Conquer Club

The Third Crusade [Quenched] Revamping

Care to peruse completed maps? Take a stroll through the Atlas.

Moderator: Cartographers

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: The Third Crusade [Quenched]

Postby ender516 on Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:21 am

Here on Conquer Club, the term "victory condition" is applied only to special situations apart from the "remove all opposing players from the board" method, and as such, are all treated like that. I applaud your submission of a suggestion (you could post a link here). Such innovations are always worth discussing.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class ender516
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: Waterloo, Ontario

Re: The Third Crusade [Quenched]

Postby talonz on Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:30 am

ender516 wrote:Here on Conquer Club, the term "victory condition" is applied only to special situations apart from the "remove all opposing players from the board" method, ...


Given how the majority of the general public will view that as a 'victory condition' (it can really be nothing else) I would suggest that to treat it as otherwise is pointless.
Colonel talonz
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:59 am

Re: The Third Crusade [Quenched]

Postby ender516 on Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:34 am

If you read the Instructions for this site, you will see the following statements:
In the Overview, the creators of Conquer Club wrote:Conquer Club is a turn-based strategy game. Opponents engage in combat and the last remaining player wins.
In the Gameplay Notes (emphasis mine), the creators of Conquer Club wrote:Some maps have objectives which you must conquer and hold for one round to win the game.

The special terminology has been created to recognize a special situation, where victory can be achieved in a way that might be otherwise unexpected.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class ender516
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: Waterloo, Ontario

Re: The Third Crusade [Quenched]

Postby MrBenn on Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:19 pm

Once you have defeated all your opponents, your victory is unconditional.

We could play semantics all day :P
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
 
Posts: 6880
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty

Third Crusade Trench Warfare Glitch?

Postby Xelot on Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:05 pm

Here is the scenario:

Blue is closing in on taking over the known world. There are a few hold outs which will be crushed in due time. One of which, the English, are holed up on their island. Because this is trench warfare, you cannot move an army more than one region at a time. Crossing the English Channel becomes problematic because any troops left there at the end of the turn disappear/are killed the next turn and are replaced with 3 neutral armies.

How does one attack England in this case?

Thanks,
Xelot
Lieutenant Xelot
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:19 pm

Re: Third Crusade Trench Warfare Glitch?

Postby cairnswk on Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:14 pm

Xelot...can you please post the game number in any queries you have about games so that it is easier for those advising to track the map...thanks :)
Image
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
User avatar
Private cairnswk
 
Posts: 11510
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Third Crusade Trench Warfare Glitch?

Postby perchorin on Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:16 pm

Killer neutrals i.e. the one you're referring to in the English Channel are not bound by the trench warfare rules. You can attack beyond the Channel. No glitch.
Image
Silvanus wrote:perch is a North Korean agent to infiltrate south Korean girls
User avatar
Major perchorin
 
Posts: 1859
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:19 am
Location: Busan, South Korea

Re: The Third Crusade [Quenched]

Postby thenobodies80 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:06 am

[Merged] with the map discussion thread.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thenobodies80
 
Posts: 5400
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am
Location: Milan

Re: The Third Crusade [Quenched]

Postby Kabanellas on Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:47 am

Now that I'm on this revisiting mood, I'd like to change the Vatican and Granada starting Neutrals from 5 to 4 (at least)

The Vatican is barely touched , and Granada is acting like a protection wall for the Iberian Kingdoms.
Major Kabanellas
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: The Third Crusade [Quenched]

Postby pamoa on Sun Mar 10, 2013 2:32 pm

Kabanellas wrote:Now that I'm on this revisiting mood, I'd like to change the Vatican and Granada starting Neutrals from 5 to 4 (at least)
The Vatican is barely touched , and Granada is acting like a protection wall for the Iberian Kingdoms.
it would really open the map
do it
De gueules Ć  la tour d'argent ouverte, crĆ©nelĆ©e de trois piĆØces, sommĆ©e d'un donjon ajourĆ©, crĆ©nelĆ© de deux piĆØces
Gules an open tower silver, crenellated three parts, topped by a apertured turret, crenellated two parts
User avatar
Cadet pamoa
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:18 am
Location: Confederatio Helvetica

Re: The Third Crusade [Quenched]

Postby Kabanellas on Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:30 am

ok.. so here it is. I've reduced the numbers in most of starting neutrals:

