Conquer Club

I didn't read the whole thread and I apologize if this has already been brought up.

I just noticed that the King does not revert to 7 neutral at the end of the turn. Another player had attacked the king and then a castle the turn before mine and he still held the king territ with 1 of his troops when I hit start. It doesn't seem to fit the strategy. Or was that intended? Kind of a risky move to go for the king just to have another player waltz right in after you've cleared the way.

It was in a freestyle map, but he had finished his turn an hour before I began mine.

Again, if this has been addressed then I apologize. Fun map!

Reverting to neutral always happens at the beginning of your turn.

2 castles for start...
pos: with 1v1 perfect setting
neg: with 2v2 all castles will be taken and everything will be up to the turn order and location. not too big problem with good strategy.

1 castle for start...
pos. good for all except for 1v1 with good strategy
neg. with 1v1 it might take 10+ turns in order to players to meat... the games will be long and probably not interesting. 8 neutrals per castle make even bigger problem, 2v2 game will be mainly defensive one, wait for the opponents to attack neutral castle and hope(or calculate based on automatic drop order) that u will find them on your attack that will follow.

I vote for 2 castles per player

natty_dread wrote:Reverting to neutral always happens at the beginning of your turn.

Yes I understand that, but I think for this map The King should revert to neutral at the beginning of anyone's turn, not just the person that holds it. As I stated above, by it not reverting to neutral you are given the ability to use it at basically no expense to the next player. Of course the player before you could have had the "foresight" to leave seven of HIS troops to block your advance, only to be wiped out and replaced by seven neutrals when it got back to be his turn.

The King is only useful when someone has already gone through it and you can clean up after them... or if you have escalating spoils.

Also, in a team game, if two partner hold the Council they could trade the King back and forth preventing the space from ever returning to neutral.

Again, if this is the idea, then cool. I'm not going to say I know what you should do with your map. I just thought that the game would make more sense if each player had to go through the 7 neutrals on the king before being able to use him.

Can the xml or whatever have a space that reverts to neutral at the beginning of each player's turn? I don't even know if it's possible, but this is what I think would be ideal for this space on this map.

Cheers.

That's not possible.

generally speaking, i like this map, there's just one thing that keeps annoying me.
its about the counsellors...
their order in the game is
Lord Chamberlain, The Duke, The Bishop, Field Marshal
but in the dropdwonmenu, where you can select where to attack (from) - or reinforce (from) - they are ordered alphabeticaly
field marshal, lord chamberlain, the bishop, the duke

so i would suggest to simply change their order on the map (and the order of their description on the top right corner) into an alphabetical one, so their order would coincide with the order on the dropdownmenu
this wouldnt change the gameplay in any kind, but would improve the handling of the game, since you dont always have to watch out for the names of them.
or simply rename them in the dropdownmenu to something like
Co1: Lord Chamberlain, Co2: The Duke, Co3: The Bishop, Co4: Field Marshal
so you wouldnt need to photoshop the map

chipv wrote:Ok I have word this change may be a week or so away

The discussion about starting positions and a potential adjustment to the way the xml works is pretty much the only thing keeping this map in Beta. Chip and I have decided to wait a couple of weeks to see if lack can pull a trick out of the bag for us...

MrBenn wrote:

chipv wrote:Ok I have word this change may be a week or so away

The discussion about starting positions and a potential adjustment to the way the xml works is pretty much the only thing keeping this map in Beta. Chip and I have decided to wait a couple of weeks to see if lack can pull a trick out of the bag for us...

that would be sweet

Fun and interesting map Kab and crew!

I recently tried to fort Castle F with troops from Noble D and it ended up being

reinforced Noble F with 4 troops from Noble D

Please confirm that the XML is correct and that I only mis-clicked.

Thanks!

jefjef wrote:Fun and interesting map Kab and crew!

I recently tried to fort Castle F with troops from Noble D and it ended up being

reinforced Noble F with 4 troops from Noble D

Please confirm that the XML is correct and that I only mis-clicked.

