Conquer Club

Alright, so I'm throwing together a draft of a new map which I'd like to make a 1v1 only map. All of the territories will be coded neutral save for two, so users couldn't start a 3+ player game on the map if they wanted to. The theme of the map will be revealed in good time.

Thing is, I don't play much 1v1. I think it's a pretty bad format, in large part because CC maps aren't set up to provide even starts. I would venture to guess that at least two thirds of 1v1 games are won by the player who goes first, so before anybody takes a turn you can put money on the outcome.

My questions, for those of you who play a lot of 1v1, are as follows:

• Assuming you and your opponent each only started with one territory and the rest are neutral, how many territories should the map have? To small and it's just a dice-fest, too large and you're slogging through a sea of neutrals.

• What features would soften the blow of going second?

• Should it be set up to be a slow building map, or should a direct confrontation come quickly?

• Victory condition, or just play for an elimination?

I've had in mind creating a map that is somewhere between 15-20 territories, gives bonuses for every neutral territory you control (to discourage a player from just sitting on his hands), and has an oasis-like "dead zone" between the player starting positions that makes a player think twice before crossing.

[moved]

I think you'll be more likely to get relevant feedback from this in General Discussion.

It's worth noting (before anybody complains) that this thread isn't a suggestion, and doesn't relate to or advertise any specific map in the foundry.

Ok ill try to reply you... I like to play a lot 1v1 in AoR or Feudal Map...you start with 2 territories but more or less it should give you an idea

oaktown wrote:• Assuming you and your opponent each only started with one territory and the rest are neutral, how many territories should the map have? To small and it's just a dice-fest, too large and you're slogging through a sea of neutrals.

Just like AoR more or less i think it will be ok

• What features would soften the blow of going second?

That the first one decides tries to attack in the first round and has bad luck(many game ive lost because of that)

• Should it be set up to be a slow building map, or should a direct confrontation come quickly?

Im not sure... AoR is direct cofrontation,and AoR2 is slower... maybe direct controntation because they are speeder than slow building map(and thats why i play 1v1 because they are fast,so I play AoR1 but sometimes I want something more slowier and I choose AoR2,or Feudal Map

• Victory condition, or just play for an elimination?

Sometimes can happen victory condition but because there's only 1 player is easier to kill the player (like City of Mogul but is not the perfect example, or Feudal Map) but it depends in wich hard is the victory condition(St Patricks Map)

So this is my answers I hope that it help you

viewtopic.php?f=242&t=52220&hilit=Castle+Battle

I was wondering about that map. I didn't read enough to get the technicals on why it never went through but I think that map would be amazing to have 1vs1 competition. If 1 player started within the castle/keep and 1 player started outside the castle. They could each control 1 region and expand from that region.

The attacking player would strategize on what assets to conquer for their siege (ie: Should they aquire the battering ram quickly... perhaps the siege tower? Maybe try to take the legion units from neutrals to build a larger army base before even attacking the castle walls.

Meanwhile, the defender could similarly decide what defense to set up. Would they want to conquer legions within their walls from the neutrals to begin to earn extra deployments and manpower, would they want to aquire walled defenses quickly so that they could prevent the attacker from easily invading. Would they want to attack outside their walls trying to rush their attacker.

I think this game would be amazing for 2 player competition. (Myself and Jazzy have both looked at it. It totally reminds us of "the battle for helms deep" in Lord of the rings

oaktown wrote:• Assuming you and your opponent each only started with one territory and the rest are neutral, how many territories should the map have? To small and it's just a dice-fest, too large and you're slogging through a sea of neutrals.

• What features would soften the blow of going second?

• Should it be set up to be a slow building map, or should a direct confrontation come quickly?

• Victory condition, or just play for an elimination?

The first player has a large advantage because their deployments are always as good or better than the second player's (for the first round at least, and usually for a few more), and the dice favour attacking over defending. Set up a map that doesn't give away too many bonuses in the early rounds (the problem with Arms Race) and allow players to play from a defensive position (the problem with Age of Realms) and you could have a decent neutral-laden map.

The number of territories depends on how big the neutral armies are. Twenty 6s will be a lot slower than sixty 1s.

Auto-deployments to bonuses make it easier to play second, because your opponent can't efficiently use everything he grabbed before you got to play. Allow players to bombard key territories that will destroy the supply chain. Make the map large enough that a defensive plan is feasible - if there are 15 territories and my opponent takes 2 in the first round, then I'd be a bit worried that he controls 20% of the map and I'd be more likely to stage an early attack hoping for amazing dice. But make sure the features are there to support it. Feudal War is large and puts barriers between opponents, but the first player still has a much better record, because the strategies for both players are the same, and one gets to execute it first.

