Conquer Club

Sorry if this has already been reported, but I just noticed that Bob does not believe my A6 Catapult should be able to attack T1 Trebuchet. Instead it says it's bombarded by T1. Didn't know if this was the thread too report that or not.

mc05025 wrote:I play only big games (8 players) and I prefer to play with good players so I will tell you one problem about that kind of games.

In a lot of maps, the big games (8 players) with flat rate are very likely to end to a stalemate.
These games are veeeery boring and they end when a player or players miss their turns and be kicked out or with a suiside.

This map has an additional problem that the catapelts and archers make better defence than attacks.
I have allready seen games that there was a great danger to end at a stalemate. For example see game 8200655. A good playing at that game will end at a stalemate although red played very well and at the biggining of the game had three castles and much more troops than anyone else.

This is not a problem with the map, it is a problem with playing multiplayer games against good players. To say that it is a problem with the map is to say that it is the problem with 95%+ of the maps on the site.

The catapults and archers are primarily for defense, and that also is not a flaw with the map. These troops also can be used as support during offense as well.

mc05025 wrote:Sollution.

The only solution I can imagine is to give more combined bonuses so when a player becomes very strong to be very difficult for the others to fight him.
For example give extra bonuses for the player with two castles (triple villages bonus for two castles and x6 villages bonus for three castles etc).

That is only an example of course. I do not know if something like that created problems at other kinds of games like 1vc1. But at 8 player game the solution I suggested whould give a very good reason for everybody to make many big attacks and it would reduse very much the problem of the stalemates.


I agree that your last change at the castles (start only with a noble) made the game worse because if someone has one or two bad rolls at the beggining he has completely lost.

I would not agree with these changes, as they would completely kill the map.

Pretty much it Tanarri

It is true that this is a problem for all the maps in which there are no object (for freestyle games it is a solution) or combined bonuses.

But why combined bonuses would kill the map?

The all concept of this map is based on auto-deployable bonus - those are the production lines. Archers - Catapults and Knights.

The only 'free' bonus would come from villages and a couple of other features.

Is this considered pretty much quenched? Seems to be pretty good imo.

For free-for-all games, this map played really well, although that was before the update and I'm really not a fan of the neutral castles for those games, although it might help with the problem below...

For team games, this map played quite a bit like Poland, which means the strategy is to load up on a single Noble and take the Chamberlain, then use a huge stack to attack the King and wipe all of the other players. It makes the whole concept of Empire-building and production lines irrelevant.

The worst part of this "strategy" (really just brute force stacking) is that it forces the other team to follow suit or guarantee a loss. This was something I tried to point out to the other team, but unfortunately my lack of diplomacy got me cussed out They were the ones to point out that the map strategy was almost exactly like Poland, and I find it hard to disagree. I really don't like Poland at all, since most of the bonuses on that map are meaningless in terms of a winning strategy. It's a stack-war map, which is pretty mindless and largely up to the dice.

Any thoughts?

Marshal Ney

MarshalNey wrote:For free-for-all games, this map played really well, although that was before the update and I'm really not a fan of the neutral castles for those games, although it might help with the problem below...

I'm not sold to that idea as well.... it brings some advantages for 1v1 i think. But it doesn't work that well for team games and people will have a considerable chance of failing to get the castle on the first strike, leaving them in a somewhat disadvantageous position. Also, with this update I find that players use less of the map.

For team games, this map played quite a bit like Poland, which means the strategy is to load up on a single Noble and take the Chamberlain, then use a huge stack to attack the King and wipe all of the other players. It makes the whole concept of Empire-building and production lines irrelevant.

..for the reasons stated above. Though I must confess that I've rarely seen the king being used in any type of game. Previous and after the update.

The king is used plenty but I am not totally comfortable with the new change myself either.

Solving 1v1 at the expense of team games is not a good exchange, I think.
For this reason I would be ok to revert back to having castle + noble as starting positions as before.

chipv wrote:The king is used plenty but I am not totally comfortable with the new change myself either.

Solving 1v1 at the expense of team games is not a good exchange, I think.
For this reason I would be ok to revert back to having castle + noble as starting positions as before.

While I've not played any 1v1 games on the map (and am not convinced I've played any games on the revised version), I would agree with the general view that 1v1s are not the be-all and end-all.

Hey guys, I've played the map quite a bit in team games. The new set up with neutrals can kill a dubs game if you don't get the castle first turn. I've also started using the king more, especially in quads because it is so easy to build up (especially in the fog) and go directly there, fort back to a teammate, and they can do the same. I think the King should be a little higher in troops. 7 is just too easy to plow through, even with the counsellor to go through first.

Lubawski wrote:I think the King should be a little higher in troops. 7 is just too easy to plow through, even with the counsellor to go through first.

Agreed. Even if the castles are non-neutral again, I'd still advocate making the King higher. The quick-kill-through-the- King strategy will become the main team game strategy on this map eventually otherwise (even if it hasn't yet made itself widely known), and most of the map won't get used. This isn't a terrible problem on Doubles, especially if there are more than 2 teams btw, but it will dominate in Triples and Quads games that the Clans like to play.

In Trips, I found that it's fairly easy to get 9 troops or so on the Lord Chamberlain by the end of the first round, and then proceed with 14 troops at the beginning of the second or 27 troops at the beginning of the third. For quad games, this would change to 18 troops at the start of the 2nd and 35 for the third. This is all assuming that the other team doesn't follow suit and stack and attack, although whomever doesn't have the Lord Chamberlain will be hampered by not being able to reinforce into a common place for a stack.

