Conquer Club

Which is it?

One where the amount of troops gained each round is high to reduce luck factor, both with spoils and dice.
One where you have the whole map covered and few neutrals.


If there dont exists a particularly good 1v1 map, should one be created?

Rakio wrote:One where you have the whole map covered and few neutrals.

No map fits this because it would give too great an advantage to the player going first.

Having played more 1 vs 1 on more maps than almost any other player (Baldadonis and a few others have played as many or more games than I)

Well, I disagree with the neutral bit. I think some of the best 1 vs 1 are the "conquest" type maps. I like AOR2 the best. (NOT the other AOR maps!) Fuedal and Galapagos make a nice 1 vs 1 games, too.

In more standard CC maps, neutrals are a factor of the way CC is set up. In 1 vs 1, neutrals represent the third player, so you will always have roughly the same number of nuetrals as the other players. Eliminating the nuetrals would not necessarily make the game more strategic, but it would fundamentally change the dynamics.

To maximize strategy, I would suggest sticking with some of the medium-sized maps, with either fixed rate or escalating spoils. Small maps give a lot of advantage to the first player to get spoils or bonuses. Large maps offer so many armies initially, half-way decent dice give the first player a big foothold that can be quite difficult to overcome.

Escalating cards are relatively predictable. Once the armies mount, cashing of course gives a huge advantage. Because you fairly well predict and somewhat control when you cash and see when your opponent is ready to cash, it can add a different strategy aspect. I like Flat rate, though, because it offers a bit of a balance to dice, drop luck. Its sort of a "second chance". However, that works both ways. Someone who is lucky in both dice AND spoils will have even more of an advantage with Flat rate spoils.

The truth is that luck is plain and simply a big part of this game. This is even more true for 1 vs 1 than with more players. You can certainly try to create a game that will minimize the luck effect, but it is not easy to do. Some of the most skilled map makers have tried and I have yet to see one really succeed. (you might be the one to do it.. who knows?)

Good points about the neutrals.
Im not sure if this thread should be here or in map foundry.
As I am inclined to have 1v1 map(it could be used for other purposes as well but main goal would be 1v1).

Rakio wrote:Good points about the neutrals.
Im not sure if this thread should be here or in map foundry.
As I am inclined to have 1v1 map(it could be used for other purposes as well but main goal would be 1v1).

This is a good place to talk about the general idea. When you get ready with a specific idea, then look to the foundary. However, I would look at the maps that are already in creation.

I am not up on map-making, just playing. Talk to some of the foundry regulars for ideas. Some of them are pretty busy, so be patient. However, they are always looking for really knew ideas.

Yeah, I mostly wanted to know which map is best suited for 1v1.
And why the map is so. Plus what to thinking of concerning 1v1 game play(to reduce luck factor etc).

world 2.1 though i dont like it...
i prefer 1v1 with anything with 42,43 terrs
so classic etc
aor 2 and 1 is good too

pelo wars!

doodle earth

I like really big maps, so 2.1 is great. Also charelston, Charelston, cause there are a lot of easy to get bonuses.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Escalating cards are relatively predictable. Once the armies mount, cashing of course gives a huge advantage. Because you fairly well predict and somewhat control when you cash and see when your opponent is ready to cash, it can add a different strategy aspect. I like Flat rate, though, because it offers a bit of a balance to dice, drop luck. Its sort of a "second chance". However, that works both ways. Someone who is lucky in both dice AND spoils will have even more of an advantage with Flat rate spoils.

IMO Flat rate makes for a horrible 1v1 game. Why should 1 player get 4 armies for the set while the other player gets 10? Just too much added luck.

As for the OP, any map where the first player is likely to get the same amount of troops as the second player on the first turn is good for 1v1. Otherwise, the game can be over before the second player even starts his turn.

New World is awesome.

And I think flat rate is the worst 1v1 setting. Escalating is my favorite but no cards works well too. I don't see a reason to bring more luck into a game that is determined largely by luck already (though I understand how the luck works both ways and can bail you out).

Foggy games generally favor the skilled over the lucky, but that's not always true in conquest maps since you are often just guessing where your opponent is.

