Manual troops not on maps with starting positions

[Timminz]

I would say that manual deployments can make a difference on Feudal 1v1. It isn't much, and anyone with half-decent strategy would never do it, but it is slightly different. New World, on the other hand, makes a HUGE difference. Manual deployments, and first turn in a 1v1 sequential game is all but a guaranteed win on that map. I would suggest only blocking the ones where you have only one available option, such a Feudal standard/terminator/assassin games with 4, or more players. For 1v1, unless each player only starts with one territory, and/or each territory only starts with a single army, I think it should be left as is, because there is a difference, however slight.

edit- fastposted by MrBenn.

[Lindax]

I basically agree with Koganosi and Timminz.

No maps should be blocked from manual in opinion. It can make a difference, especially in team games.

Lx

[danryan]

The only maps that should be blocked are ones with no deployment. For quads feudal epic it makes a fair bit of difference to start with all deploying on one castle, while on New World it makes a massive difference. Pelo War as pointed out it makes a significant difference as well. Jamaica it has no effect, City Mogul the same, I believe AOR 1,2,3 also. That would be all I suggest.

[The Fuzzy Pengui]

if the game-type does not allow you to drop any armies during the deployment phase, or you only have a choice of 1 terr to drop on, then manual deployment makes no sense.

I think MrBenn hit it right on the head. It's exactly what I was going to say before I read his comment. Note that 1 territory to drop on would then eliminate all team games from being in this list, because you always have a minimum of 2 territories to start the game between your team. This means it would be unique for each map, and probably a bit more annoying to code then just removing maps from the selection list, but it would make it more fair in the long run and seems to make a lot more sense IMO.

[Gilligan]

Merged duplicate topics.

Okay I agree this should be done.

So far we have:
Feudal War
New World
City Mogul
Peloponesian War

Should we list the maps where Manual Troops doesn't make sense or just block it on all maps that make use of starting positions?

There's also Age of Realms, Monsters, WWII Poland, Feudal Epic and Jamaica. If you block it, you would also have to block it on certain numbers of players. For instance...If I were to play a 2 player game on Monsters, I start with 4 territories where Manual still has a legitimate reason for being there.

[Timminz]

After a bit more thought, I think it would be better to just get rid of the medal for manual deployment. Wouldn't that remove the issue?

[Dako]

Nooo, don't block monsters. manual is awesome there :-).

[Koganosi]

I basically agree with Koganosi and Timminz.

No maps should be blocked from manual in opinion. It can make a difference, especially in team games.

Lx

I meant like to say. Manual does come in handy in the most team games. In multiplayer games (wich concer more then 4) It isnt handy at all because you have only 1 starting position. I dont know if its hard to script that out. But for mogul manual has never an effect.

Urs

Koganosi

[lackattack]

Stickied this topic because we need feedback.

In effect, if the game-type does not allow you to drop any armies during the deployment phase, or you only have a choice of 1 terr to drop on, then manual deployment makes no sense. Anything that gives you a choice involves some degree (even if minimal) of strategic thought.

Well put! Unless anyone objects, let's use this as the criteria. It shouldn't be controversial

The question then is, how will this be implemented and how will cartographers maintain it...

First of all - can we allow all team games or will some maps not allow you to drop any armies even in team games?

Can we add a Manual troops Yes/No field in the maps database? Or a numeric field that has a min or max number of players? Or a select list with values like [Yes, Only Team Games, No]?

Perhaps we should now list all conditions where MrBenn's criteria are not met...

[Dako]

List with Yes, No, Team only would be best as I see it now.

[natty dread]

The question then is, how will this be implemented and how will cartographers maintain it...

I don't think cartographers need to maintain it. It would be lots of extra work.

It can simply be determined based on the XML if a map will allow you to drop on 2 or more territories on certain settings.

First of all - can we allow all team games or will some maps not allow you to drop any armies even in team games?

You can roughly divide all territories of a map in 3 categories:
- normal
- starts neutral
- coded as starting point

Of these, only the normal territories allow troops for manual deployment. When a territory is coded as starting point, it always starts with the troops it is coded with. But if you have 1 normal territory and 1 starting point territory, the 2 troops from the normal territory go to manual deployment, so you get to choose if you put them on the normal territory or the starting point territory. On the other hand if both are starting point territories, then you don't get to choose, because they won't give any troops for manual dep.

So, to allow for manual deployment, for singles games a map must have for each player at least 2 territories that do not start neutral, of which at least 1 territory must not be coded as a starting position.

In the case of team games, the 2 territories minimum doesn't apply, but each player must still start with at least 1 territory that is not coded as starting position.

Even in team games, if each player only has 1 territory that is coded as a starting position, then manual doesn't work (because there are no troops to distribute).

I think a code that checks the XML for these definitions shouldn't be too hard to code.

[lackattack]

So, to allow for manual deployment, for singles games a map must have for each player at least 2 territories that do not start neutral, of which at least 1 territory must not be coded as a starting position.

In the case of team games, the 2 territories minimum doesn't apply, but each player must still start with at least 1 territory that is not coded as starting position.

Very nice analysis, natty

I will go with this logic unless anyone can find a flaw in it.

[Timminz]

So, to allow for manual deployment, for singles games a map must have for each player at least 2 territories that do not start neutral, of which at least 1 territory must not be coded as a starting position.

In the case of team games, the 2 territories minimum doesn't apply, but each player must still start with at least 1 territory that is not coded as starting position.

Very nice analysis, natty

I will go with this logic unless anyone can find a flaw in it.

Would Feudal 1v1 (for example) count all the starting territories as "coded as starting position"? Or would the fact that you get 2, randomly chosen from the 6 available, negate this?

[AAFitz]

It doesnt seem worth it to me, to change the game and essentially take away acutal options for playing a map, which can indeed be relevant, just to protect the manual medal process.

I think no team games whatsoever should be affected, because manual with teams is very much different than 1v1, and necessarily even in just doubles, there are choices to be made.

The only games that should have manual removed are when a player can only make once choice, and that is to deploy on the one spot they have, which cant affect the game in any way, except to delay it.

But ruining the other games just to eliminate this, cant possibly be worth it...no doubt its a cure worse than the disease.

[Timminz]

I agree with Fitz.

If the issue is medals, the solution should be in the medals (either add a sequential medal, or remove the manual medal), not in gameplay option removal.