Conquer Club

lunatic96 wrote:I think one problem is that the Mapuche homeland can easily attack Portugal and Holland, where the other 3 natives really only have 1 country to attack. I'm not really sure how you can fix that, but it seems like it slightly overpowers Mapuche.

Mapuche also has to content with 2 ports, so i can be attacked from all sides by all enemys.

I apologize if what I'm about to say has already been said.

I think it is a huge disadvantage to the players who get North American homelands vs. players who get European Homelands.

Now, I know you can attack places and hold a certain number for a bonus, but getting a Landing Point has secured you 3 more armies each turn versus the player that didn't get one.

I'm currently in a 4 player game now where Player 1 and 2 got 2 European Homelands, Player 3 got 1, and I got none. Looking at the game now, there are huge number differences between me and them. Maybe they just had really good dice, but that may have something to do with it.

The one thing I considered and tested was giving the natives one more army in auto-deploy but it was too much. I really am at a loss to correct it while maintaining 8 player balance.

I just sent a message to conquerclub staff, about maps like this.

The first or second game I played on this map I figured out this problem too, of the unfortunate stacking of odds based on random starting position.

The map, as it looks, seems like it would be more fun if the odds were leveled out, but I just skimmed a bit and read what Coleman typed about having no idea how to fix it.
It's good to hear that the attempt is being made, even if unsuccessfully.


I suggested to the conquerclub staff an idea (which may be totally shot down) of separating the maps on the site according to their special wild bonuses.
Having the point scoring and wins/loss count for them separated (or entirely thrown out) from the points scoring and win/loss count of standard maps would make it more suitable to people who are wanting to play a game that is mostly risk-like, or playing a special map that has special features!

Yes, this is just one idea. I had another that I suggested- if these maps were separated, it would then make it possible to implement a designer-choice of forced game options like always fog-on, or no-cards, or only doubles, or any variety of setting that a designer chose.

If there was such a thing, and the maps could be customized in that fashion by the designer, I might put the time into learning and building a map myself. I do like designing stuff

Anyway, aside from the challenge of winning against european players, I think this map is fun.

motecap wrote:I suggested to the conquerclub staff an idea (which may be totally shot down) of separating the maps on the site according to their special wild bonuses.

There have been lots of suggestions about dividing the maps by complexity/style/them etc... although none of them have yet to be implemented by lackattack yet
Check out the foundry discussion topics if you want to

Anyway, aside from the challenge of winning against european players, I think this map is fun.

Glad you're enjoying the map though

Is one able to collect spoils now through bombardment from European homeland? Has this recently changed? Why was I under the impression that spoils used to only be collected through successful attacks in New world?

Thanks guys,

Wolf

Wolffystyle wrote:Is one able to collect spoils now through bombardment from European homeland? Has this recently changed? Why was I under the impression that spoils used to only be collected through successful attacks in New world?

Thanks guys,

Wolf

It has always been possible to collect spoils through bombardment. This is a game engine spec rather than a map one.

Thank you, I don't know why I did not know this about New World.

First of all, i like this map very much.. but i just found out, that the description in post 1 differs from reality. The neutrals are spread in a different way on the map, and in 2player game everyone gets 4 territories, not 3.

Can this be corrected in the first post?

lhcguy wrote:First of all, i like this map very much.. but i just found out, that the description in post 1 differs from reality. The neutrals are spread in a different way on the map, and in 2player game everyone gets 4 territories, not 3.

Can this be corrected in the first post?

Oh this was as accident, nice catch I will go fix it just now.

I'm not sure which forum to put this in, feel free to move it if necessary. I know conquer club looks to have as much of a fair fight as possible in all of their maps, but it seems that the situation has come up on a number of occasions (both in my favor and against me) where in a 1vs1 game, 1 of the players has 4 European countries, and nothing in the Americas. This is probably the most 1 sided drop EVER, as there is no possible way that player can win. Is there anything you can do where you can guarantee each player has at least 1 homeland in the Americas?

btown80 wrote:I'm not sure which forum to put this in, feel free to move it if necessary. I know conquer club looks to have as much of a fair fight as possible in all of their maps, but it seems that the situation has come up on a number of occasions (both in my favor and against me) where in a 1vs1 game, 1 of the players has 4 European countries, and nothing in the Americas. This is probably the most 1 sided drop EVER, as there is no possible way that player can win. Is there anything you can do where you can guarantee each player has at least 1 homeland in the Americas?

I am not really sure of any ideas how to fix this this, I have a few ideas but it would change the mechanics of the map as it is now for other game settings.

Does anyone have any idea or logic for changing the 1v1 drop to be fairer without distrubting other game settings?

