Conquer Club

Echoing a few recent posts, 1v1 games on this map almost are always stalemates from the start because there is no advantage for either player to attack. I think I missed this in the conversation but why did you take the second starting pitcher away in 1v1 games? People seemed not to stack as much while that pitcher was there.

If for some reason that I am missing, the pitcher needed to be taken out then there needs to be another point at which you can attack from. Maybe starting the game with a pitcher and a base? Or a pitcher and an outfielder? Justified by either starting the game in mid inning (pitcher and base) or by having offense and defense (pitcher and fielder).

Not sure if that would completely solve the problem but it could work knowing that someone is working on a bonus from their fielder and the other player has no direct contact with him without either going across the field or coming down from the pitcher.

RedRover23B wrote:Echoing a few recent posts, 1v1 games on this map almost are always stalemates from the start because there is no advantage for either player to attack.

I disagree. In my last 5 games I attacked first (either on my 1st or 2nd turn) I won 2, lost 1 and 2 are ongoing, but I think I have sufficient control that I am going to win both of those, so likely 4 and 1. And the one game I lost I had ridiculously bad dice where I attacked Babe, then a ball and then couldn't even win an assault to get off the ball and of course was completely screwed at that point.

I will say that attacking first is probably only a good idea if you have the first turn in the game:

1st player attack:
1st player - attacks with 17, takes some region in the field
2nd player - attacks with 17, may or may not be able to take out 1st players region

2nd player attack:
1st player - does nothing, has 17 on pitcher
2nd player - attacks with 17, takes some region in the field
1st player - now has 22 to attack with

In both cases, the first attacker has 17 troops, but for the 2nd player to attack, there is a big difference between the 2 scenarios.

I think the one v. one game was better when the pitchers were divided up (no pitcher was neutral). Maybe a compromise would help: for 2-player games each starts with 2 or 3 pitchers.

This is a good map overall.

I do not agree with earlier statements that there should be more pitchers in 1v1. Picking the right moment to move out is very tricky and with multiple pitchers it's rather impossible to win without starting (One pitcher attacks and takes a base, other pitcher reinforces there - game is won (with normal dice, that is))

We received an e-ticket about this map and a possible issue:

.... I \"hit a home run\". That is the only player I have left on the board. I can't attack anyone from my \"home run\" so each turn I just keep adding armies, I now have 37 on my home run. There will be no way to end this game since my opponent will never have enough armies to conquer me because I get 5 more each turn!...

Game 9135840


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:We received an e-ticket about this map and a possible issue:

.... I \"hit a home run\". That is the only player I have left on the board. I can't attack anyone from my \"home run\" so each turn I just keep adding armies, I now have 37 on my home run. There will be no way to end this game since my opponent will never have enough armies to conquer me because I get 5 more each turn!...

Game 9135840


--Andy

The opponent simply needs to take the Winning Condition of holding all the bases.

"My opponent will ever have enough armies"? His opponent is currently getting 21 more troops than him each turn. He could also just build up until he has enough.

Looks like red is just delaying the game by taking every territory, and/or bombarding the same territory over and over.

carlpgoodrich wrote:Also, for everyone who says you can't win 1v1 when you attack first, why don't you just leave some troops on your pitcher? Attack Babe, a baseball and one territory, while leaving x troops on your pitcher. The other person (in a foggy game) won't know how many you left, and won't know until he has already committed a certain number of troops to attacking. If you make x large, then you get to do the attacking next turn. Now, I haven't done this (I don't usually play 1v1), but maybe a different strategy makes this a moot point.

Interesting idea but it ignores one basic point, you still have the disadvantage. By going first you have to attack neutral 2. Anyone who follows you just attacks your 1 or you have to leave a second troop behind to be annihilated. Over many games you'll lose more troops simply getting on the batter than they will and that leaves you at a disadvantage.

To keep the 2 neutral batter I think there should be a bit of a redesign. Change the mound to a pitcher since it makes no sense to have no pitcher. Change the starting pitchers to starting bench. And give each bench their own batter. That keeps the have to spend troops to see the balls element in fog, requires everyone to hit 2 to get on the batter instead of second movers only hit 1, and allows first movers to see what balls are hit instead of having access to the balls blanked out by the second mover(who can see what balls the first mover hit).

Could also make the pitcher(current mound) attack the batter instead of the bench and the batter able to attack the bench to keep that thematic element.

bug in the game, I just got a bonus and did not actually hold all the territories to warrant the bonus. It is right infield. Did not own RI6. Reference game Game 8869100

You're absolutely right, in the XML, RI6 is missing from the components of the RIght Infield continent.

I just finished a game:

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=9129223

I was holding down both home run balls when my pitcher got attacked and killed off. Since I only held the home run balls, I could not attack or do anything but deploy for about 8 or 9 turns until the game was over. Is there any way at all to attack out of the home run balls?

rich101682 wrote:I just finished a game:

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=9129223

I was holding down both home run balls when my pitcher got attacked and killed off. Since I only held the home run balls, I could not attack or do anything but deploy for about 8 or 9 turns until the game was over. Is there any way at all to attack out of the home run balls?

