Europe 1914 [Quenched]

by **jefjef** on Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:40 pm

RedBaron0 wrote:Game 5149422

If a team(in doubles, trips, or quads) were to capture and hold either of the 4 capitals do they win the game? Me and my partner recently achieved this with the 4 Entente capitals and the game didn't end. Just wondering if in team games this meets the objective. (or if it is supposed to)

I player has to hold them for a full turn.............

by **RedBaron0** on Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:21 pm

jefjef wrote:
RedBaron0 wrote:Game 5149422

If a team(in doubles, trips, or quads) were to capture and hold either of the 4 capitals do they win the game? Me and my partner recently achieved this with the 4 Entente capitals and the game didn't end. Just wondering if in team games this meets the objective. (or if it is supposed to)

1 player has to hold them for a full turn.............

I figured that was the case, just wondering.

by **dikbrown** on Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:31 am

jarrett155 wrote:Is anyone else bugged by the fact that the Europe 1914 map is historically incorrect? Italy was a central power in 1914.

One of the reasons Italy went Axis in WW2 was that even though they were on the winning side in WW1, they got squat for it.

by **Theoharis** on Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:29 pm

Hi!

This is a great map indeed, very fun to play, challenging and enjoyable.

The only constructive comment I can offer is that I don't understand why France offers 5 troops while when holding it you need to defend only 3 territories, while Germany offers also 5, when you need to defend all 6 territories. Also, the Balkans offer only 3 troops (2 less than France) but they have the same amount of territories to capture as France, while you need to defend 5 territories to hold them, 2 more than France! So shouldn't really France offer 3 troops and the Balkans 5?

I think this makes France very enticing and easy to capture and hold, and works the opposite for the Balkans. Meanwhile, Italy and the Ottoman empire also offer 3 troops, but with 3 territories to defend (while the Ottoman empire has 7 territories and Italy 5).

Don't get me wrong, this is still a fun map to play, but I wonder on why there such a grave imbalance between the bonuses offered...

by **jefjef** on Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:36 pm

Theoharis wrote:Hi!

This is a great map indeed, very fun to play, challenging and enjoyable.

The only constructive comment I can offer is that I don't understand why France offers 5 troops while when holding it you need to defend only 3 territories, while Germany offers also 5, when you need to defend all 6 territories. Also, the Balkans offer only 3 troops (2 less than France) but they have the same amount of territories to capture as France, while you need to defend 5 territories to hold them, 2 more than France! So shouldn't really France offer 3 troops and the Balkans 5?

I think this makes France very enticing and easy to capture and hold, and works the opposite for the Balkans. Meanwhile, Italy and the Ottoman empire also offer 3 troops, but with 3 territories to defend (while the Ottoman empire has 7 territories and Italy 5).

Don't get me wrong, this is still a fun map to play, but I wonder on why there such a grave imbalance between the bonuses offered...

You may want to recount your France.

N. france - Belgium - S. France - Corsica.

Other issues that contribute to the value is that it borders 3 bonus regions with a 4th one 1 tert away. Thats 5 terts to defend against (6 counting Bay of Biscay). And 3 of the French terts normally start as a neutral.

I do agree Balkans should be worth more (4) but other than that it's right on.

by **Theoharis** on Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:32 pm

Yep, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that.

by **GoranZ** on Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:59 am

The map Europe 1914 is totally unbalanced for 2 players... The first player can wipe out the second player, there r too many units for him in the first round. 15 territories r too much, 9 or 10 would be more appropriate.

For a reference I give this game: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=5737887... I lost 75% of my units and I haven't played my second round, not because of my loses during my attacks or poor defence.

by **jefjef** on Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:30 pm

GoranZ wrote:The map Europe 1914 is totally unbalanced for 2 players... The first player can wipe out the second player, there r too many units for him in the first round. 15 territories r too much, 9 or 10 would be more appropriate.

For a reference I give this game: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=5737887... I lost 75% of my units and I haven't played my second round, not because of my loses during my attacks or poor defence.

2 player game is favored for 1st mover. But that is part of the challenge. He took 3 terts from you 1st round. He had a good drop and GREAT dice. 3 tert conquers in first round rarely happens.

As for not having 1st move I have won many on this map moving 2nd.

by **GoranZ** on Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:54 am

jefjef wrote:
GoranZ wrote:The map Europe 1914 is totally unbalanced for 2 players... The first player can wipe out the second player, there r too many units for him in the first round. 15 territories r too much, 9 or 10 would be more appropriate.

For a reference I give this game: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=5737887... I lost 75% of my units and I haven't played my second round, not because of my loses during my attacks or poor defence.

2 player game is favored for 1st mover. But that is part of the challenge. He took 3 terts from you 1st round. He had a good drop and GREAT dice. 3 tert conquers in first round rarely happens.

As for not having 1st move I have won many on this map moving 2nd.