If the opposing team is able to counteract this brute force strategy without devoting everthing to opposing them, then I think the map will play out as it's supposed to, with empire-building being key. If, say, the opposition only has to devote 1 player's (in Trips) or 2 player's (in Quads) troops to keeping the stack down and still be reasonably safe long enough to get a production line bonus- say 3 rounds- that will be good I think. Let's say that in Trips the opposition to a stack kills off 4 armies, and in Quads it kills off 8 armies each round. That would mean that in Trips a stack'em team would have 10 troops in the 2nd round and 19 in the 3rd round; in Quads it would have 10 and then 19. Given this somewhat worst-case scenario in terms of turn order and assuming completely average dice, the opposition to a stacking team would only be safe from losing a player (or more) in a Trips or Quads game up to the second round.

I don't think it would hurt the map playability at all to increase the King to a killer neutral 12 or even 15. I normally don't advocate for high neutrals- especially killer neutrals- but given the importance of the King in team games, I think it would be justified. In fact, I would be happy to see the King go so high as 18, even though that would probably make it a non-viable gameplay element outside of team games.

Marshal Ney

P.S. edited for bad math, in case someone read this right away

MarshalNey, you have played a grand total of TWO games on this map, NONE of which have been with the new changes.

For your information what you have described is patently NOT a winning strategy , neither does it occur often at all.
(I have only seen another team try this once and we beat them easily without resorting to stacking).

Could you please devote more effort into playing the game before issuing what amounts to a comprehensive
whitewash of the multiple strategies this map has to offer, we have have put much more effort into analysing the
gameplay that you may even be aware of after your 2 games.

If you don't see how to play the game yet, I suggest play some more, what you have described is basically a noob tactic.

On the other hand I think the proposal to raise the king neutrals is worth thinking about, let me do some proper maths first.

Lubawski wrote:Hey guys, I've played the map quite a bit in team games. The new set up with neutrals can kill a dubs game if you don't get the castle first turn.

yup..I've been stating that. And dubs are not the only game type affected by it.

As for the raising the King's neutral troops I must say that I'm totally against it. After much testing we've reduced them from 10 to 7. Raising it would render the king inoperable unless you have the game controlled already.

I say, revert to the previous settings - starting with nobles+castles. It was working great for the majority of game types apart from 1v1 (but even there, 2 good players can have several extended rounds of good honest fun)

I have to say I'm also against raising the king neutrals.

Same here. I have a ton of games on this map, in a variety of formats, and the only thing I think is ironclad right now are the king & counselors - everything else can be tweaked still, but those feel right at this point and although it is a viable strategy to plow through the king, it is not a game ender - it is very vulnerable to a backhand blow from another noble.

chipv wrote:MarshalNey, you have played a grand total of TWO games on this map, NONE of which have been with the new changes.

For your information what you have described is patently NOT a winning strategy , neither does it occur often at all.
(I have only seen another team try this once and we beat them easily without resorting to stacking).

Could you please devote more effort into playing the game before issuing what amounts to a comprehensive
whitewash of the multiple strategies this map has to offer, we have have put much more effort into analysing the
gameplay that you may even be aware of after your 2 games.

If you don't see how to play the game yet, I suggest play some more, what you have described is basically a noob tactic.

On the other hand I think the proposal to raise the king neutrals is worth thinking about, let me do some proper maths first.

Yes indeed you are correct about the number of games I have played on the map. I don't have the time to play a huge number of games but the ones I do play I take a fair amount of time to analyze.

I'm sorry if the comments I posted offended you, but from information I received from those in my clan and others I felt justified in at least offering them. It was not meant to be a whitewash of the multiple strategies; rather my concern was that in Triples and Quads games these multiple strategies would be ignored for what you might call a 'noob' tactic but as I see it is hard to ignore while the King is at 7 neutral.

In any case, if you don't find my suggestions- and that is all that they are- constructive or grounded then please let me know and I'll not devote any more energy to posting in this thread. My time is as limited as I'm sure yours is, and there's no point in wasting it to the detriment of us both.

Marshal Ney

How many territories are on this map?

Joodoo wrote:How many territories are on this map?

161

Ok I think this experiment failed, we will be reverting to the starting positions before.

LIVE CHANGE

Reverted to old starting positions - 1 on the Noble, 2 on the Castle. Unassigned is 3 on Noble, 8 on Castle as before

Was it just the starting positions that have reverted? Was there some more discussion about bonus values and attack ranges?

MrBenn wrote:Was it just the starting positions that have reverted? Was there some more discussion about bonus values and attack ranges?

Just the starting positions, everything else has been discussed to death now.

Just something of note - With Archers/Catapults only being able to assault like tiles, I ended up stuck in a scenario where I had around 30 troops which were stranded with no way of winning. All I could do was attack around the map in a circle. Being an honorable player, I opted to not suicide on someone, but really that is the only option I have that would impact the game. Otherwise I'm just stuck making men waiting for someone to kill me since there is no way to expand outward.

Game: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=8271553

Brutal Assassin wrote:Just something of note - With Archers/Catapults only being able to assault like tiles, I ended up stuck in a scenario where I had around 30 troops which were stranded with no way of winning. All I could do was attack around the map in a circle. Being an honorable player, I opted to not suicide on someone, but really that is the only option I have that would impact the game. Otherwise I'm just stuck making men waiting for someone to kill me since there is no way to expand outward.

Game: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=8271553

This is part of the strategy of the map. Obviously avoid getting into this scenario whilst trying to get your opponent into it for example.