Conquer Club

HOORAY4PROGRESS!!!

riskllama wrote:HOORAY4PROGRESS!!!

Lol, I'm not so sure, carry on.

iancanton wrote:

CHAMPOS wrote:- decided to have Jerusalem and one other random territory starting neutral, following iancanton comments (not Jerusalem and neighbouring Ayyubid Caliphate)
- felt the bonuses of 7 were adequate for the larger regions, particularly as could combine with some smaller ones

other than jerusalem, one other random starting neutral is not good enough. this is because, in 1v1 games, the starting neutral has a 74% chance of being on one of the big three bonuses, when we need it to be on one of the 3-region bonuses.

even when one starting neutral is in oriental orthodox, there is a 7% chance of someone starting with the eastern orthodox bonus. we can eliminate this by using exactly 3 start positions, being bulgaria, serbia and empire of nicaea. in 2-player and 3-player games, each player will start with 14 regions.

do u dislike having to specify a starting neutral in oriental orthodox? if so, then another solution is to use exactly 3 start positions of one eastern orthodox region paired with one oriental orthodox region. u need to choose the pairings. in 2-player and 3-player games, each player will also start with 14 regions.

when u use exactly 3 start positions, games with 4 or more players are unaffected.

please put the map version number in the title to aid identification.

ian.

Thanks for the comments

This all sounds sensible to me.

One of the Oriental Orthodox territories starts neutral

and the three Eastern Orthodox territories are allocated first (first three)

still leave 42 allocated territories and no-one can get the smaller bonus territories on the start.

Thanks

Paengars wrote:Jerusalem is just too good in it's present state a 3 neutral for a +1 is ok in a map were bonus are easy to get. But here for a +1 you need to put troop on 3 territory and face multiple border.

now that ayyubid caliphate no longer starts neutral, jerusalem becomes too attractive again, especially in trench games.

ian.

iancanton wrote:

Paengars wrote:Jerusalem is just too good in it's present state a 3 neutral for a +1 is ok in a map were bonus are easy to get. But here for a +1 you need to put troop on 3 territory and face multiple border.

now that ayyubid caliphate no longer starts neutral, jerusalem becomes too attractive again, especially in trench games.

ian.

Noted, two solutions...

I. Higher starting troops on Jerusalem, say 4 or 5

Ii. Ayyubid and Jerusalem both start neutral with 3 each, being the two neutral territories. We then allocate the 6 eastern orth and oriental orth territories and the first six allocated, say oo, eo, oo, eo, eo, oo, to minimise the odds of one player receiving all at the start

Any views, think I prefer the latter, but flexible....

Champos

CHAMPOS wrote:

iancanton wrote:

Paengars wrote:Jerusalem is just too good in it's present state a 3 neutral for a +1 is ok in a map were bonus are easy to get. But here for a +1 you need to put troop on 3 territory and face multiple border.

now that ayyubid caliphate no longer starts neutral, jerusalem becomes too attractive again, especially in trench games.

ian.

Noted, two solutions...

I. Higher starting troops on Jerusalem, say 4 or 5

Ii. Ayyubid and Jerusalem both start neutral with 3 each, being the two neutral territories. We then allocate the 6 eastern orth and oriental orth territories and the first six allocated, say oo, eo, oo, eo, eo, oo, to minimise the odds of one player receiving all at the start

Any views, think I prefer the latter, but flexible....

Champos

The starting sequence should probably be oo, oo, oo, eo, eo, eo for the first six territories allocated, to minimise one player having all three in various player number games.

CHAMPOS wrote:Ii. Ayyubid and Jerusalem both start neutral with 3 each, being the two neutral territories. We then allocate the 6 eastern orth and oriental orth territories and the first six allocated, say oo, eo, oo, eo, eo, oo, to minimise the odds of one player receiving all at the start

under this option, u do not list 6 individual regions to allocate first, but 3 eo-oo pairs, each pair being a start position. in 1v1 games, only 2 pairs are allocated, leaving 39 regions to divide by 3; this has the undesirable side-effect of letting player 1 start with 15 regions and being able to reduce his opponent to 14 regions easily.

CHAMPOS wrote:I. Higher starting troops on Jerusalem, say 4 or 5

this leaves the jerusalem-oo neutral combination, coupled with 3 eo start positions, as a fairer choice.

ian.

Iancanton, thanks for the comments

I reckon we should go with the following...