Thanks!

thank you Jef ! ... you probably miss-clicked the XML seems correct

Amazing map. I'll need many games to play it correctly I presume but I'll try again. I'm not sure yet about the best tactic.

Good work
Let me know if you're interested in joining MapMaker Killer.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=137470

i think about a little bug ( Game 8590481 ) i can see the knight from other team but i havent no contact and not another knight archer or catapult...

I can give my ident in MP for a map maker when he want looking that

Do you hold the duke?

natty_dread wrote:Do you hold the duke?

oups... yes sorry

MrBenn wrote:

chipv wrote:Ok I have word this change may be a week or so away

The discussion about starting positions and a potential adjustment to the way the xml works is pretty much the only thing keeping this map in Beta. Chip and I have decided to wait a couple of weeks to see if lack can pull a trick out of the bag for us...

I have a feeling that the magic bag has moved a little closer now that the clickable maps update has been made...

Ah, le sac magique, le sac magique! (I can't quite remember what children's program that was from, but it was a British production, so perhaps MrBenn recognizes the reference.)

Did only read the last 3 pages...
but why are the starting positions so unfair? In some positions there are two villages in some we only have one. starting in a corner is way better. all starting positions should be equal.

Well, it is a really volatile and fast map with troops jumping here and there in no time, so I guess it's not a big deal. That said, I agree with knubbe, V6 should probalby be at F6.

ender516 wrote:Ah, le sac magique, le sac magique! (I can't quite remember what children's program that was from, but it was a British production, so perhaps MrBenn recognizes the reference.)

I'm a tot, Je suis une tot, Tilly Tom and Tiny... da-de-da-da da-de-da-da... One two three.... da-de-da-da da-de-da-da... Tots TV!






In other news, the required XML updated is currently in the testing phase... These are certainly exciting times!

I have played this map a number of times because I think the design is incredible ... however, I have also found that the side castles (B,D,F,H) have a distinct disadvantage in that 2 trebuchets can attack them whereas only 1 trebuchet can attack each corner castle. This means that the side castles can be bombarded by 4 catapults through the 2 trebuchets. This is compared to 1 trebuchet and 2 catapults for the corner castles. With the auto-deploy of 2 on catapults, players with side castles are extremely vulnerable.

I really hope you can solve this inherent unfairness, because I love everything else about the map.

I'm of the same opinion. There are some differences between the castles, some of them more serious than others. I'm not quite sure what to do about most of them without re-doing most all of the map - and I don't think they're serious enough to warrant that.

Do you have any suggestions on how to address the issue you brought up?

LIVE CHANGE

Players can only have a maximum of 2 castles to start with - this will affect 1v1 games where players now get 2 castles instead of 4.

Why hasn't this XML update been announced anywhere?

...oh, I see it just was... silly me.

Several concerns on gameplay have been brought up. Are we going to get any feedback soon?

snlfam wrote:I have played this map a number of times because I think the design is incredible ... however, I have also found that the side castles (B,D,F,H) have a distinct disadvantage in that 2 trebuchets can attack them whereas only 1 trebuchet can attack each corner castle. This means that the side castles can be bombarded by 4 catapults through the 2 trebuchets. This is compared to 1 trebuchet and 2 catapults for the corner castles. With the auto-deploy of 2 on catapults, players with side castles are extremely vulnerable.

I really hope you can solve this inherent unfairness, because I love everything else about the map.

Hi, this was all covered and discussed previously in this thread. Actually I even posted a table where all game-play factors appear:



there you can see that the Castles bombarded by 4 catapults ( 2 trebuchets) have a slighter advantage, in the total rating, compared to the ones bombarded by 2 (1trebuchet). But to be honest, I must say that I'm not really sure that being able to reach only 1 trebuchet instead of 2 is an advantage - depending on the perspective you might think that's just the opposite. I've felt it quite often when playing this map.