You might talk to e_i_pi about this, he had some ideas of a similar nature.

BaldAdonis wrote:Auto-deployments to bonuses make it easier to play second, because your opponent can't efficiently use everything he grabbed before you got to play.

I was thinking I might use all auto-deployments rather than traditional bonuses - it will slow things down a bit, but a thoughtful game is preferable to a game that is over by round three.

i like the idea

oaktown wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote:Auto-deployments to bonuses make it easier to play second, because your opponent can't efficiently use everything he grabbed before you got to play.

I was thinking I might use all auto-deployments rather than traditional bonuses - it will slow things down a bit, but a thoughtful game is preferable to a game that is over by round three.

What do you think... it auto-deploy 1 army in each territory we have... and we recieve 0-1 armies... it will be a curious game... in adjacent and maybe in chained in unlimited will be more of luck than anything else...

oaktown wrote:Alright, so I'm throwing together a draft of a new map which I'd like to make a 1v1 only map. All of the territories will be coded neutral save for two, so users couldn't start a 3+ player game on the map if they wanted to. The theme of the map will be revealed in good time.

Thing is, I don't play much 1v1. I think it's a pretty bad format, in large part because CC maps aren't set up to provide even starts. I would venture to guess that at least two thirds of 1v1 games are won by the player who goes first, so before anybody takes a turn you can put money on the outcome.

My questions, for those of you who play a lot of 1v1, are as follows:

• Assuming you and your opponent each only started with one territory and the rest are neutral, how many territories should the map have? To small and it's just a dice-fest, too large and you're slogging through a sea of neutrals.

• What features would soften the blow of going second?

• Should it be set up to be a slow building map, or should a direct confrontation come quickly?

• Victory condition, or just play for an elimination?

I've had in mind creating a map that is somewhere between 15-20 territories, gives bonuses for every neutral territory you control (to discourage a player from just sitting on his hands), and has an oasis-like "dead zone" between the player starting positions that makes a player think twice before crossing.

Better to err on the side of slogging through neutrals.
Slow building
Victory condition.

I like new world for 1v1 myself. It's still hard to win going second. Perhaps the person going first starts with less armies?

I play almost all 1 vs 1.

What I like: Its fast, I get a chance to chat more often than in other games.

All auto-deploy would make game more even, but might also make it boring. I like AOR2, for example because the armies quickly build. Dice matter, but so does strategy. I like Pearl Harbor at times, though it almost always goes to the first player, because just staying alive as long as possible is a challenge. If you try to make it all about strategy, then the games tend to be long, sometimes boring. If there is a lot of luck, some people complain about losing points, others find it exciting.

You are never going to please everyone. The very thing that attracts people to one map drives others away. Better to just stick with a theme and satisfy those people who will want to play it... and forget about the rest. They can simply play other maps!

Green88 wrote:I like new world for 1v1 myself. It's still hard to win going second. Perhaps the person going first starts with less armies?

This is an interesting idea!

Why would the person going first start with less armies? If they have to deploy just to make it even, then the problem is reversed, they are forced to attack just to catch up to the player who hasn't even moved yet.

If the player going first attacks the other player, they take a risk in combat that they could lose and be brought down to a few weak armies, the player going first may decide to just take a round and set up their deployments with no attacks on the first round at all.

If you give that person less armies, they are forced to attack to not be behind player 2. If they manage to catch up to player 2 by attacking on the first round, then player 2 still has the incentive since they were ahead before the game even started (in terms of armies).

Am I right? ... Wrong? ...

PLAYER57832 wrote:If you try to make it all about strategy, then the games tend to be long, sometimes boring. If there is a lot of luck, some people complain about losing points, others find it exciting.

I think a lot of people would find a strategic game interesting. People who just want to roll a lot of dice quickly can play Doodle Earth (or Pearl Harbour, or Age of Realms, or any number of other maps that make a terrible 2 player game).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Green88 wrote:I like new world for 1v1 myself. It's still hard to win going second. Perhaps the person going first starts with less armies?

This is an interesting idea!

Yes, interesting, but impossible. It would require new XML features.

It's difficult for me to comment on the concept, since you did not provide a draft of a map so that we can more readily see what you have in mind. As well, it's difficult for me to tell if you're serious about the project or not unless you show us a draft.

1v1 are often decided by dice. In a map like aor or even a normal map, your first few rolls make or break the game. If you loose 7v3 to take your bonus, and the other guy wins 7v3 for his, he's in a good spot to win the game. So if you could do something to reduce this, maybe make a lot of singles around the initial drop point, that might help. Or some other creative way of cutting down on this.

