Conquer Club

cloudcatcher wrote:Another question: to win, does one need to hold all castles as written on the top, or can one also eliminate all opponents, but have one castle still occupied by neutral player?

You can win by either elimenating all opponenets, elimenation your target in assassin or win by starting your turn holding all 6 castles.

im 100% on this map cause i won my 4 person game!

THX FOR THE HELP WITH MY 80 POINTS GIMIL!!!

I've been informed this map is unbalanced...

I suspect they're right - if you start in the middle of the map - you're fucked!!

C.

yeti_c wrote:I've been informed this map is unbalanced...

I suspect they're right - if you start in the middle of the map - you're fucked!!

C.

in a lot of ways this makes sense as the terrs on the edge can only be attacked from 1 side - whereas in the middle you have to protect multiple flanks.

rebelman wrote:

yeti_c wrote:I've been informed this map is unbalanced...

I suspect they're right - if you start in the middle of the map - you're fucked!!

C.

in a lot of ways this makes sense as the terrs on the edge can only be attacked from 1 side - whereas in the middle you have to protect multiple flanks.

So how do we rebalance it...

Also - if in a game of doubles - one team starts in the top - they have 1 border each - and can run amok in the Northern Plains getting lots of territory bonus.

C.

This is a great and well thought out map.
Kudos to whomever came up with it.

I also think the wording needs to be changed.

Currently reads: "Victory is gained by conquering all castles" Should read "Victory is gained by holding all castles at the start of a turn"

barterer2002 wrote:I also think the wording needs to be changed.

Currently reads: "Victory is gained by conquering all castles" Should read "Victory is gained by holding all castles at the start of a turn"

dude, your just supposed to know that

Even if bryguy meant that sarcastically I agree. All the effects of every territory or collection of territories ever only applies it's effect at the start of your turn. This is painfully obvious through play. Why would the victory condition be different?

It's be like making a legend with continent bonus values and being forced to put "received at start of turn".

*gasp* We need to hurry and touch up all the released maps so they say that. How else would you know!? Oh my god, how could we have missed it!?

What other map has a capture this and win feature to it? The only two I know of are Feudal and the new Magic one.

barterer2002 wrote:What other map has a capture this and win feature to it? The only two I know of are Feudal and the new Magic one.

Might

Possible Imbalance....

So I ran a study of which castles won in all Completed, Fuedal War, 6 Player, Sequential, Public games.

Here are my results....

Code: Select all

Feudal Empire     20  22.22%
Great Kingdom     21  23.33%
Rebel Territory   13  14.44%
Realm of Might    9   10.00%
Barbarians        8    8.89%
Imperial Dynasty  19  21.11%

Does this concern us? If so, what do we do?

That is concerning...but i think we need larger numbers before making a judgement.

Coleman wrote:Here are my results....

Code: Select all

Feudal Empire     20  22.22%
Great Kingdom     21  23.33%
Rebel Territory   13  14.44%
Realm of Might    9   10.00%
Barbarians        8    8.89%
Imperial Dynasty  19  21.11%

ok agree with The Great Kingdom, Barbarians, and Realm of Might, but i think Rebel Territory should have 21.11%, and imperial dynasty 10%

as shown here (i know its not sequential, but still): http://conquerclub.com/game.php?game=1617207

and i know great kingdom has a big advantage, cause i started with it

oh and also i like my advantage in this game: http://conquerclub.com/game.php?game=1607162

bryguy wrote:ok agree with The Great Kingdom, Barbarians, and Realm of Might, but i think Rebel Territory should have 21.11%, and imperial dynasty 10%

I don't meant this in a rude way at all, but I don't think it matters what we think. Those are the real numbers of every completed game so far in what should be the most balanced gametype.

Coleman wrote:

bryguy wrote:ok agree with The Great Kingdom, Barbarians, and Realm of Might, but i think Rebel Territory should have 21.11%, and imperial dynasty 10%

I don't meant this in a rude way at all, but I don't think it matters what we think. Those are the real numbers of every completed game so far in what should be the most balanced gametype.

It's funny cos' when you look at the map, Barbarians is the best place to start for cards games.

I'd say a bigger sample is needed...the map is somewhat down to luck of who finds who with what and when.

I'm tempted to run 1v1 actually. All my 1v1 games on that map have been chess level frustration and strategy thinking.

I'm almost willing to go far enough to say that 1v1 is the ideal gametype for this. Maybe 3 FFA is viable as well.

in theory all the castles should have an equal chance to win the game.
to be honest i never played the map and i probably never will because of the country names using numbers. i always missdeploy or attack stupid things when numbers are involved. same goes for siege. i'll never play that again.

anyway back on track. from the stats coleman put it's clear the barbarians the realm of might and the rebels are in a disadvantage. since i didn't play the map i'm not sure that's the case, perhaps it's a mere coincidence that crappy players started with those locations and they didn't know what to do.
or perhaps it's truly an imbalance. to be honest i don't give a rusty nickel on balance. the drop is random so fight with what you are given. sometimes you'll be lucky sometimes not but since the vast majority of people are concerned with equal chances perhaps after a few more games there should be some reconsideration regarding the neutral values of some terits, to further balance the map.

I don't care either, there were just some complaints that Realm of Might was always shafted, so I wanted to set out to prove them wrong.

Which I didn't quite do...

Coleman wrote:I don't care either, there were just some complaints that Realm of Might was always shafted, so I wanted to set out to prove them wrong.

Which I didn't quite do...

flame wars is that war you 2



i played both and they are different than most maps on here, so it gives others options, they are both fine maps and both got over 40 pages of play which is a ton and shows a lot like both.

Coleman wrote:I don't care either, there were just some complaints that Realm of Might was always shafted, so I wanted to set out to prove them wrong.

Which I didn't quite do...

Realm of Might is the wosrt place to start - annoyingly - it's where I've started 80% of my games on that map!!

C.

yeti_c wrote:

Coleman wrote:I don't care either, there were just some complaints that Realm of Might was always shafted, so I wanted to set out to prove them wrong.

Which I didn't quite do...

Realm of Might is the wosrt place to start - annoyingly - it's where I've started 80% of my games on that map!!

C.

yep it is, sucks when you get a drop there.

so what if realm of might or barbarians are a bad start? the guy that starts with 3 terits in australia isn't advantaged? or the many times i have screwy deployments with 5 terits in asia? is classic poorly designed? no. in my opinion not all maps should be perfectly balanced and actually perfect ballance can be achieved only on a symmetrical map and only with conquest gameplay.
let's say chinese checkers where each player starts with a tip of the star. that's perfect balance but perfect balance = crappy gameplay.

I'd reckon balance can be achieved in non symmetrical maps. A lot more thought is just put into game play.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I'd reckon balance can be achieved in non symmetrical maps. A lot more thought is just put into game play.


--Andy

but not with randomized deployment. and definitely not consistent balance