Conquer Club

Gilly beat me to it... and I can see why there might be a reason for London starting with 3 instead of 6, but it'll have to be an amazing argument to overcome the fundamental unfairness of one player/team starting with more armies than another.

Want To See A Flaw In This Map?

Game 5904106
Game 5903897
Game 5903899
Game 5904104

not sure what all i have to take to get the autowin, maybe even less than what i'm doing... but regardless...

if you don't know the map and join a game with me you will automatically lose

wow.

What's the big deal here? Most 1v1 esc. games are a crap shoot anyway. And there are other complex maps, where you actually need to read the rules if you want to win.

natty_dread wrote:What's the big deal here? Most 1v1 esc. games are a crap shoot anyway. And there are other complex maps, where you actually need to read the rules if you want to win.

Besides Oasis, should maps have their games be done in literally one round of live play?

Yeah, it looks like the victory condition may need to be scotched entirely...

Incandenza wrote:Yeah, it looks like the victory condition may need to be scotched entirely...

S'pose so. Shame there's no way to say the objective doesn't work in 2 player games. If lack does that it would definitely be worth coming back to. Mucho more updates I'd love to see though … different discussion.

Congrats! Hopefully can get the flaws worked out.


--Andy

The starting point name off the Iberian Kingdoms is different on the map and on the legend.
Map: Castile (one "L")
Legend: Castille (double "L")

Yes, the starting armies in London were deliberate brought down because of the (supposed) unfairness of that starting position comparing with the other ones…. That might need to be redone, or even take down Wales neutral troops numbers.

As for the objectives, well, that was part of the concept we were aiming to. Making a map that could actually be won by objectives achievement rather than by conquest.

Anyway, I feel that some of those hanging neutral regions should drop their troop count. Maybe take 1 troop from Wales, Seleucia, Tyre, Venice, Cyprus, Constantinople and maybe Malta and Krak des Chevaliers also.

Gilligan wrote:Game 5903005

Is there any way to give everyone an equal number of 6s? Keiths started with 3 less armies than everyone else.

keiths no likey this

alright i'm playing one on manual and i'm going to let my opponent take his entire turn first and see what that does to your chances of winning, i'm guessing it will hurt immensely if you dont go first on manual placement but we'll see

In order to fix the krathone's problem, we need to raise neutrals in Jerusalem/Granada/Vatican.

As result it will affect all others plays which are not 1vs1.

But I guess we would have to do it.

Too bad that people are not reading the map and allowing for such an easy win for Krapthone...

As per London, we can raise it back to 6, and keep wales at 4. That would be fair I guess.

I wonder if this map will be the next Feudal...

Frankly speaking, even if we remove the winning objectives altogether, K1 still will be able to win most of the games vs beginners.

This is a complex map and requires skills to read.

Actually I’ve been checking some games... take this one with K1 for example Game 5907262

Biock has made a nice move against K1, going after the objectives too. The game is with manual deployment which of course enables players to put all their troops near the targets (objectives), despite the fact the game is stalling, at the moment, with both players fighting equally to reach the objectives.

The problem of playing against rookies will always subsist, especially in maps like AOR where you can win an unaware player in 3 or 4 rounds.

Just wanna say Congrats on the success you have had with your map !

I have lost count of the number of games that I have started up with your AMAZING MAP ! At least 20 now (?)

Congrats !

Thanks!!

I suggested this to andrew, thought I'd throw it out for general consumption...

The problem with just jacking up the neutral values on vacitan, jerusalem, etc. is that it'll take those terits out of play. What if instead the victory condition were altered, so that, for instance, it became "win with 5 starting positions plus jerusalem plus vatican/granada". The VC remains, but it becomes more difficult for a player in the early rounds to achieve.

A novice player can be mated in 4 moves. That is not a reason to change the rules of chess to make it "harder" for strong players to win!

Only if it were to be shown that the game has an in-built flaw which inevitably leads to a 3 round win by a good player irrespective of what another good player does, should the conditions be changed. Otherwise, you will needlessly interfere with a perfectly reasonable victory condition and make it for all intents and purposes irrelevant - by the time one player has the Vatican, Antioch, Jerusalem AND 5 starting points there isn't really much of a game left

I think the current set-up should be tested thoroughly by good players familiar with the map before any changes are made.

Kab, have you considered simply removing the victory condition?

yes, but that would be a map with a different concept. I would really like to test more this victory conditions and make them viable.

AndrewB wrote:In order to fix the krathone's problem, we need to raise neutrals in Jerusalem/Granada/Vatican.

As result it will affect all others plays which are not 1vs1.

But I guess we would have to do it.

Too bad that people are not reading the map and allowing for such an easy win for Krapthone...

As per London, we can raise it back to 6, and keep wales at 4. That would be fair I guess.

+1
increase neutrals (i'd go so far as to suggest 10!) and increase troops on England. Whoever has England still has all his other armies to think about...
Or if that's too many neutrals change the victory condition to Vatican AND Granada, though it would make it difficult to win and having both religions wouldn't make much sense.
Glad to see this is finally up!

Typo in the Xml, Balkan is spelled Balcan.
Also, some of the bonus values seem very odd, Poland, Hungary, Sicily. You may have reasons for this though, I haven't read the thread.

yes

Poland, Hungary and the Balkans were widely discussed. They hold small bonus but that's part of the concept.