Georgerx7di wrote:1v1 are often decided by dice. In a map like aor or even a normal map, your first few rolls make or break the game. If you loose 7v3 to take your bonus, and the other guy wins 7v3 for his, he's in a good spot to win the game. So if you could do something to reduce this, maybe make a lot of singles around the initial drop point, that might help. Or some other creative way of cutting down on this.

If you put all your armies in one place, you're more likely to lose them all. There's already a good way of cutting down on this, and it just involves good strategy. 2 player games are hardly ever decided by dice unless you play a silly map like Age of Realms or Arms Race.

I think the best way to do this would be to have multiple paths which connect the players, each path containing unique characteristics.

Ideas

Path 1 - Lots of territories with small (2-5) starting neutrals. The longest route to get to your opponent.

Path 2 - Another shorten string of starting neutrals with a larger stack of killer neutrals (or maybe multiple killer neutral points). This path is shorter but may take longer because you have to build up before breaking through the KN.

Path 3 - Low starting neutrals but include decay, perhaps have multiple branches and "oases" in this one.


The main purpose of having multiple paths would be to make FOW games more interesting, because there is no single winning strategy. Sure you can probably deduce what path your opponent is taking by the 3rd round, but by then you may already be on the same path or a different one. And if you haven't started you still have a choice to confront them directly or take a different path to attack the home base.

The biggest challenge with this design would be making all of the paths balanced, and yet different. If each has pros and cons that balance out every game could be different because there is no single best path.

BaldAdonis wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:If you try to make it all about strategy, then the games tend to be long, sometimes boring. If there is a lot of luck, some people complain about losing points, others find it exciting.

I think a lot of people would find a strategic game interesting. People who just want to roll a lot of dice quickly can play Doodle Earth (or Pearl Harbour, or Age of Realms, or any number of other maps that make a terrible 2 player game).

I agree, a good 1v1 map needs to be more biased towards strategy. The only time I've ever been somewhat bored are the multi player no card games that tend to go on for months.

oaktown wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Green88 wrote:I like new world for 1v1 myself. It's still hard to win going second. Perhaps the person going first starts with less armies?

This is an interesting idea!

Yes, interesting, but impossible. It would require new XML features.

Oh well!

BaldAdonis wrote:

Georgerx7di wrote:1v1 are often decided by dice. In a map like aor or even a normal map, your first few rolls make or break the game. If you loose 7v3 to take your bonus, and the other guy wins 7v3 for his, he's in a good spot to win the game. So if you could do something to reduce this, maybe make a lot of singles around the initial drop point, that might help. Or some other creative way of cutting down on this.

If you put all your armies in one place, you're more likely to lose them all. There's already a good way of cutting down on this, and it just involves good strategy. 2 player games are hardly ever decided by dice unless you play a silly map like Age of Realms or Arms Race.

I think 'hardly ever' is stretching it a bit. But, on some maps it's true that the drop is more important than dice. That's why new world is better, the drops tend to be even.

Green88 wrote:I think 'hardly ever' is stretching it a bit. But, on some maps it's true that the drop is more important than dice. That's why new world is better, the drops tend to be even.

If you put all your faith into the dice, they will let you down and it will look like they decided the game. But really you decided the game when you forced yourself to make those kind of rolls.

If you deploy 4 armies in one place on your first turn, then lose two rolls, that's a bad move on your part. If you put them in 4 different places and lose all 4 rolls, then that's bad dice. That alone probably won't lose you the game, you'll need to lose your next 4 as well. So 8 in a row would do it, and that hardly ever happens. More likely that players are happy to blame the dice for their mistakes, so you hear a lot about dice deciding the game.

But one thing to bear in mind is that, in conquest gameplay, there often isn't a chance (or it doesn't make sense strategically) to spread out your deployment to maximize your attack dice, as there is in waterloo.

oaktown wrote:Alright, so I'm throwing together a draft of a new map which I'd like to make a 1v1 only map. All of the territories will be coded neutral save for two, so users couldn't start a 3+ player game on the map if they wanted to. The theme of the map will be revealed in good time.

You wouldn't have to limit the game to 1 territory per player to start; but the starting positions could be fixed so that each player would get one of the two groups of starting territories...

BaldAdonis wrote:

Georgerx7di wrote:1v1 are often decided by dice. In a map like aor or even a normal map, your first few rolls make or break the game. If you loose 7v3 to take your bonus, and the other guy wins 7v3 for his, he's in a good spot to win the game. So if you could do something to reduce this, maybe make a lot of singles around the initial drop point, that might help. Or some other creative way of cutting down on this.

If you put all your armies in one place, you're more likely to lose them all. There's already a good way of cutting down on this, and it just involves good strategy. 2 player games are hardly ever decided by dice unless you play a silly map like Age of Realms or Arms Race.

Even classic plays that way. And I don't appreciate your tone in this post, just because im not a colonel any more doesn't mean I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.