Conquer Club

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

14 months into production and now somebody is unhappy with the name of the map? I'll probably be accused of being an "elitist" for saying this, but at this point I'd rather not change the name.

iancanton wrote: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.

Alright, this is a 70 territory map. Even if we removed ALL of the starting positions each player would start the game with 23 territories, which means player one gets to start the game by placing 7 armies. Anybody who chooses to set up a 1v1 game on a 70 territory map is counting on the fact that it is not going to be an even game from the start.

Currently with 16 coded starts each player in a 1v1 game starts with 25 territories, or a first placement of 8 armies. A one army difference on a big map, so I'm not going to get too bent out of shape over it.

The concern seems to be that there is a slightly increased chance of getting a bonus. So...

There are four 3-territory bonus regions on this map. There is less than a 2.9% chance of a player dropping Horn of Africa, of which none of the territories are start-coded. There is about a 4.9% chance that somebody will drop a three-territory empire bonus such as the Italian Empire - it's a slightly higher % because the European territory (which is start-coded) has a 1 in 2 chance of going to player X, rather than a 1 in 3 chance.

If we removed ALL of the starting locations the odds of a player dropping the Italian Empire goes down to 3.3%. The odds of a player dropping Horn of Africa actually goes up from 2.9% to 3.3%. The odds of having an advantage in - or dropping all of - one of the other regions also goes up.

This is a big map. While it is certainly playable by two players, short of coding just two even starts and adding about 20 starting neutrals to the map, I don't think that a map this size will ever be an ideal 1v1 map. If the community overwhelmingly wants to sacrifice playability in 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 player games to make it the perfect 1v1 map we can certainly do that, but my guess is that this is not the direction folks want to go.

No. I wanted to just post that, but I thought I should explain. I think it works well the way it currently is.


--Andy

Game plays very well!! Good map etc.... But WTF isn't it called End of Empires? Fix the name or the title on the map. I get lost looking for it.

jefjef wrote:Game plays very well!! Good map etc.... But WTF isn't it called End of Empires? Fix the name or the title on the map. I get lost looking for it.

It's just a matter of Lack changing the name in the map finder page. If/when the map gets moved out of BETA we can ask lack to change the name.

jefjef wrote:Game plays very well!! Good map etc.... But WTF isn't it called End of Empires? Fix the name or the title on the map. I get lost looking for it.

The catchy thing is "Empire" and the title should start with an "E" to find the map quickly (even to those who remembered the "eastern.." title:

So:
"End of Empires" is nice, (though that period was not exactly the END of empires (1945-1960), more like "the beginning of the end of empires"
another title:
"Empire demise" or
"Empire fall" (combining the fall of great empires and the season "fall" for the viability of empires).

lt_oddball wrote:"End of Empires" is nice, (though that period was not exactly the END of empires (1945-1960), more like "the beginning of the end of empires"

I think that the Russian Tsars, the Qing Dynasty of China, and the Ottoman Turks might disagree with you. Anyway, as I've already said I'm fine with changing how the map is located, but after 14 months I don't want to bicker over a name change.

I have a few more minutes in me to talk starts. I personally believe that the current system makes sense for games of 3 to 8 players. That said, the starting positions probably aren't as necessary for games of seven and eight players as they are for games with just four or five players. In a four player game in which each player is going to start with territories, a lucky drop in Japan or Oceania could be devastating - in fact that was the criticism that led to the current starting positions.

SO... I'd be open to the idea of coding just 5 starts. That would mean the starts are ignored for games of six or more players, and we'd have the following starts:
1v1: 24 terits each, 22 neutral (no, 24 isn't perfect, but neither was 25... it's 1v1 on a large map so player 1 has the advantage no matter what)
3 player: 23 terits each, 1 neutral (sea power)
4 player: 17 terits each, 2 neutral
5 player: 13 terits each, 5 neutral
6 player: 11 terits each, 4 neutral
7 player: 9 terits each, 7 neutral
8 player: 8 terits each, 6 neutral

I have to go all the way down to five coded starts to affect the number of territories that players get in 1v1 games. With 22 neutrals there is less chance of a player getting all of a bonus. And we are now only coding five of the imperial powers as starts, so one has to go... Italy is probably the easiest to pick up and hold with a good drop, so I say it is out.

The territories coded as starts should probably be...
<position>
<territory>Great Britain</territory>
<territory>Karafuto</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Germany</territory>
<territory>New Guinea</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Netherlands</territory>
<territory>Shanghai</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>France</territory>
<territory>Korea</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Portugal</territory>
<territory>Australia</territory>
</position>

The European powers that have the most far-flung empires are now paired with territories in the smallest far east region, Japan, while those with the smallest empires to collect are paired with China and Oceania territories.