No there is not. It's like the game, when you hit a home run that ball is no longer in play.

I wonder why there has been so many questions about the home run balls. I don't remember this for other maps like WWII Poland...

Fixed Right Infield and let's try this with just one neutral on the batter.
http://rassyndrome.webs.com/CC/Baseball.xml

Evil DIMwit wrote:Fixed Right Infield and let's try this with just one neutral on the batter.
http://rassyndrome.webs.com/CC/Baseball.xml

sent to lack

I believe that the Home run balls issue that has been a problem should have a notice on the map. That once you own the home run, although it gives a army bonus... IT CANNOT ATTACK. I have fallen prey to 2 games now where i get stuck and may as well deadbeat the rest of the game since I cannot attack. FOr example... in the Sanfran map.. No escape from alcatraz.. clearly posted on the map.

the home run balls are pointless.

they have a huge number of neutrals to defeat to get them and then you can't do anything with them. remove them or give them a purpose.

afterall i might be an australian but even i know a home run is a good thing to get, yet it is not on this map.

Fuzzy316 wrote:I believe that the Home run balls issue that has been a problem should have a notice on the map. That once you own the home run, although it gives a army bonus... IT CANNOT ATTACK. I have fallen prey to 2 games now where i get stuck and may as well deadbeat the rest of the game since I cannot attack. FOr example... in the Sanfran map.. No escape from alcatraz.. clearly posted on the map.

I could add a warning label on them..

Kiko13 wrote:

RedRover23B wrote:Echoing a few recent posts, 1v1 games on this map almost are always stalemates from the start because there is no advantage for either player to attack.

I disagree. In my last 5 games I attacked first (either on my 1st or 2nd turn) I won 2, lost 1 and 2 are ongoing, but I think I have sufficient control that I am going to win both of those, so likely 4 and 1. And the one game I lost I had ridiculously bad dice where I attacked Babe, then a ball and then couldn't even win an assault to get off the ball and of course was completely screwed at that point.

I will say that attacking first is probably only a good idea if you have the first turn in the game:

1st player attack:
1st player - attacks with 17, takes some region in the field
2nd player - attacks with 17, may or may not be able to take out 1st players region

2nd player attack:
1st player - does nothing, has 17 on pitcher
2nd player - attacks with 17, takes some region in the field
1st player - now has 22 to attack with

In both cases, the first attacker has 17 troops, but for the 2nd player to attack, there is a big difference between the 2 scenarios.

attacking first is never a good idea. Seriously. Never. Think of a reason I will tell you it's wrong. Not a good idea. It doesnt matter how many games you won you just got lucky. Even if the batter is only 1 neutral, the first player is wasting men on neutrals, (losing men to a player not even real), and secondly losing attacker advantage. For every 8 men taken on average there will be 7 men lost. Dice can be fickle, but this is the average. If you win by attacking first you simply got 'lucky'.

However this is only for sunny settings, in fog you MIGHT be able to trick your opponents depending on their IQ and skill levels...

greenoaks wrote:the home run balls are pointless.

they have a huge number of neutrals to defeat to get them and then you can't do anything with them. remove them or give them a purpose.

afterall i might be an australian but even i know a home run is a good thing to get, yet it is not on this map.

They give a pretty hefty bonus which you can use on the rest of the map. I think they're good enough.

If something is not figured out with this map it goes down as the worst map in cc history

there is nothing strategic about it==advance out and get lucky with the dice and pray your opponent can't take what you took

all I do is drop and go until my opponent does something--if they dont do anything I dont do anything but drop

It is ridiculous

It will be a boring game if everyone has that attitude of waiting for the others to move. In my experience of five games there was always someone who started going to the field and other players follow.

An other idea is to skip Babe and let all the players directly attack the balls. There are 7 balls + 2 home runs so why not also skip the killer neutral ability of the balls? Players that take it slow with one territory a turn are tempted to spread out in the field. This may take away speed that makes this about baseball but takes away the frustration of being trapped on a killer neutral without a possibility to fort to a save zone.

edit: I don't agree with HA that the quality of the map is low. I love to play it!

Evil DIMwit wrote:

greenoaks wrote:the home run balls are pointless.

they have a huge number of neutrals to defeat to get them and then you can't do anything with them. remove them or give them a purpose.

afterall i might be an australian but even i know a home run is a good thing to get, yet it is not on this map.

They give a pretty hefty bonus which you can use on the rest of the map. I think they're good enough.

but the troops used to get them means you don't have enough left to defend them. that renders them pointless.

In the games I've played the home runs have played a large role. Part of the strategy with them is knowing when not to take them (i.e. on your first turn).