Territory Theory (Need help)

Euryon · Post by **Euryon** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:17 am

Hello.

I have a theory, loose at the moment, that certain territories tend to be key in building a swift advantage in a CC game, and when allocated to a competent player give a slight advantage (unless there are enough of them divided between players).

I have had this idea for several years, but have never had the resource to try and prove or disprove it until now (only being a member here for a couple of weeks now). To test it, it would require many, many games of research.

These games would need to be between players of similar caliber, a trustworthy nature, and able to record certain details in a way that helps me.

Essentially, what I would require from anyone interested in helping me in this rather long experiment would be a willingness to;

1) Play X amount of games against other players enrolled in this project.
2) To play fairly and within the CC rules and guidelines.
3) To not engage in alliances, secret or otherwise.
4) To record start positions in a way that is easily transferable to me, aswell as the outcome.

Certain variables would need to be defined well in advance of this beginning (such as use of cards, fortifications, a dice/luck control equation, etc.)

However, I wish to simply see if there are people out there who would be willing to do a little extra work in their games over the next several months/years (depending on success).

I would hope to get the results of at least a thousand games, preferably more depending on assistance provided.

And, just to clarify, the end result would be a proposition that certain territories are proven/dis-proven as more advantageous to hold initially, or more worthwhile to obtain through force.

Thanks for reading.

BadMoonRising · Post by **BadMoonRising** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:14 pm

*grin* and once the results are in there will be a massive petition to NERF Australia.

owenshooter · Post by **owenshooter** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:23 pm

there is already a federal program that is currently doing exactly what it is that you just proposed to do. too bad you didn't fire this up sooner. those tax dollars are sweet to spend when it's federal grant moolah...-0

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:36 pm

By "no alliances", do you also mean agreements not to start an arms race, e.g. between Iceland/Greenland, offering other players a path out of a continent to save both of you some armies and suchlike, or do you mean only real alliances like "let's attack green until we're all at approximately the same strength again".

Because almost no game gets by without some sort of overt cooperation.

Euryon · Post by **Euryon** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:57 pm

Whilst I recognise alliances and their ilk are very much part of the game, they can (of course) greatly alter the tide of a match, which could discount the role geographical positioning may play otherwise; and since that is what I want to examine, its important to control what can be controlled within reason.

And specifically; no alliances as to what CC defines an alliance (i.e, any form of collusion). This means that if you are the type of player who is a great diplomat or manipulator, this experiment may be detrimental to your score. Simply, I can't ask green to truce between Brazil and N Africa so I can concentrate on Central America.

However, if someone can explain how this is unnecessary (as with any part of my suggestions), I am open to ideas.

(In fact, is there a way to have non-scored games?)

owenshooter · Post by **owenshooter** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:07 pm

Euryon wrote:(In fact, is there a way to have non-scored games?)

wait.. hang on... i can't even answer that because i am laughing so hard...-0

BaldAdonis · Post by **BaldAdonis** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:29 pm

Why not search for escalating classic games, and use the replay add-on to find out who held what at any point in the game? The information is already there, you just need to collect it.

Euryon · Post by **Euryon** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:51 pm

owenshooter wrote:
Euryon wrote:(In fact, is there a way to have non-scored games?)

wait.. hang on... i can't even answer that because i am laughing so hard...-0

You know what I meant, right? If so, how is it funny?

BaldAdonis wrote:Why not search for escalating classic games, and use the replay add-on to find out who held what at any point in the game? The information is already there, you just need to collect it.

I did not know about that add-on. I will look into it.

Ditocoaf · Post by **Ditocoaf** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:01 pm

Euryon wrote:
owenshooter wrote:
Euryon wrote:(In fact, is there a way to have non-scored games?)

wait.. hang on... i can't even answer that because i am laughing so hard...-0

You know what I meant, right? If so, how is it funny?

Oh, that's just owenshooter. He finds it funny that he knows something that you don't. I'm under the impression that that doesn't happen much to him in RL, which is why he makes such a scene whenever it happens online.

wacicha · Post by **wacicha** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:33 am

BaldAdonis wrote:Why not search for escalating classic games, and use the replay add-on to find out who held what at any point in the game? The information is already there, you just need to collect it.

I also did not know about this option. For Learning others stratigies could come in Handy.

Euryon · Post by **Euryon** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 1:07 pm

Problem with it is that it doesn't address the issue of alliances. Thanks for the idea anyway.

Chadwick31 · Post by **Chadwick31** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:44 pm

If it's Standard/Sequential/Escalating, with 6+ players, I'll do as many as you like.

Awesomeau · Post by **Awesomeau** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:36 pm

Where can I find this replay add-on?

BaldAdonis · Post by **BaldAdonis** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:13 am

Awesomeau wrote:Where can I find this replay add-on?

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26999

Territory Theory (Need help)

Are you even remotely interested in helping with this project?

Territory Theory (Need help)