I haven't played a lot of games but for example in Feudal War being first mean that u will move first and the advantage is minimal if there is any... That's why I proposed reducing the number of colonies to reduce the luck factor, after all the fun is in the skill and not in the dice... I'm sure that there isn't a player skillful enough to win in my situation even with the same luck as my opponents(which was huge)...

by **0ojakeo0** on Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:13 pm

I just found this map yesterday and im hooked. Great map.

by **c2nr** on Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:48 am

It's really nice map, but for 2 players game, I think the territories for each player should be reduced to 14... as is now, it's highly likely if playing first to get 1 territory (8 to 3 is not bad odds) and your opponent to start the game with substantial handicap.

by **talonz** on Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:34 am

This map is broken, not giving france country bonus.

by **Rodion** on Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:49 am

talonz wrote:This map is broken, not giving france country bonus.

Corsica and Belgium are parts of France.

by **natty dread** on Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:37 am

I love how people always jump right out saying "the map is broken!" when they actually haven't taken the time to read the map properly...

by **nolefan5311** on Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:42 pm

Great, Great map. Huge WWI buff. I've completed 20 games and have probably played this one 8 times. I love it. I wish there was more WWI based maps.

by **cgianatti** on Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:33 pm

Hi

Just a small map suggestion. In Europe 1914 I totally see the sense in cyrpus not able to be attacked by turkey. (No navy back then). I also see the sense in Cyprus not having an unfettered ability to attack turkey. But....(always the but)....if England holds Cyprus then why shouldn't Cyprus then be able to attack. In effect that would then mirror the historical position. It would also enhance functionality as a map.

In your hands - keep up the good work.

Chris

by **thenobodies80** on Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:37 pm

Map suggestions should be posted into the map thread.
If one of the suggestion mods will move this topic into the foundry I can merge it with the map thread.

by **thenobodies80** on Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:16 pm

[Merged]

by **Rieno** on Sun Nov 11, 2012 4:41 pm

Gameplay: 9
Geographical accuracy: 2
Language accuracy: 4

It's the gameplay that matter's though, so I like the map.

by **Mishalex** on Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:38 am

Hi,

I've played recently a 1 VS 1 game on this one, and the one who start gets a clear advantage starting with 5 troops due... Could we get a lower nombers of territories at the start for both players? 14 each could lead to a more equilibrate game... Just 2 more neutral...

Thanks for your advice

Mishalex

by **nolefan5311** on Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:33 am

Mishalex wrote:Hi,

I've played recently a 1 VS 1 game on this one, and the one who start gets a clear advantage starting with 5 troops due... Could we get a lower nombers of territories at the start for both players? 14 each could lead to a more equilibrate game... Just 2 more neutral...

Thanks for your advice

Mishalex

I'd be willing to modify the code if qwert can suggest which regions(s) he'd prefer to be coded neutral.

by **Gilligan** on Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:21 am

8 neutrals, 55 total territories = 47 starting positions

Adding two more neutral = 45 starting positions, same issue, you would need to add 3 more neutrals.

44 / 3 = 14 (now 15, improvement)
44 / 4 = 11 (now 11, same thing)
44 / 5 = 8 (now 9...pretty much same thing)
44 / 6 = 7 (now 7, same thing)
44 / 7 = 6 (now 6, same thing)
44 / 8 = 5 (now 5, same thing)

I'll admit I thought it would originally screw up quads games by lowering it to 4 (first turn eliminations, and such) but adding three more neutral only helps the starting positions. I don't know if qwert will go for it, though.

It needs to be thought about pretty good though, 3 neutrals could change how people go for bonuses pretty good.

by **thenobodies80** on Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:05 pm

I'll talk with qwert to understand what he thinks. Afterall it's his map and he should have the final say on this.
I'll let you know soon about what he wants to do.

Nobodies

by **thenobodies80** on Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:26 am

I talked with qwert.

He is not ok with change the map to better suit 1vs1 games.
Even if the change is minor and it doesn't require any effort on his part, he has made a valid point about the fact that such change is not required.
Well in some cases there could be a small advantage for a player in 1vs1 games, but the map plays well in all other cases so we can't say that if we don't change it the map is unplayable or unfriendly.

So, considering that I totally respect qwert and his work as mapmaker for this site and considering his reasonable answer, the map must stay as it is now.

No updates will be allowed or uploaded (on my part) without his approval.
Afterall it's his map.

Nobodies

by **chapcrap** on Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:07 am

thenobodies80 wrote:I talked with qwert.

He is not ok with change the map to better suit 1vs1 games.
Even if the change is minor and it doesn't require any effort on his part, he has made a valid point about the fact that such change is not required.
Well in some cases there could be a small advantage for a player in 1vs1 games, but the map plays well in all other cases so we can't say that if we don't change it the map is unplayable or unfriendly.

So, considering that I totally respect qwert and his work as mapmaker for this site and considering his reasonable answer, the map must stay as it is now.

No updates will be allowed or uploaded (on my part) without his approval.
Afterall it's his map.

Nobodies