Page 10 of 10

Re: Route 66: objective problem noted; 1v1 fix pg 15

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:11 pm
by MrBenn
Any changes to the number of starting territories in 1v1 will de-facto effect the number of starting territories in all other game types.

If you reduce the number of starts per player to 8 (or 6) in 1v1, then there will only be 24 (or 18) starting territories available for all other game-types.

Re: Route 66: objective problem noted; 1v1 fix pg 15

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:16 pm
by AndrewB
Ok, make it 10 then... Really any even number is better...

Re: Route 66: objective problem noted; 1v1 fix pg 15

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:57 pm
by oaktown
MrBenn wrote:Any changes to the number of starting territories in 1v1 will de-facto effect the number of starting territories in all other game types.

If you reduce the number of starts per player to 8 (or 6) in 1v1, then there will only be 24 (or 18) starting territories available for all other game-types.

Actually no, in this case we can reduce the # of starts/player in 1v1 without changing the total # of territories in the starting pool simply by removing some of the predetermined starts, as I've explained at length in the previous post. Right now there are 21 "starting" territories, but I'd coded 1v1 starts so that each player opened the game with 8.

AndrewB wrote:Is there any way to start the 1vs1 game with 8 territories? Cause the proposed solution is not fixing the problem, really.
Currently u need just 1 territory to get extra 1 army in round 1. So does the proposed solution.
If they would start with 6 territories, then it would be ideal. Second best options is to start with 8 (but starting with 6 is better).

Yes, it is possible. It would be quite simple: pre-set three starting territories per player. The 15 remaining territories would be split evenly among P1, P2, and N; 3+5=8.

However, I don't see this as being better than starting with 7. I get that starting with eight territories would require two captures to get to the next step, but those captures would both be virtual locks for player 1 since he would start each round by placing four armies. It seems as if we still have the problem of P1 being given an easy road to consistently higher bonuses than player 1. At least by starting with seven territories we restore the old "luck of the intensity cubes" factor since P1 only gets to start the game by placing three... both players have the same odds of ending round 1 with 8 territories, though what happens from there is about luck and tactics.

AndrewB wrote:Ok, make it 10 then... Really any even number is better...

Then P2 crashes through a neutral and takes out an opponent, pushing his per turn deployment to six and knocking P2's to four, and the game is over. Wasn't the concern allowing one player to have access to a deployment advantage?

My hope in designing this map was that it would actually make a decent 1v1 game, since P1 can't start the game by directly whacking P2. And if P1 does take an adjoining territory and threaten P2, P2 gets the first crack at attacking P1 with a full force. I see now that giving the players an extra army from the get-go actually mitigates the buffer territories, since with a bit of luck you could actually crash through a buffer territory and take one from your opponent. Having played a 1v1 game and analyzed the start (and having won that game as P2) I personally think it would be better to start everybody with the standard 3 army initial deployment.

The XML has been updated to start everybody at 7 in 1v1s. I'll pick up a game or two and see how that pans out, and wait to hear from everybody. Any thoughts from the gameplay gurus out there?

Re: Route 66: objective problem noted; 1v1 fix pg 15

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:04 pm
by AndrewB
How about starting 6 in 1vs1? Would that be possible?

7 starting is better then 9. But 8 is better then 7. And 6 is the best of them all...

Re: Route 66: objective problem noted; 1v1 fix pg 15

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:34 am
by oaktown
AndrewB wrote:How about starting 6 in 1vs1? Would that be possible?

7 starting is better then 9. But 8 is better then 7. And 6 is the best of them all...

I agree that 6 is best, but I don't agree that 8 is better than 7. I still think it's best to start folks with three armies in round one and let them roll to get up to four. Why is better for both players to have a deployment of four in round one than for both players to have the same odds of having a deployment of four in round two? Since getting up to 10 territories seems to be the magic number that kicked off this whole discussion, why not delay that for as long as possible?

Starting with six each is impossible without disrupting other game types, because it means coding more neutrals. Right now there are 21 territories that aren't neutral to start the game, and in a 1v1 those 21 territories are split between P1, P2, and Neutral. We can take away some of the neutrals to 1v1 games by coding starts, but we can't add any neutrals... CC's gameplay architecture is such that you are limited in the ways that you can set starting conditions for 1v1 games only (probably because CC didn't launch with 1v1 games as an option).

I could code another territory neutral and drop the starts to twenty (edit), but it would mean fewer starts in 3 player and 7 players games This would not the end of the world, but which territory do we lose? Right now the non-Route territories are pretty evenly split between coded neutrals and coded starts, so setting another territory as neutral means creating some serious dead space somewhere in the map. Personally I think there is more than enough of this map that is unplayable to begin the game as it is.

For now i can live with seven starts/player. Again, I'll play it out a couple of times, and I'm open to further input.

Re: Route 66: objective problem noted; 1v1 fix pg 15

PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:59 pm
by AndrewB
Let see, how 7 works out...

Re: Route 66: objective problem noted; 1v1 fix pg 15

PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:52 pm
by MrBenn
Two weeks with no complaints - time for the quench-ship to set sail....

Re: Route 66: objective problem noted; 1v1 fix pg 15

PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:55 pm
by MrBenn
              Quenching

---The Beta period has concluded for the Route 66 Map. All objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready to be released into live play.

ImageCongratulations oaktown, your shiny new medal is well-earned =D>


Conquer Club, enjoy!
              Image

--MrBenn

Re: Route 66 [Quenched]

PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:55 am
by demonfork
In 1v1 Is it normal(planned that way) to get initial drops that have no bordering territories with your opponent? Or was this just a chance happening?(talking about the one and only game I have played on this map so far)

Re: Route 66 [Quenched]

PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:57 am
by the.killing.44
demonfork wrote:In 1v1 Is it normal(planned that way) to get initial drops that have no bordering territories with your opponent? Or was this just a chance happening?(talking about the one and only game I have played on this map so far)

It's planned that way.

Re: Route 66 [Quenched]

PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:22 am
by AndyBounce
Bit late coming to this map by the looks of it, I conquered Route 66 but did not win at this point ? Do I need to hold Route 66 for a full round or something ?

Re: Route 66 [Quenched]

PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:47 pm
by iancanton
correct. this is the same for all maps that have a win objective other than eliminating all of ur opponents.

ian. :)

Re: Route 66 [Quenched]

PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:21 pm
by ender516
It might be worth mentioning here that although victory conditions or map objectives must be held for one round to result in a win, the loss of a losing condition or requirement objective results in immediate elimination.

Re: Route 66 [Quenched]

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:04 pm
by Gavino07
Springfield is not Joplin. Is there a way to change it to Springfield. Joplin is almost on the border. Besides, Springfield is noted to be the Birthplace of Route 66. I hate for Springfield to not be mentioned on this glorious map.

Re: Route 66 [Quenched]

PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:28 am
by ZeekLTK
I don't understand the bonuses on this map.

It says hold 3 route cities for +1, 4 for +2, etc. - which I take to mean: 5 for +3, 6 for +4, 7 for +5, 8 for +6, 9 for +7, 10 for +8.


So in our current game, one guy is holding 9 cities along the route (all except Chicago and Los Angeles). He has 15 territories total.

So, based on this, he should be getting 5 (from 15 territories) + 7 (for holding 9 cities) = 12.

However, the game says he is going to get 14 his next turn. Where did these 2 extra armies come from?



Nevermind. I finally noticed at the bottom it says you get 1 for every 2 cities after 8, so he's getting 7 for 14. That doesn't stand out very well though, easy to overlook.