Conquer Club

GoranZ wrote:

natty_dread wrote:Yeah, it would be possible for 2-player games if you would only code 2 starting positions, then those positions would be ignored in 3-8 player games.

I think that this isn't possible... its the same as with King Court.

Yes it is. You can code any amount of starting positions and each starting position can have any amount of territories.

If there are not enough starting positions for a given game type (ie. 2 positions for a 3-8 player game) then the positions are ignored and the xml works as if there were no positions at all.

GoranZ wrote:

natty_dread wrote:Yeah, it would be possible for 2-player games if you would only code 2 starting positions, then those positions would be ignored in 3-8 player games.

I think that this isn't possible... its the same as with King Court.

i don't know about the king court issue but i believe 3 starting positions is the minimum. (in 2 player games 1 will be random and the other 2 will be players)

i think that's actually doable, in 2 player games this will solve the imbalance (most of the map will be neutral and 2 players will randomly start in one of 3 pre-assigned areas) in 3 player games the same 3 area's will be used (may spoil the fun a little in 3 player games because everyone will know which starting locations are in use) and in 4-8 player games the game will be exactly the same as it is now, i believe.

zimmah wrote: i believe 3 starting positions is the minimum.

Nope, you can have any amount of starting positions. Although if you only code 1 it will be ignored in all game types.

zimmah wrote:(in 2 player games 1 will be random and the other 2 will be players)

Starting positions are distributed differently from regular territories, regarding 2-player games. Ie. they are always divided equally, if you have 4 starting positions then each player gets 2 in a 2 player game.

If you have 3 starting positions, then each player gets 1, and the 3rd one is either made neutral or added to the pot with the rest of regular territories and distributed that way, depending on how it's coded (ie. if it's coded as neutral or not).

natty_dread wrote:

zimmah wrote: i believe 3 starting positions is the minimum.

Nope, you can have any amount of starting positions. Although if you only code 1 it will be ignored in all game types.

zimmah wrote:(in 2 player games 1 will be random and the other 2 will be players)

Starting positions are distributed differently from regular territories, regarding 2-player games. Ie. they are always divided equally, if you have 4 starting positions then each player gets 2 in a 2 player game.

If you have 3 starting positions, then each player gets 1, and the 3rd one is either made neutral or added to the pot with the rest of regular territories and distributed that way, depending on how it's coded (ie. if it's coded as neutral or not).

oh believe i read it somewhere that the minimum was 3, but maybe it was wrong. didn't make much sense to me either.

Geger wrote:Thank you for both answers.

Just found this link viewtopic.php?f=649&t=68154

... I'm still reading, I hope I can find something

Sorry couldn't find anything (because I don't understand how xml works ).

I just found a similarity with Monster-Map. I have no idea, how he did. But if we follow his logic and use it in New World, where we split the starting position into 2 groups (N- and E-Homelands), each player will have :

In a 2 player game
- both players would have 2 N-Homelands each.
- both players would have 2 E-Homelands

In a 3 and 4 player game
- all players would have 1 N-Homelands each .
- all players would have 1 E-Homelands

In more than 4 player game
- no idea

... not exactly what I want.

Well, it could be coded with 4 starting positions, each position holding one native homeland and one european homeland, with one european homeland left over.

In 2-player games, each player would get 2 n. homelands and 2 e. homelands, and one e.homeland would be neutral.
In 3-player games, each player would first get 1 n.homeland and 1 e. homeland, then the remaining 1 n.homeland and 2 e.homelands would be divided randomly among the 3 players, so in effect: two of the players would get 2 e.homelands and 1 n.homeland, while one player would get 2 n.homelands and 1 e.homeland.
In 4-player games, each player would get 1 n.homeland and 1 e.homeland, and one e.homeland would be neutral.
In 5-player games and above, all the homelands would be distributed randomly as they are now (the positions would be ignored).

natty_dread wrote:Well, it could be coded with 4 starting positions, each position holding one native homeland and one european homeland, with one european homeland left over.

In 2-player games, each player would get 2 n. homelands and 2 e. homelands, and one e.homeland would be neutral.
In 3-player games, each player would first get 1 n.homeland and 1 e. homeland, then the remaining 1 n.homeland and 2 e.homelands would be divided randomly among the 3 players, so in effect: two of the players would get 2 e.homelands and 1 n.homeland, while one player would get 2 n.homelands and 1 e.homeland.
In 4-player games, each player would get 1 n.homeland and 1 e.homeland, and one e.homeland would be neutral.
In 5-player games and above, all the homelands would be distributed randomly as they are now (the positions would be ignored).

i think this would be the best solution.

just which european homeland should start neutral then in 2 and 4 player games? i'd say holland.

and which native/european lands should be linked?

I guess the best solution might be spreading each pair as far from each other as possible, ie. the homelands furthest from each other would be paired.

babinecz wrote:it is a great idea, but i agree that some of your facts are off...i.e. aztec are furhter south than that, "MAPUCHES," are actually a group of indigenous people from paraguay that relocated to southern argentina (patagonia essentially) because of the saramiento racial cleansings, so, not really applicable. i think it would be good if you just had the imperial nations, and include russia as an extra one, because they did have northwestern territories at the presumed point of early to mid sixteenth century i'm believe you are aiming at. just lose all the native empires and stick with six empires starting, and have the respective western territories neutral for the conquering

This one could be cool. Most of the other historical corrections are, as stated, not very good for gameplay.
Plus, Russia's always fun.

Thank you for your New World map. I enjoy it a lot.
Talking about strategy: How is possible for a player to avoid bombing from Europe to colonies?
I will appreciate your answer.
Regards... and congratulations for the map.

ogro wrote:Thank you for your New World map. I enjoy it a lot.
Talking about strategy: How is possible for a player to avoid bombing from Europe to colonies?
I will appreciate your answer.
Regards... and congratulations for the map.

Not sure I really understand the question, but you can always conquer that region from the Landing Point.

Aha !

"+1 for 2 territories within an empire"

"Homelands bombards any other territories within their empire"

Put these together and, by logic, which nobody (except some women arguing) can deny, homelands and landing bases are in the same empire.

therefore their is either a mistake on the map explanation, or in the xml, for thre not to be a +1 bonus for this.

Logically.

DJ Teflon wrote:Aha !

"+1 for 2 territories within an empire"

"Homelands bombards any other territories within their empire"

Put these together and, by logic, which nobody (except some women arguing) can deny, homelands and landing bases are in the same empire.

therefore their is either a mistake on the map explanation, or in the xml, for thre not to be a +1 bonus for this.

Logically.

Sorry I don't think I understand what you mean?

Homelands and landing bases are in the same empire, so, according to the map information, that is a +1 bonus.

Therefore there is either a mistake on the map explanation, or in the xml, for there not to be a +1 bonus for this (which there isnt).

Only a problem for new players on the map, and most folks would agree that +4 auto and +3 auto is enough bonus for homeland and landing site, no need for the other +1 that the mao text states.

The South American map could be more historically accurate. The "Mapuche" area has nothing to do with reality. It would be better called "Inca", although still it wouldn't correspond to the real area. The southern "Dutch" area is also an invention. It would be more appropriately called "Inca outposts" or something to that matter (maybe "Patagonia").