Re: 1v1: Promontory Summit [10.3.14] BETA

[Donelladan]

I agree with CC888 on bottom being better than top. The carlin position is annoying also. Why the top has 2 positions where a "poor conditions" territory border a ressource? That is a small thing but it is still a disavantage for the top.

[b00060]

I love that there is a true 1v1 map added to the list. I love the game play, but have found it can be a little one sided for the first player. I think either evening out where the bridges are, or how the negative and bonus drop locations are similar would be great. I know this would make it almost all a dice game, but tweaking a few other territories so they are bombable or perhaps a switch or something allowing access to the other line, could bring some additional strategy into the mix. Just my thoughts, but bring on more 1v1 maps!!!!

[Hamalech]

I've played 1 1v1 NoSpoils, Adjacent and have to admit that it's been a little bit boring, as game has gone very very slow, only interesting part has been at the end when both arrived with hundreds of troops to the mine. I won, but just a matter of luck, 1 more turn and would have lost. Game 14146538

It's interesting 1v1 map, but I'm missing more playability. May be with different settings is better (I'll try).

[Vlasov]

I only played Promontory once. I was on the bottom (best) half of the map. I won, eventually. This map has potential if played under certain options for spoils, reinforcement, bombardment, nukes, etc. It can be boring at times, and it certainly requires a lot of luck. I vote YES for this beta map, if the "Top/Bottom = West/East" discrepancy can be fixed.

[Gilligan]

Well, it says that Sacramento belongs to the west, and Omaha belongs to the East, so I don't think there's a discrepancy.

[stealth99]

Hey guys, very nice map. I love the fact that there is a unique 1v1 map. I like the uniqueness of a race to beat your opponent as opposed to a war. It's a good training map in my opinion, where a lot of basics can be learned without the complexity involved in other maps.

I have read some of the previous discussion and I would like to add that I don't mind if there is an advantage that slightly favors either the top or the bottom position (no sex jokes please) . Two evenly matched players will still have a 50% win rate against each when enough games are played. The luck of drawing the top or bottom position is part of the fun. It doesn't always have to be about ensuring the most skilled player wins every game.

Anyway, I have a question: I am not sure what I have to do to achieve victory. There are 4 spikes and I cannot tell from your directions if I have to acquire and hold all 4, or if just a gold and silver spike is required. If it's just a gold and silver required, can i take my gold spike and then either the silver spike or the gold and silver spike?

I am very confused.

[Vlasov]

You must acquire and hold all four spikes, to win.

[stealth99]

ok 4 spikes it is, thanks for that....just in time as i am now about to make my first decision in that regard.

again, cool map, nice work and much thanks.

[sundance123]

This map has been great fun - I ve managed 8 games since it went beta. I have found a 50:50 split between top and bottom in terms of wins but I can see where everybody is coming from the bottom seems more favo(u)rable. The drop for nearly every map in CC is uneven for 1v1 so please dont change this. A bit of advserity makes a win more satisfying.

This map adds something new to the 1v1 experience as it allows some very basic gameplay to be experienced in a way that bots cannot compete with. Please dont make it a bot-map.

One thing i dont like about this is the ease for stacking - I think there should be regions with -3 or -4 near the summit for each side where people tend to stack before assaulting the top, or else these positions could be bombarded from a killer neutral on the opposite side but I dont know if this fits with historical theme.

[Donelladan]

I still dont get the gameplay... it is only drop attack avance drop attack avance.. I've played it 4 times, won it 4 times, but it was mainly luck.
What's up with you guys? Why do you like it. I don't see it.
Is it perfect no brain map for 1vs1 1 min speed game?

[Vlasov]

Despite the apparent unfairness between initial drops in Top/Bottom East/West, I like this map. Sundance said he has won an lot of his games. As he said, "a bit of adversity makes a win more satisfying".

Stealth99 made some very good points!

As far as the victory conditions are concerned... maybe there should be a way to sabotage/bombard any of the four Spike territories?

[sundance123]

I still dont get the gameplay... it is only drop attack avance drop attack avance.. I've played it 4 times, won it 4 times, but it was mainly luck.
What's up with you guys? Why do you like it. I don't see it.
Is it perfect no brain map for 1vs1 1 min speed game?

1v1 gameplay is generally quite limited that's not really the fault of this map.

[josko.ri]

One thing I like bout the map: The principle of being more or less equal drop for both players, with a little variabilities, which are in my opinion good because it would be too monotony if both zones are completely the same. I also like Bridges, that is very nice idea for the map, and increase skill level needed to properly manage from plan from back regions to fore regions.

One thing I dislike about the map: One way attack to Gold Spike regions. It would much more increase gameplay level if those attacks are two way. Imagine game with escalating spoils, where players need to decide between going for objectives and entering into opponent's zone, which breaks opponent bonus but at the same time release some stacks which were accumulated there over many past turns. With spoils, (re)breaking bonuses of opponent can become back and forth game and level of enjoyment would be much bigger. If you have 2 options (take objectives or attack opponent's zone) it is much more playable than if you have only one option (take objective).

[josko.ri]

One thing I like bout the map: The principle of being more or less equal drop for both players, with a little variabilities, which are in my opinion good because it would be too monotony if both zones are completely the same. I also like Bridges, that is very nice idea for the map, and increase skill level needed to properly manage from plan from back regions to fore regions.

