&full_log=Y and the Naval Superiority Spot took out a player because the only men he had left were on that territ so now the game is stuck in limbo where it is nobodys turn.

please help
Albro

[Caesius]

1. Naval Superiority is pretty useless as far as I can see. One player in ur game
took it and bombarded 3 colonies.. costing my partner and I builds for India and
SE Asia.. okay.. but it cost him whatever he needed to do that,, and he was left with
6 on the ship.. which disappeared. Sooo.. I figure we came out ahead.

You only see Naval Superiority as useless because you haven't figured out how to use it yet.

If you take Naval Superiority, you're supposed to bombard until you have no armies left. If you have armies left over and there's no enemy territories to bombard, then just bombard neutral territories next to your own troops so you can take them later.

2. I am rather surprised that there is no sea movement between the Home country and a colony or between colonies. This is very a-historical, as everybody.. the Brits especially..
transferred troops (from India to the Sudan.. England to S. Africa vs the Boers..
and everybody to Peking for the Boxer rebellion.. )

Naval Superiority does this, but if you didn't have a presence in the area in the first place i.e. an adjacent colony to conquer the 1 neutral then you shouldn't be able to occupy the area. Realistically speaking.

[oaktown]

We went over all of this months ago... we discussed sea units that could occupy colonies, trading companies that could be taken back by the colonial states, etc. The basic system we have in place came after weeks and weeks of discussion, and no major change will be made now. If you don't show up, you don't get to make the rules.

As for the bug, it was noted in Sugs and Bugs a few weeks ago and has been brought to the attention of the site admins.

[iancanton]

But as soon as you get to six players, there's a 5% chance of somebody getting three or more European powers, and about 10% chance of scoring half of Japan... so maybe we just code six starts, with two territories per start? The six powers, and six eastern countries.

that would mean... umm... 25 starting territories/player in a 1v1, instead of 23 if we had no starts at all. (Whatever - 1v1s are a joke on big maps anyway, as I've said many times.) Adding starts has no effect on games of other sizes.

6 sets of 2 start positions is a rather weak tool in 1v1 for the purpose of preventing player 1 from starting with a 3-region empire bonus because 8 of the 12 possible start positions are allocated normally, just as if they're ordinary regions.

i suggest exactly 3 sets of 2 start positions, being an italian with a portuguese colony, a dutch with an italian colony and a portuguese with a dutch colony, with every other region being normal. this results, unless i'm mistaken (i'd better ask yeti_c for the definitive answer!), in 23 total starting regions (including 2 start positions) for each player. dropping the 3-region empire bonuses will thereby be made impossible in 1v1.

by the way, it wasn't an alcoholiday - my other half made sure of that!

ian.

[vonunruh]

Oaktown, I thought you were going to change the map and make Canton British? Doesn't look like that has happened yet.

As I have continued to play this board (as is) my opinion has become more firmly entrenched...this board does not work for 7 or 8 players. 2 or max. 3 players have a shot for the eastern continents, while everyone else is left scrambling fruitlessly for the african colonies. British and French are impossible to get. There is a whole lot of wilderness to get (pointlessly) lost in in Europe and Russia. Maybe playing spoils would make it more feasible, I dunno. Something needs to be done to make the colonial bonuses easier to achieve in large games.

Just to clarify my earlier point about the continents...one player is likely to get the Middle East, one will get Japan, and one will be working on Oceania and/or S Asia. so that leaves huge swaths of the board with no strategic purpose (dead zones). the players trying to get German, Portuguese, and Italian are killing each other for tiny little bonuses. And because those same players are the ones entrenched in the west, they are the ones likely to be in a position to get naval superiority, which is really hard when you are only getting 3 a turn. Which makes it that much harder to stop the snowball effect in the east. See where I am going with this?

[yeti_c]

But as soon as you get to six players, there's a 5% chance of somebody getting three or more European powers, and about 10% chance of scoring half of Japan... so maybe we just code six starts, with two territories per start? The six powers, and six eastern countries.

that would mean... umm... 25 starting territories/player in a 1v1, instead of 23 if we had no starts at all. (Whatever - 1v1s are a joke on big maps anyway, as I've said many times.) Adding starts has no effect on games of other sizes.

6 sets of 2 start positions is a rather weak tool in 1v1 for the purpose of preventing player 1 from starting with a 3-region empire bonus because 8 of the 12 possible start positions are allocated normally, just as if they're ordinary regions.

i suggest exactly 3 sets of 2 start positions, being an italian with a portuguese colony, a dutch with an italian colony and a portuguese with a dutch colony, with every other region being normal. this results, unless i'm mistaken (i'd better ask yeti_c for the definitive answer!), in 23 total starting regions (including 2 start positions) for each player. dropping the 3-region empire bonuses will thereby be made impossible in 1v1.

by the way, it wasn't an alcoholiday - my other half made sure of that!

ian.

I think you're forgetting that <starting positions> aren't divided by 3 for 1v1 games.

C.

[iancanton]

2 sets of 2 are start positions, plus 65 unallocated regions and 1 fixed starting neutral. do the 65 unallocated regions go 21 to player 1, 21 to player 2 and 23 to neutral, making a total of 23 regions to player 1, 23 to player 2 and 24 to neutral (the alternative is 22 to player 1, 22 to player 2 and 21 to neutral)?

ian.

[Brown304]

if you are able to attack naval superiority and take it over from one of the european powers, you should also be able to fortify back from naval superiority. i played this map for the first time and that lack of being able to reinforce back just gave the game to another team.

[oaktown]

if you are able to attack naval superiority and take it over from one of the european powers, you should also be able to fortify back from naval superiority. i played this map for the first time and that lack of being able to reinforce back just gave the game to another team.

A note has been added to the map, and the new images and XML were sent to Andy and Lack weeks ago. Still waiting on an update.

As for additional changes to the starting positions, I'd like to see how the update works and then discuss. In the end we're talking about starting positions, not something that will change games mid-stream, so they're easy to tweak.

[AndyDufresne]

I don't know why Lack is waiting so long. I'll keep pestering him.


--Andy

[oaktown]

I don't know why Lack is waiting so long. I'll keep pestering him.

A monkey pestering a turtle... there has to be a youtube video for that.