Conquest Mode

[Coleman]

I'm proposing an alternate game mode (that only works for certain maps) where players start with 1 or 2 territories and the rest are neutral.

How this could work is the maps with conquest mode would have an alternate xml file for conquest mode. Conquest mode would then be enabled with a check box, which would tell the site to use the alternate xml file. The reason it should be implemented as a checkbox is because it can coexist with all other game types. (I think it would be especially great for assassin games)

Priority 1 (Low)

Some examples of maps that seem compatible with this new game type and how it might be implemented on them:



Here I use ugly orange S symbols to designate possible start locations:

[hecter]

I like it!!!

[Spritzking]

me too

[ClessAlvein]

This could only work on perfectly symmetrical maps. Otherwise, whoever starts off in a small continent is almost guaranteed victory.

[hecter]

This could only work on perfectly symmetrical maps. Otherwise, whoever starts off in a small continent is almost guaranteed victory.

Which would be why it would only work with certain maps…

[Chad22342]

This could only work on perfectly symmetrical maps. Otherwise, whoever starts off in a small continent is almost guaranteed victory.

Which would be why it would only work with certain maps…

But it would also bring a whole new level of challenge to the game.

[RobinJ]

I don't quite understand but I've got a feeling it is brilliant

[firth4eva]

i like it

[Coleman]

I doubt anyone was looking too closely but there was supposed to be a neutral 1 in Tico on Age of Merchants. Oh well.

In theory conquest xml could be provided for more maps then these 4, but it would take a lot of math and neutral army count manipulation to make sure all starting positions have a decent chance of winning. I would say on non-semetrical maps conquest xml would likely need to go through it's own foundry stage.

[Blastshot]

Amasingly simple yet brilliant!

(if it was anymore simple i might actually understand it!)

[AndyDufresne]

Interesting idea...I think a lot more people would be interested in playing the symmetrical maps we currently have with this option. Lets see some more discussion.


--Andy

[unriggable]

I think Dim's 300 teritory map would work well.

[sfhbballnut]

this would make the symettrical maps a lot more playable, I like it

[Bigfalcon65]

i like it alot

[gimil]

i have a map in the ideas thread that will play exactly like this. you start with 1 terr ( a castles) and your objective is to siege and capture all the castles

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 63&start=0

[hwhrhett]

I LOVE THIS IDEA!! it would definately make the symetrical maps that we love ALOT more fun to play.

i even like the way you mixed up the neutrals with some 1's some 2's and some 3's. very well thought out, you accurately predicted all of the ideas i had when i first read the description before looking at the maps, lol!!!

GREAT IDEA, would this be hard to implement?

are there xml guys that are willing to work on this type of thing?

[Forza AZ]

GREAT IDEA, would this be hard to implement?

I think it won't be that hard, as there are now already 2 maps with fixed neutrals (Age of Merchants & Battle for Australia), so fix neutrals in other maps should also be possible.

[hecter]

No, I also don't think that this would to that hard. Just have seperate xml's for the map, have one xml standard, and lack could have it so that when Conquest mode is chosen, it uses the other xml instead. Which one would depend on the number of players chosen. Though we'd need… 6 xml's in total.
1. Standard xml
2. 2 player conquest xml
3. 3 player conquest xml
4. 4 player conquest xml
5. 5 player conquest xml
6. 6 player conquest xml
However, each of those xml's wouldn't be hard. The borders would all be the same, so it would just be adding in all the neutral territories. I imagine the hard part would be discussing where to put the non-neutral armies, which would all be done in the foundry.

So, in short, little work for us, and less for lack.

[Coleman]

I hadn't even thought as far as hecter. I just assumed there would be 2 xml files and then we'd just have to settle for certain # of player games having people start with 2.

Because if there are 6 start locations then 6, 5, & 4 are covered, the other 2 or 1 will just be neutral in the 5 & 4 player games.

I guess in some I had 8 or 10 start locations, then you might need many different ones depending on player count.

As for having people willing to work on xml for these. I'd be definitely willing to do it.

[hecter]

Alright, let's envision this lame map.

A-B-C-D-E-F-G

The xml would have all the normal borders ect. for the standard xml. Then, for the 2 player conquest you would have these additions:
B neutral
C neutral
D neutral
E neutral
F neutral

For the 3 player conquest, it would look something like this added onto the standard xml:
B neutral
C neutral
E neutral
F neutral

And similar things would ensue for the 4, 5 and 6 player conquest.

[reverend_kyle]

I say this puts too much reliance on the dice.

[BobHacket]

maybe you could set it up where you would have totally different rules, maybe have more armies, say 1 for each two countries or even 1 to 1, that way maybe the dice reliance wouldn't be a huge deal. Also maybe starting the neutrals with 2 armies instead of 3?

I don't know but I really like the idea, would deffinately make the assassin games more interesting.

[gimil]

Alright, let's envision this lame map.

A-B-C-D-E-F-G

The xml would have all the normal borders ect. for the standard xml. Then, for the 2 player conquest you would have these additions:
B neutral
C neutral
D neutral
E neutral
F neutral

For the 3 player conquest, it would look something like this added onto the standard xml:
B neutral
C neutral
E neutral
F neutral

And similar things would ensue for the 4, 5 and 6 player conquest.

you would in acctual fact only need 4 seperate XML

-standards XML
-2 PALYER XML
-3 PLAYER XML
-6 PLAYER XML

4 and 5 players would be covered by the 6 player XML because when players are deloped het computrer will ensure that everyone starts with equal terrs and will automatically make th rest neutral

[hecter]

Does Andy have anything else to say on this? I wonder…

[yeti_c]

Alright, let's envision this lame map.

A-B-C-D-E-F-G

The xml would have all the normal borders ect. for the standard xml. Then, for the 2 player conquest you would have these additions:
B neutral
C neutral
D neutral
E neutral
F neutral

For the 3 player conquest, it would look something like this added onto the standard xml:
B neutral
C neutral
E neutral
F neutral

And similar things would ensue for the 4, 5 and 6 player conquest.

you would in acctual fact only need 4 seperate XML

-standards XML
-2 PALYER XML
-3 PLAYER XML
-6 PLAYER XML

4 and 5 players would be covered by the 6 player XML because when players are deloped het computrer will ensure that everyone starts with equal terrs and will automatically make th rest neutral

Taking this to it's logical conclusion - 3 player would cover 2 player as well... as the 3rd player would be neutral...

Thus you would only need 3 XML files.

C.

PS Forgot to say - LOVE the idea Coleman... fucking nice one bruvva!!!