One thing I dislike about the map: One way attack to Gold Spike regions. It would much more increase gameplay level if those attacks are two way. Imagine game with escalating spoils, where players need to decide between going for objectives and entering into opponent's zone, which breaks opponent bonus but at the same time release some stacks which were accumulated there over many past turns. With spoils, (re)breaking bonuses of opponent can become back and forth game and level of enjoyment would be much bigger. If you have 2 options (take objectives or attack opponent's zone) it is much more playable than if you have only one option (take objective).

[morleyjoe]

Just played my first 5 game series on this map. Esc, chained, fog. Troop and reinforcement strategy is crucial, and really like the bridge feature. Found different strategies worked for different reasons. Keeping a big stack at our near the bridge and on your starting point can be just as important as the stack you move forward to the spikes. In those 5 games, the person on the top was 2-3, the person going 1st was 4-1, but most of them were very close with lots of back and forth battling and card playing.

Well done! Hopefully this encourages more 1v1 only maps.

[Vlasov]

To Morleyjoe and joski.ri ---- I concur with both opinions. Let us promote Promontory Summit.

[T21b]

Hi,
first let me say I like the concept, I really like long drawn out trench type games and this fits thats scenario.
However ....
Having played several games, it seems to be broken:
1. The south has a natural advantage with more +2 available earlier
2. Too easy to take advantage of beginners with settings such as no reinforcements+trench (they can get stuck on turn 2, never able to pass the neutral-1)
3. With good v good players, it is all about how well the dice works out in the first 3 turns (i.e. who can start accumulating +1's and +2's first) after that it becomes very boring, especially if no round limit set.
4. With round limit of 30, there is a clear strat that cant be beaten if you have the south.
5. With round limit of 30, there is a clear strat that cant be beaten if you have the north (except by an opponent playing the same strat from the south)
6. With no reinforcements, there is no incentive to do anything constructive in the spike zone.

Suggestions for improvements:
1. two bridges each side, identical neutrals north and south
2. the 4 spikes should all have +2s
3. a 5th (central) spike should have a +4
4. no bombardment of bridges from the start zone, maybe from the 4th +1 neutral along the line, or so
5. bridges reset to neutral start of each round (ideally set to a neutral value = to the round number! else to 10)

A final suggestion (but might undo the intent of the author:
6. if someone holds all the spikes (whether 4 or 5) but has not the victory condition yet, allow to attack further into the opponents line (this gives another way to win - elimination of opponent troops - or at least an alternative strategy.

Cheers,
(again, I actually like playing the board for fun, as the author says it is simple and fun ... but not particularly fast)
T21b

[Vlasov]

I agree with T21b's comment in almost every respect. I hope Promontory Summit will be promoted and improved. I hope it may serve as a model for further creation of 2-player games based on historical maps and critical linear timelines.

My first thought was the development of nuclear bombs in late WWII... a linear progression of research, confined to a small timeline. What if Germany got the A-bomb first, and placed them in U-boats, and sent suicide nuclear U-boats to the major ports of the Allies? What if the Soviet Union had gotten A-bomb technology from the Nazis or Americans sooner, and later used ICBMs to destroy Washington, New York, London, and Beijing? And what if Japan somehow got the technology first, and made the first A-bombs? Who would they have bombed first?

[TX AG 90]

Is Ogalulla a typo or a historical spelling? I could find no historical record spelling it that way. It should be with an "o" instead of a "u"

Also, Ogalalla peak is in Colorado. The town in Nebraska referenced by the map is Ogallala.

Thanks,

TX AG 90

[TheCrown]

2 suggestions for this map:

1. Those middle spikes (gold & silver) should also have a +1 or something to help the enemy to engage. Many games people just sit at the end of their line and just wait for the other person to take the gold spike in front of them. That means that the first player to take those middle 8 neutrals out get punished and nothing for their efforts.

2. There needs to be some mystery involved. If playing foggy, you can just see your enemy's terit count and know exactly where he is. You can't skip any terits and go in for the middle spikes for a quicker victory because you need the whole line for the win. I think either the teal colored terits need not be necessary for the "whole line", or make some more terits along the way that are not auto-deploy, so you can take them or not giving a false reading by your enemy.

The game can quickly become boring if you have a couple of squatters that don't want to go in the middle... but the map has a lot of potential.

[lanceeee]

The poor condition stops are supposed to be -1. But after I've reached the spikes, it does not do a -1. I won one game where I had 1 troops on a couple of "poor conditions". When I started my last turn, I was expecting to do a -1, and thus I would have to play one more round. But instead, it gave me the victory.

In my last game, there were a couple of rounds at the end when there were no -1. The Freemont stop to be specific.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=14476691

[Gilligan]

The poor condition stops are supposed to be -1. But after I've reached the spikes, it does not do a -1. I won one game where I had 1 troops on a couple of "poor conditions". When I started my last turn, I was expecting to do a -1, and thus I would have to play one more round. But instead, it gave me the victory.

In my last game, there were a couple of rounds at the end when there were no -1. The Freemont stop to be specific.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=14476691

I see a -1 on Freemont in rounds 18, 17, 16, 15...remember that it doesn't go below 1.

[jak111]

Game 14517702
^ This one and any like this one that I made is pretty much 100% stalemate.

I think I broke the map with this set-up.

[iAmCaffeine]

Game 14517702
^ This one and any like this one that I made is pretty much 100% stalemate.

I think I broke the map with this set-up.

Poor freemium.

[Googilibear]

With all due respect... What a boring map.(stated mildly) Not worthy of being on cc.