I'd just like to say that this is my favourite map. For some reason, I play better on it than on any other map.

No, it's not perfectly even, but much more so than most, and it feels very unique. Starting from a native territory does seem to make things a bit more challenging (and the strategy is quite different), but that's part of the fun.

Esn wrote:Starting from a native territory does seem to make things a bit more challenging (and the strategy is quite different), but that's part of the fun.

1000% disagree.

Yeah, the native territories are better than the European homelands (unless using unlimited fortifications in which case I think the European homelands are a bit better. I never play that setting though). In either case, it is very close to balanced and the game is fun from either starting position. Of course it works best in 1v1 when each player has an equal amount of European and native lands.

sully800 wrote:Yeah, the native territories are better than the European homelands (unless using unlimited fortifications in which case I think the European homelands are a bit better. I never play that setting though).

Heh, well that might explain that then. I always play on the "unlimited, flat rate, no fog" setting.

Native territories are easier to expand from but also more vulnerable to attack. I tend to play defensively, so I guess starting from the European countries is just more my style.

I love this map, but I have one complaint: in many 8-player games, the player who starts out on Aztec homeland is killed by the Comanche army before he ever takes a turn. Can anything be done to make this a little more fair?

sully800 wrote:Yeah, the native territories are better than the European homelands (unless using unlimited fortifications in which case I think the European homelands are a bit better. I never play that setting though). In either case, it is very close to balanced and the game is fun from either starting position. Of course it works best in 1v1 when each player has an equal amount of European and native lands.

Quite the opposite. I firmly believe that European Homelands are better in adjacent and chained settings and Indian homelands are better in unlimited reinforcement games. I believe, Sully, that you have decided it's better to allow oneself to fort Europe to landing port each turn, and thus European advantage would been realized in unlimited forts. However, you cannot and SHOULD not go very far in adjacent type reinforcement games. European homelands are ideal in this setting. You get a larger bonus without blocking yourself in.

This map is inherently unbalanced, but I will add that that is part of the gameplay. I can win on any drop, though, if I play to the maps flavor. In sequential games, the first player should win a greater percentage of games. I play this map freestyle. This is an AWESOME freestyle map.

Finally, the ideal drop debate is not necessarily between Europe v. Indian, no, the measurement of a good drop is to see how many homelands can be adjoined; how many are next to each other. A great drop, for example, is Dutch+Mapuche....combine those two and conquer Portugal before North America can make its way down to South America...

If this is turning into an Indian v European homeland debate...what's the phrase? "Everything in moderation". Ideally, you want a split. 2 Indian and 2 European or, in adjacent settings, 3 European and 1 Indian... in unlimited settings 1 Europe and 3 Indians will do, too.

Wolffystyle~ +1100 New World

drunkmonkey wrote:I love this map, but I have one complaint: in many 8-player games, the player who starts out on Aztec homeland is killed by the Comanche army before he ever takes a turn. Can anything be done to make this a little more fair?

The short answer is: Make the game foggy or play with Rational players.

The explanation of this event is that:

This can happen, yes. Should this happen often? No.

Player A starts on either Comanche or Aztec and gets 10 troops on his/her homeland. She assaults towards the other homeland, Aztec or Comanche (and must be aware that Player B has NOT started turn...this would rarely work in fog games).

Player A must combat a neutral 4, another neutral 4 and finally Player B's 3 on the homeland. This yields Player A with 25.524436993369515% chance of success.... Upon a fail, however, Player B has significantly greater odds to conquer player A... This move, therefore, is more often clearly advantageous for Player B.

No rational player should make this move unless he/she believes it will give him/her greater than 4x the odds to win the game (of course, you must factor the relative point value of the other players in the game, too...)

This could be a problem in Sunny Terminator games, too. But, again, player B better yield more than 4x the amount of points than player A would lose with a given attack....Player B must have 2x the total points that Player A has for this move to be anywhere near prudent.

Wolffy~

Thanks for the advice; I'll be sure to use it. I never said it was a great strategy, but it sure does suck to be Player B when it happens.

Keep up the good work!

This is the best map on CC

86

the http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c64/G ... UTRALS.png does not show the true amount of neutrals. when will this be fixed?

What is incorrect? Change the 5's to 6's and it's fine.

I started a game in the new world map with 4 other players. and a fellow player conquered one of my two homelands before I even started playing. So in a word, I lost before I even got the chance to play and the other player will probably win the game with this huge advange. So what I want to ask you is if this is normal in the map or if it should even happen.

PS: Sorry if this is not the correct forum to as this, I wasn't sure where to write it.

Well that doesn't usually happen, at least what I have played on the map... perhaps he just got lucky.