Granada from 5 to 4
The Vatican from 5 to 3
Venice from 3 to 2
Constantinople from 3 to 2
Cyprus from 5 to 4 (also reduced London-Cyprus bonus from 2 to 1)
Tyre from 4 to 3 (also reduced Paris-Tyre bonus from 2 to 1)
Seleucia from 3 to 2 (also reduced Ratisbon-Seleucia bonus from 2 to 1)
Antioch from 5 to 4
Krak des Chevaliers from 3 to 2
Rakka from 2 to 1
Jerusalem from 5 to 4

Considering:
The reduction of Iberian Kingdoms bonus from 4 to 3.
Currently if you add Granada you'll get +5 to protect 4 borders, with the possibility of bottle necking on Toulouse. Reducing those 4 borders to 3. On the other hand IK is a continent with a lot of territories to conquer. Nevertheless.... not totally sure about this part. Would like some opinions.

Click image to enlarge.
image
Major Kabanellas
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: The Third Crusade [Quenched]

Postby jj3044 on Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:06 am

Kabanellas wrote:ok.. so here it is. I've reduced the numbers in most of starting neutrals:

Granada from 5 to 4
The Vatican from 5 to 3
Venice from 3 to 2
Constantinople from 3 to 2
Cyprus from 5 to 4 (also reduced London-Cyprus bonus from 2 to 1)
Tyre from 4 to 3 (also reduced Paris-Tyre bonus from 2 to 1)
Seleucia from 3 to 2 (also reduced Ratisbon-Seleucia bonus from 2 to 1)
Antioch from 5 to 4
Krak des Chevaliers from 3 to 2
Rakka from 2 to 1
Jerusalem from 5 to 4

Considering:
The reduction of Iberian Kingdoms bonus from 4 to 3.
Currently if you add Granada you'll get +5 to protect 4 borders, with the possibility of bottle necking on Toulouse. Reducing those 4 borders to 3. On the other hand IK is a continent with a lot of territories to conquer. Nevertheless.... not totally sure about this part. Would like some opinions.

Click image to enlarge.
image

It will definitely change the gameplay and make the map more complex. One other suggestion is changing Wales to a 4 neutral from 5.
Image
User avatar
Colonel jj3044
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:22 pm

Re: The Third Crusade [Quenched]

Postby Oneyed on Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:14 am

Kabanellas wrote:ok.. so here it is. I've reduced the numbers in most of starting neutrals:

The Vatican from 5 to 3
Venice from 3 to 2
Seleucia from 3 to 2 (also reduced Ratisbon-Seleucia bonus from 2 to 1)
Rakka from 2 to 1
Jerusalem from 5 to 4


the Vatican should be 4 (as Granada) - Vatican has own bonus +1 autodeploy and is needed only as victory objective.
similar for Venice - also gives +1 autodeploy and is not needed for any land bonus.
Seleucia should be n3 (as the rest regions with "shields") - owner of Ratisbon will has advantage against owners of Paris, London. and Seleucia gives also second bonus as part of Principality of Armenia.
Rakka should stay n2 as others "muslim" bonuses.
Jerusalem gives maybe too much bonuses: autodeploy, part of Kingdom of Jerusalem, muslim bonus, victory objective... hm, it was the most important city in these days so it is ok but maybe n5 is fine.
Kabanellas wrote:Considering:
The reduction of Iberian Kingdoms bonus from 4 to 3.
Currently if you add Granada you'll get +5 to protect 4 borders, with the possibility of bottle necking on Toulouse. Reducing those 4 borders to 3. On the other hand IK is a continent with a lot of territories to conquer. Nevertheless.... not totally sure about this part. Would like some opinions.


no. it is not easy to gain 7 regions of Iberian kingdoms and when you not hold Touluse you need to secure 3 borders and Granada now with n4 is more open to attack from Africa.

Do you think about difference between 4 regions of France (3 to secure) with bonus 3 and extra bonus for Tyre and Kingdom of Hungary with 4 regions (4 to secure) with bonus only 1? I know that Hungary was not important for crusades but difference in big here.

Oneyed
User avatar
Private 1st Class Oneyed
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:29 pm

Re: The Third Crusade [Quenched]

Postby Kabanellas on Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:19 pm

Well,
One of the big problems with this map, particularly on team games, is that no one uses 80% of those neutrals. I've never seen any one assaulting the Vatican in any of my team games... and i know for a fact that even at 4 no one will waste troops there. That's why it should stay at 3.