Which is it?

One where the amount of troops gained each round is high to reduce luck factor, both with spoils and dice.
One where you have the whole map covered and few neutrals.


If there dont exists a particularly good 1v1 map, should one be created?

Your question can have many answers.
Here you have very small number of maps,who give you almost equal start(Feudal War-New World,Peloponesian War) and they are conquest map-first two give you very big bonuses,and first player can have small advantage-and third Peloponesian War map,its almost close to be 100% balanced map,with not big bonuses,and opponent is in long distance so you can have chance to create army and to fight for win,even if you start second(in this map starting first its not advantage).
In some other maps ,playing first can be big advantage,and if you start second,chance for defeat its much higher.
So mine answer is to play COnquest Maps with starting positions.

yeah conquest maps, wth seperate starting positions are best, you have to have a bit of luck though, but instead of say world2.1 where it can be over in the first turn, you slowly work your way toward your opponent, its good.

Arms Race is a great 1v1 map.

mibi wrote:Arms Race is a great 1v1 map.

Of course you would pick one of your maps

none, 1 vs 1 is pure luck and not at all what this game is about.

squishyg wrote:none, 1 vs 1 is pure luck and not at all what this game is about.

Yes, KH and demonfork and karel definitely got to 5k scores by luck. But seriously, while many 1v1s are by far luck, they do require skill and knowledge.

If you want, why don't we play a round of 100 games on Waterloo/Prison Riot/World 2.1/ConquerMan/City Mogul/Forbidden City/Rail Europe/WWII Europe? Then we'll see how much of it is luck and how much of it is actually knowing what the heck you are doing.

Battle for Iraq is a great 1v1 board.

I've enjoyed many a Germany 1 vs 1 games. Madagascar as well, but to a lesser degree. But I've always found Germany enjoyable for 1 vs 1 games.


--Andy

I tend to think that maps with make your own bonuses work well for 1v1's. The drop tends not to hurt/love you so much. 60's Berlin is my favorite. Other than that the more terits the better.

F

World can prove to be a very fun 1v1 map

Although, the initial drop is large, and some games are decided on turn one, the damage that they can do is relative.

Often, Player one drops 12, and player 2 drops 11. If you use escalating which requires some timing and use of cards strategy, and unlimited, it gives you access to massive amounts of armies all at once, and can undo going second quite often.

Far less are decided by going first.

Ive played so many on it, and have come back from so many going second, that I almost cannot stand any smaller map, which is almost always a dice shoot out.

Some games are obviously decided quick, but the ones that arent are a blast.

If unlimited scares you, you can used chained or adjacent...but on those, if player one gets a good drop, its hard to counter it as easily.

The Neon Peon wrote:

squishyg wrote:none, 1 vs 1 is pure luck and not at all what this game is about.

Yes, KH and demonfork and karel definitely got to 5k scores by luck. But seriously, while many 1v1s are by far luck, they do require skill and knowledge.

Yeah, it's lucky they find people who want to donate 3 points to them. No disrespect. Seriously, no disrespect, I like them both.

The Neon Peon wrote:If you want, why don't we play a round of 100 games on Waterloo/Prison Riot/World 2.1/ConquerMan/City Mogul/Forbidden City/Rail Europe/WWII Europe? Then we'll see how much of it is luck and how much of it is actually knowing what the heck you are doing.

I'll play World 2.1 anywhere, any day, any way you want it.

squishyg wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:

squishyg wrote:none, 1 vs 1 is pure luck and not at all what this game is about.

Yes, KH and demonfork and karel definitely got to 5k scores by luck. But seriously, while many 1v1s are by far luck, they do require skill and knowledge.

Yeah, it's lucky they find people who want to donate 3 points to them. No disrespect. Seriously, no disrespect, I like them both.

As opposed to what? 6 points from a captain? Or maybe 8 from a major? How bout 10 from a colonel?

With a score as high as mine 99% of the competition nets me less that 5-6 points per win.

squishyg wrote:none, 1 vs 1 is pure luck and not at all what this game is about.

bullshit