Eastern Hemisphere [Quenched]

[karelpietertje]

I'll keep pestering lack.

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

Yep!
"he was about to rip his leg off!"

on-topic:
I saw somebody say that because of the starting positions in Europe, nobody will deploy there because it's unlikely to get Europe.
however people will be fussing over the European powers, so starting positions are still great

I love the starting positions, and they reduce the unfairness that can happen in 1v1s (and not only 1v1s probably) I wish this would happen in more maps!
so let me check if I get it right.
there are certain territory pairs that one can get? are there bonuses that you can't get at the start of the game or do the starting positions just reduce the chance of this?

[AndyDufresne]

On a note about Europe---in a 4 player game, everyone was neglecting Europe and Naval Superiority, so while owning a small bonus in Africa, I managed to hold Europe for a few rounds as well, and enjoyed it.


--Andy

[oaktown]

I love the starting positions, and they reduce the unfairness that can happen in 1v1s (and not only 1v1s probably) I wish this would happen in more maps!
so let me check if I get it right. there are certain territory pairs that one can get? are there bonuses that you can't get at the start of the game or do the starting positions just reduce the chance of this?

I think that as we collectively get a better grasp of how 1v1 games are skewed and how to best work starting positions you'll see more of them. They are especially useful for balancing 1v1 games, since you can code two or three starts and the starts will be ignored in larger games.

On this map (by the latest XML which is NOT yet in live play) there are eight starting positions, and each position has two territories: one territory in Europe, one in Japan/China/Oceania. In an eight player game each player will get one pair, guaranteeing each player at least one territory on each end of the map, and making it impossible for a player to start with all of Japan or all of Europe. In a six player game, for example, two of the starting positions will be ignored and those territories assigned randomly (since eight can't be evenly divided by six). But in a four player game each player will receive two of the positions, guaranteeing each player at least two territories in Europe and two in the east. Likewise in a 1v1 each player will receive four territories... which actually means that while Europe will be split in half, a player can score all of Japan on the drop, but the odds are pretty low.

[MyTurnToWin]

My suggestion is to rename the map: End of Empires

Eastern Hemisphere could be any time in that location plus it doesn't have any excitement to it. Read "End of Empires" and immediately the pulse quickens and anticipation builds. Can I, possibly, be the one to end them?

[karelpietertje]

I think that as we collectively get a better grasp of how 1v1 games are skewed and how to best work starting positions you'll see more of them. They are especially useful for balancing 1v1 games, since you can code two or three starts and the starts will be ignored in larger games.

On this map (by the latest XML which is NOT yet in live play) there are eight starting positions, and each position has two territories: one territory in Europe, one in Japan/China/Oceania. In an eight player game each player will get one pair, guaranteeing each player at least one territory on each end of the map, and making it impossible for a player to start with all of Japan or all of Europe. In a six player game, for example, two of the starting positions will be ignored and those territories assigned randomly (since eight can't be evenly divided by six). But in a four player game each player will receive two of the positions, guaranteeing each player at least two territories in Europe and two in the east. Likewise in a 1v1 each player will receive four territories... which actually means that while Europe will be split in half, a player can score all of Japan on the drop, but the odds are pretty low.

thanks. look forward to the update (also because the army of Naval Superiorrity seems curretntly a bit wrong, and the army of Rhodesia is not in place either )
lack, Im begging

EDIT: NEVER MIND i was actually playing while lack updated it, and he did the army positions first and then the map. thanks lack

[Meatcat]

Bad name for the map - too generic. Should be more explicit, something like Europe's Colonial Powers before WW1.

[oaktown]

Bad name for the map - too generic. Should be more explicit, something like Europe's Colonial Powers before WW1.

here's my logic behind the current name...

On the map itself the title is "End of Empires" - a title which is given some explanation in the next line. The explanation includes the fact that the region being represented is the Eastern Hemisphere.

However, for the game finder page the map is labeled "Eastern Hemisphere" because that's how I imagine most folks will remember this map... 'I'd like to play that map of teh eastern hemisphere... what's it called?'

There are some maps at CC that I have trouble finding because they are, in my opinion, poorly named. If you want to play Iraq, it's not under "Iraq" but "Battle." At what point has anybody called the real Iraq war the Battle for Iraq?

[Meatcat]

It's still a boring name which doesn't describe the map. Terrible. Also, the colors are so dull it's hard to distinguish the continents.

[perchorin]

It's still a boring name which doesn't describe the map. Terrible. Also, the colors are so dull it's hard to distinguish the continents.

I couldn't disagree more. Love the colors, love the name, love the map!

[Thezzaruz]

It's still a boring name which doesn't describe the map. Terrible. Also, the colors are so dull it's hard to distinguish the continents.

I couldn't disagree more. Love the colors, love the name, love the map!

Well the name isn't bad but I'm not convinced by its greatness either.

And I do love the colours and graphics of the map (with the exception of the smaller mountains). The look is classy and well kept together IMO. Plays well too.

[Meatcat]

I really like the map, but as I said before the name is so dull people will pass it by without giving it a try. How about Colonial Empires 1910?

[iancanton]

in a 1v1 each player will receive four territories... which actually means that while Europe will be split in half, a player can score all of Japan on the drop, but the odds are pretty low.

sadly, it turns out that the odds of starting with one of the 3-region +2 bonuses (italian empire, portuguese empire or dutch empire) are looking pretty high. this is because some of the start positions combine in a way that is favourable to player 1. i haven't analysed this yet, except to look at seven active 1v1 games, of which player 1 twice started with a +2 bonus. if 28% (or even 14%) is the real average, then we need to reduce the number of sets of start positions (i'm thinking to 2 or 3 sets), to stop this from happening so often. this needs a bit more thought.

ian.

[riodeishere]

like the map, i don't mind the name to be honest.
good gameplay.
intrestting thing about 1v1, i don't know cause i played 4 player but i hope it gets sorted cause i like doing random map (1v1) and don't want an unfair game.

[Sharpsh00ter]

This map looks killer! I really want to try it. Colours look good distribution looks good. The background pattern in the ocean could use a little work... But on the whole I like it!

C

[Sharpsh00ter]

This map looks killer! I really want to try it. Colours look good distribution looks good. The background pattern in the ocean could use a little work... But on the whole I like it!

C

If anyone is interested I just started a game with this map. Anyone up for some Beta testing?


C