??

Hey everyone,

As much as it pains me to sacrifice such good position and an extra turn (you'll see), there's a problem in a game I'm playing. I don't know if this is the place to report an issue, but here we go:

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=5042746

Basically, I went to wipe out green, and couldn't gain naval superiority to wipe out his final troop. His turn came next, "neutral" took back naval superiority, thereby eliminating green.

Then it was "neutral player"'s turn for 24 hours. (Probably not intended behavior.)
When that ran out, it reverted back to my turn! (Also probably not intended behavior.)

So yeah, if I should be posting this somewhere else, please let me know.

(Issue aside, this is a great map -- I'll definitely be playing it again!)

mbingo wrote:Hey everyone,

As much as it pains me to sacrifice such good position and an extra turn (you'll see), there's a problem in a game I'm playing. I don't know if this is the place to report an issue, but here we go:

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=5042746

Basically, I went to wipe out green, and couldn't gain naval superiority to wipe out his final troop. His turn came next, "neutral" took back naval superiority, thereby eliminating green.

Then it was "neutral player"'s turn for 24 hours. (Probably not intended behavior.)
When that ran out, it reverted back to my turn! (Also probably not intended behavior.)

So yeah, if I should be posting this somewhere else, please let me know.

(Issue aside, this is a great map -- I'll definitely be playing it again!)

This issue occurs on any map with killer neutrals. It's an issue with the code itself.

So nothing can be done? I should just take my turn?

mbingo wrote:So nothing can be done? I should just take my turn?

They aren't going to be able to do anything now for your game.

From what I understand of the mechanics, blue (and maybe yellow) are going to receive deferred armies for their imaginary missed turn, even though they never had a chance to take their turn.

You could take your turn, the game let's you. Or you could have the timer run down so you don't take a second turn, depending on what you think is more fair. Remember that your opponents will be getting extra armies on their turn, so there's no way make it as though this never happened. SOMEBODY is getting an advantage in that game regardless of what you do.

Alright, thanks for your reply. I think I'll take my troops but won't attack anyone. That's the most fair thing I can come up with.

Thanks again!

Hi mbingo, Echospree is right - this is a well-documented problem that comes up with all maps that use killer neutrals. As a mapmaker there's little I can do other than harass the powers above to address it.

Not sure if this has been addressed before, but why isn't Australia and New Zealand marked down as British colonies?

Ut Oh- bug?!

Game 5318592

Seems yellows last territory was on Naval Superiority which reset to a neutral at the end of the turn- killing him off (badass way to die, btw).

After yellow was eliminated by the neutral player, it seems the game has lost track of whose turn it is:

[quote=log]2009-08-18 17:58:51 - nameless777 lost ? to neutral player
2009-08-18 17:58:51 - neutral player eliminated nameless777 from the game[/quote]

Obviously this is a programming error, but I figured I would plop a 'bug alert' in maps too as it pertains to this map (also to Citadel, I would imagine?).

I wonder what the neutral player will do with yellow's cards. He must be plotting everyone else's demise while we ponder what the hell happened

Yeah, this is a well-known bug. Sucks … lack hasn't gotten to it.

the.killing.44 wrote:Yeah, this is a well-known bug. Sucks … lack hasn't gotten to it.

I was figuring there was no way it hadn't happened before.

Both games I've played on this map are currently in deadlocks (funny thing is that they are a game and it's tie breaker). This map ends in a deadlock to often with players who know what they are doing.

Mr_Adams wrote:Both games I've played on this map are currently in deadlocks (funny thing is that they are a game and it's tie breaker). This map ends in a deadlock to often with players who know what they are doing.

Don't most standard-gameplay maps do the same thing on flat rate/no spoils games?

This map is legitimately amazing.

Oh, it's fun, but it locks up to much. 4 man escalating game at deadlock right now. all four are still in the game.

Game 5814249
Game 5540102

Mr_Adams wrote:Oh, it's fun, but it locks up to much. 4 man escalating game at deadlock right now. all four are still in the game.

Game 5814249
Game 5540102

I just can't see how you can say a map locks up too much from played 2 games. Your two games are the only escalating ones that are currently legitimately "locked up."

...and those aren't really all that locked...

captainwalrus wrote:...and those aren't really all that locked...

Nah, they're totally stalemated, I'll give him that.

the.killing.44 wrote:

captainwalrus wrote:...and those aren't really all that locked...

Nah, they're totally stalemated, I'll give him that.

he won both...

well, ya, because somebody made a stupid move, and it was a tie breaker.

This map needs a list of nations that under the empires like which ones belong to the French and Portugese empires. The flags are difficult to work with,