As for Seleucia, I've reduced it by 1 as I've done with Cyprus and Tyre. To keep it coherent. And it makes sense, if you think about it. HRE/Ratisbon is a very hard starting point, harder that Paris. Being so, it makes sense that if Tyre has 3 neutral starters Seleucia stays with 2. Remember that I'm also reducing the bonus from these links from 2 to 1.

Rakka - no one takes it.. :) .. muslim bonus are seldom used... maybe leaving Rakka at 1 will bring some more dynamics to that bonus. just saying.... it can stay at 2 though

Jerusalem - and again, never used. That's why it needs to be leveled down a notch. As for Jerusalem Kingdom is not so protected anymore. Decreasing Cyprus and Tyre neutrals will help to make it more reachable.

Iberia Kingdoms - I agree.... (just not totally sure about it) I guess it should stay as it is for now.

Wales (@JJ) - the all idea of decreasing Cyprus instead of Wales is to make the movement towards the East more appealing. Also, the payback will be the same (1 bonus), but Cyprus will be much harder to hold, that's why it should be cheaper than Wales.
Major Kabanellas
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: The Third Crusade [Quenched]

Postby chapcrap on Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:50 am

Kabanellas wrote:Well,
One of the big problems with this map, particularly on team games, is that no one uses 80% of those neutrals. I've never seen any one assaulting the Vatican in any of my team games... and i know for a fact that even at 4 no one will waste troops there. That's why it should stay at 3.

But, this map is not one just used for team games. There have almost been 2800 Team games on the map and over 24000 total. Team games make up less than 12% of the games. I'm not sure changing things for the sake of team game utilization, at this point, is a very good idea.
Lieutenant chapcrap
 
Posts: 9686
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Kansas City

Re: The Third Crusade [Quenched] Revamping

Postby ender516 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:32 pm

Decided to look at the (very few) team games I have played on this map. In one out of three team games, Game 8397492, there was a struggle for the Vatican. I did not review in detail why this occurred.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class ender516
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: Waterloo, Ontario

Re: The Third Crusade [Quenched]

Postby Kabanellas on Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 pm

chapcrap wrote:But, this map is not one just used for team games. There have almost been 2800 Team games on the map and over 24000 total. Team games make up less than 12% of the games. I'm not sure changing things for the sake of team game utilization, at this point, is a very good idea.


I thought about it as well. And I don't see any problem about this reduction when it comes to standard games. People will just starting using most of the map earlier...
Major Kabanellas
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: The Third Crusade [Quenched]

Postby chapcrap on Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:06 pm

Kabanellas wrote:
chapcrap wrote:But, this map is not one just used for team games. There have almost been 2800 Team games on the map and over 24000 total. Team games make up less than 12% of the games. I'm not sure changing things for the sake of team game utilization, at this point, is a very good idea.


I thought about it as well. And I don't see any problem about this reduction when it comes to standard games. People will just starting using most of the map earlier...

If that would be the base, I can't really have a problem with it. I don't know if it's the case or not. Either way, I don't have a big opinion on it, because I don't play the map enough.
Lieutenant chapcrap
 
Posts: 9686
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Kansas City

Re: The Third Crusade [Quenched]

Postby Kabanellas on Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:05 am

and here we go again.....

Kabanellas wrote:ok.. so here it is. I've reduced the numbers in most of starting neutrals:

Granada from 5 to 4
The Vatican from 5 to 3
Venice from 3 to 2
Constantinople from 3 to 2
Cyprus from 5 to 4 (also reduced London-Cyprus bonus from 2 to 1)
Tyre from 4 to 3 (also reduced Paris-Tyre bonus from 2 to 1)
Seleucia from 3 to 2 (also reduced Ratisbon-Seleucia bonus from 2 to 1)
Antioch from 5 to 4
Krak des Chevaliers from 3 to 2
Rakka from 2 to 1
Jerusalem from 5 to 4

Considering:
The reduction of Iberian Kingdoms bonus from 4 to 3.
Currently if you add Granada you'll get +5 to protect 4 borders, with the possibility of bottle necking on Toulouse. Reducing those 4 borders to 3. On the other hand IK is a continent with a lot of territories to conquer. Nevertheless.... not totally sure about this part. Would like some opinions.

Click image to enlarge.
image
Major Kabanellas
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

PreviousNext

Return to The Atlas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users