44 territories

2 start neutral with 3 armies - being Jerusalem and Ayyubid Caliphate - this makes it harder to obtain Jerusalem early as two neutral territories would need to be conquered

leaves 42 territories, so a good number to divide in 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 player games.

then the first six territories would be allocated as follows (in this order):

- Makuria - OO
- Serbia - EO
- Alodia - OO
- Begwena - OO
- Bulgaria - EO
- Empire of Nicea - EO

Under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 player games, no player could start with a religeon from the outset

Does this work for you and can this work under the coding?

CHAMPOS

Iancanton, any update on the above, any other playability comments....

The legend is a bit difficult to read as is - you could try making the font the same as the title? tbh, I don't really like the overall look of it much, but you've already said that you're leaving it with a topographical look.

Dude, everyone knows that this is a map that will cause offence. That's the way that it's designed.

CHAMPOS wrote:2 start neutral with 3 armies - being Jerusalem and Ayyubid Caliphate - this makes it harder to obtain Jerusalem early as two neutral territories would need to be conquered

it also makes it needlessly hard to conquer ayyubid caliphate, already the most difficult bonus before this change.

CHAMPOS wrote:then the first six territories would be allocated as follows (in this order):

- Makuria - OO
- Serbia - EO
- Alodia - OO
- Begwena - OO
- Bulgaria - EO
- Empire of Nicea - EO

if u specify 6 single-region start positions as above then, in 2-player games, each player receives 3 random start positions from the 6 listed, plus 12 normal regions, giving 15 each, which means player 1 needs to take only 1 region from player 2 to reduce his deployment.

CHAMPOS wrote:Under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 player games, no player could start with a religeon from the outset

in 2-player games, there are 2 chances in 20 of player 1 starting with either the EO or OO bonus, which is too high.

ian.

Symmetry wrote:Dude, everyone knows that this is a map that will cause offence. That's the way that it's designed.

Why would it cause offense?

iancanton wrote:

CHAMPOS wrote:then the first six territories would be allocated as follows (in this order):

- Makuria - OO
- Serbia - EO
- Alodia - OO
- Begwena - OO
- Bulgaria - EO
- Empire of Nicea - EO

if u specify 6 single-region start positions as above then, in 2-player games, each player receives 3 random start positions from the 6 listed, plus 12 normal regions, giving 15 each, which means player 1 needs to take only 1 region from player 2 to reduce his deployment.

CHAMPOS wrote:Under 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 player games, no player could start with a religeon from the outset

in 2-player games, there are 2 chances in 20 of player 1 starting with either the EO or OO bonus, which is too high.

ian.

2 out of 20 seems like a low level of odds within the 2 player game, particularly in the context of the 3,4,5,6 player games working well and the fact the OO or EE only have a bonus level of +1. You mention the first 6 territories would be allocated randomly - could then not just be allocated as above in a two player game - in which case neither player would end up with OO or EO at the start. Any other ideas on how to accommodate 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 player games and no single player starting with EE,OO and IH?

Any other comments on playability out there? would like to get this map advanced to the next stage if we can....

merry christmas!

CHAMPOS wrote:2 out of 20 seems like a low level of odds within the 2 player game

2 out of 20 means that, for every 100 games played, about 10 will be defective in the sense of a bonus being handed on a plate to player 1. this is a high number when compared with most other maps.

CHAMPOS wrote:particularly in the context of the 3,4,5,6 player games working well

on virtually any map, there are more 2-player games than all of the rest put together, so 2-player games are more important than all of the rest put together.

CHAMPOS wrote:and the fact the OO or EE only have a bonus level of +1.

many high-ranked players and clans will avoid selecting this map because of a high chance of their advantage being overturned by opponents starting with a bonus. this defect is so easy to fix that it needs to be done, unless we can show that the gameplay is demonstrably superior without the fix.

CHAMPOS wrote:You mention the first 6 territories would be allocated randomly - could then not just be allocated as above in a two player game - in which case neither player would end up with OO or EO at the start.

the start positions, of which u've listed 6, are allocated first, at random, so u cannot specify which of the 6 go to which player.

CHAMPOS wrote:Any other ideas on how to accommodate 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 player games and no single player starting with EE,OO and IH?

CHAMPOS wrote:happy to just have one neutral territory (Jerusalem) or have the other neutral in Oriental Othodox somewhere

to avoid the situation in trench games of the ayyubid player conquering jerusalem on turn 1, i suggest that jerusalem is not itself a bonus, but that holding jerusalem will double any religious bonus held, rather like the forts and ships in south africa 1885; jerusalem is not coded as a starting neutral, alodia starts as n2 and the 3 EO regions are start positions. in this case, each player in 1v1 has 1 named EO, with the final EO region being returned to the pot to be allocated with the remaining 40 regions, so that each player starts with 14 regions.

please put the map version number in the title of the first and last post, to aid identification.

ian.

Version 24
- small legend changes



Map Name: HOLYWARS 1250
Mapmaker(s):CHAMPOS
Number of Territories:44 - two start neutral, one being Jerusalem and the other the Ayybuid Caliphate (surrounding Jerusalem), leaving 42 to be allocated, all regions start with 3 troops. (in two player games there would be an additional 2 territories starting neutral being Alodia - Oriental Orthodox and Serbia - Eastern Orthodox)
Special Features:An historically accurate map, no gaps, simple gameplay....
What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: Tried to be historically accurate, on the following basis: the kingdoms/empires at the time (with the areas they ruled/controlled) and then categorised by the rulers religion. There were a number of kingdoms/empires/religions coming together at the same time in 1250AD...
- the Roman Catholics had taken control over mainland Europe from the last Islamic Caliphate holding in Spain,
- the Islamic Caliphates were being attacked from the east by the Tengerian Mongols and from the west by the Roman Catholic crusades,
- the northern Eastern Orthodox territories were under Tengerian Mongol control,
- the Tengerian Mongols had been halted by their leadership changes and power struggles,
- the Indian Hindus were under attack from the Islamic Caliphates and Tengerian Mongols,
- the Oriental Orthodox were under attack from the Islamic Caliphates,
- Crusades continued to Jerusalem, with the following all heading in its direction: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Islamic Caliphates, Jews and there is also evidence the Tengerian Mongols set foot in Palestine at the time...
Who will prevail...?

[url][url=https://imgur.com/J6gtLHE][/url]/url]

LATEST DRAFT

CHAMPOS wrote:Any other ideas on how to accommodate 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 player games and no single player starting with EE,OO and IH?

CHAMPOS wrote:happy to just have one neutral territory (Jerusalem) or have the other neutral in Oriental Othodox somewhere

to avoid the situation in trench games of the ayyubid player conquering jerusalem on turn 1, i suggest that jerusalem is not itself a bonus, but that holding jerusalem will double any religious bonus held, rather like the forts and ships in south africa 1885; jerusalem is not coded as a starting neutral, alodia starts as n2 and the 3 EO regions are start positions. in this case, each player in 1v1 has 1 named EO, with the final EO region being returned to the pot to be allocated with the remaining 40 regions, so that each player starts with 14 regions.

ian. [/quote]


Ian

Thanks for the feedback

I think the idea of Jerusalem doubling the bonuses held is a good one and we can certainly go down this route if we cannot solve the 2 player issue. One caveat would be that this could mean 14 armies for those holding RC, IC, MT - which seems a little high

How about the following:
Number of Territories:44 - two start neutral, one being Jerusalem and the other the Ayybuid Caliphate (surrounding Jerusalem), leaving 42 to be allocated, all regions start with 3 troops. (in two player games there would be an additional 2 territories starting as mandatory neutral being Alodia - Oriental Orthodox and Serbia - Eastern Orthodox)

Would this work?

Champos

CHAMPOS wrote:Number of Territories:44 - two start neutral, one being Jerusalem and the other the Ayybuid Caliphate (surrounding Jerusalem), leaving 42 to be allocated, all regions start with 3 troops. (in two player games there would be an additional 2 territories starting as mandatory neutral being Alodia - Oriental Orthodox and Serbia - Eastern Orthodox)

there isn't a way to code 2 starting neutrals only for 2-player games.

instead, it is possible to specify 2 start positions of 2 regions each, both positions consisting of 1 named EO plus 1 named OO; the unnamed EO and unnamed OO are allocated randomly along with the remaining 36 regions. this gives 14 regions for each of players 1 and 2, which is satisfactory, with 16 neutral. since u've made islamic caliphates more difficult by coding a neutral there, the bonus value must increase to +11 or +12 as compensation; a similar value for roman catholics is also suitable, as given by the bonus calculator in the link below.

viewtopic.php?f=649&t=151297

ian.

I think the font's OK in the legend up top, but the letter spacing needs to be expanded a bit. They're running together too much.

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Dude, everyone knows that this is a map that will cause offence. That's the way that it's designed.

Why would it cause offense?

Sorry Duk- you're obviously right, holy wars have never been the cause of long lasting grudges or offence. No claims at all of territory. No bloody invasions. No history at all of occupation. No civil wars or sectarian divisions. No claims of divine right by leaders or cults of tyrants. No arbitrary divisions based on religion.

What on Earth was I thinking?