[GO] New Initial Deployment - Conquest

[greenoaks]

Initial Deployment - Conquest

Concise description:

• Every player starts with 1 and only 1 terit

Specifics/Details:

• Instead of starting with 8, 10 or 12 terits you get 1 and must advance from there - no more dropping bonuses
• This would be a conquest mode similar to the Realms, the Feudals & the King's Courts maps but for every map

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• It will double the number of maps on this site without doubling the number of maps.
• Provides an alternative option to Automatic or Manual in Initial Deployment

[DoomYoshi]

Very similar to [Choose Number of Starting Territories]. Do you prefer only having the one option or do you think I can merge this?

[greenoaks]

Very similar to [Choose Number of Starting Territories]. Do you prefer only having the one option or do you think I can merge this?

with [Choose Number of Starting Territories] you choose the number of starting terits. with this it is fixed at 1, always 1.

[DoomYoshi]

Ok, how about a more unique title then?

Conquest Mode? Initial Deployment - Conquest? Start with 1 territory Only?

Any of those are better than the current title as it a)is non-unique and b) describes this suggestion less than fazeem's.

[agentcom]

Very similar to [Choose Number of Starting Territories]. Do you prefer only having the one option or do you think I can merge this?

I said that he could break it out from that topic because people were thinking that the conversation was getting too cluttered over there. We can always merge them back later if this proves unproductive.

But yeah, agree with DY about the title

[greenoaks]

Very similar to [Choose Number of Starting Territories]. Do you prefer only having the one option or do you think I can merge this?

I said that he could break it out from that topic because people were thinking that the conversation was getting too cluttered over there. We can always merge them back later if this proves unproductive.

But yeah, agree with DY about the title

it had a unique title but someone changed it.

[DoomYoshi]

Sorry greenoaks, I'm not sure who, but it's all solved, so let's get the discussion started.

I support this idea.

[nicestash]

In the 'choose number of starting territories; thread, this is what we had pretty much agreed to (I don't know why the idea was never submitted). Just as I supported it there, I support the idea here.

[agentcom]

In the 'choose number of starting territories; thread, this is what we had pretty much agreed to (I don't know why the idea was never submitted). Just as I supported it there, I support the idea here.

My understanding is that some people want to flesh out the details of this one; don't want it to get mixed in with other discussions about lower starting troop count; and would like this suggestion to go forward with or without additional lower territory count options.

[DoomYoshi]

So there is only a few questions:
how would neutrals be decided?

how would balance be ensured? Let's say its trench and I start in Australia, and you start in NA... are we going to have preset starts or just let it be random? This is why I think an option of 2 tert starts works. It is still conquest style, since if I play New World, I get more than 1 start location.

[greenoaks]

So there is only a few questions:
how would neutrals be decided?

how would balance be ensured? Let's say its trench and I start in Australia, and you start in NA... are we going to have preset starts or just let it be random? This is why I think an option of 2 tert starts works. It is still conquest style, since if I play New World, I get more than 1 start location.

Conquest Deployment is 1 terit, decided randomly from the available starting terits. in Classic it could be anywhere on the map, with Feudal it would be 1 of the castles.

for a map like Pot Mosbi that has normal terits and auto-deploys assigned at the start then it should be 1 auto-deploy or 1 normal terit but everyone in the game gets the same type of starting terit.

[DoomYoshi]

Ok. Are neutrals starting at 3? What is the starting value of player territories? 3 also?

[greenoaks]

Ok. Are neutrals starting at 3? What is the starting value of player territories? 3 also?

Neutrals would start with whatever they do now. for most maps that is 3 however there are some terits that currently start with 2, 5 or some other figure. they would continue to start with that figure.

3 would be the starting value for players. a large number would be similar to Manual single terit deployed on and 1 or 2 would make it far too difficult to advance from the 1st turn.

if the starting terit is a castle that currently starts with more then it would continue to start with that under Conquest.

[Fazeem]

Conquest mode a game start option where each player begins with a single territory


Each player starts game with a single starting point territory all other territories on map are neutral, Players then battle towards one another building a empire/force from scratch. From the beginning every seeking out and risking immediate battle by joining a conquest game.


It will add a great new gameplay option providing more variety and enjoyment all around here. A number of Maps will be far more challenging and it will enhance features like fog of war and nuclear. Players will have to place a lot of forethought on whether they choose to play as this setting has the potential to make a game very fast or slow depending on the great random factors of drop and dice. Overall it would be yet another defining facet in the sites continual growth of variations that everyone can appreciate

Based on ideas from this thread viewtopic.php?f=4&t=184336

[NoSurvivors]

I think it is a great idea. They do have maps such as feudal war and Age of Realms where you can play such games.. But I think it would make for an interesting setting, though you couldnt play it on some maps (city mogul for instance)

[iamkoolerthanu]

I'd play this, it would turn each game into a different game even when on the same map, depending on where you started. Could be interesting, though it would make dice a huge factor, though people would know this when walking into the game

[spiesr]

MERGED: Conquest Mode

[Fazeem]

sorry did not see greenoaks had made it already lol but we need a poll definitely

[spiesr]

sorry did not see greenoaks had made it already lol but we need a poll definitely

Is this poll sufficient?

[Fazeem]

sorry did not see greenoaks had made it already lol but we need a poll definitely

Is this poll sufficient?

Looks good to me.

[agentcom]

So there is only a few questions:
how would neutrals be decided?

how would balance be ensured? Let's say its trench and I start in Australia, and you start in NA... are we going to have preset starts or just let it be random? This is why I think an option of 2 tert starts works. It is still conquest style, since if I play New World, I get more than 1 start location.

No preset starts ... let's not make this more complicated and have to go back and put in new xml for existing maps. Any available starting territ can become a starting territ. In games that are already restricted to one starting territ, this setting doesn't matter (just like all those people who get their manual deployment medals from Baseball, etc.). In games that have mixed-type starting positions, there is usually a "base" (Pot Mosbi, All Your Base). These maps would have to undergo xml changes to add tags for which territs are bases. These bases would become the starting position by default for all maps already created. Mapmakers in the future would have the option to add this tag to what most people would consider bases or to the other territs that are out in the open.

If it's trench and you start in Aus and the other player starts in NA, then maybe you're screwed--just like if it's trench and you drop 3 Aus territs and Bangkok. ... But maybe not. It would take your opponent 8 or 9 turns to get up to NA with great dice and if he knew exactly where you were. But in a foggy game, he may not know where to head and you probably have more than a dozen turns to go for NA and start defending Anchorage (because you'll know by then that Anchorage is the closest territ to his bonus). I don't think that we have to go crazy trying to proof these things against bad luck. Make your own luck or make another game. It all works out in the end. Or else people who like less luck in their games decide not to play certain map & setting combinations.

[patrickaa317]

What happens when it's a four player game and three start next to each other then the fourth starts on the opposite side of the world? One good thing about the current conquest maps are sufficient neutrals in between players, if it's completely random starting territs some people may be done before they get a turn.

[greenoaks]

What happens when it's a four player game and three start next to each other then the fourth starts on the opposite side of the world? One good thing about the current conquest maps are sufficient neutrals in between players, if it's completely random starting territs some people may be done before they get a turn.

and you know that going into the game. plus we already have that for Assassin on maps like Doodle Earth.

[patrickaa317]

What happens when it's a four player game and three start next to each other then the fourth starts on the opposite side of the world? One good thing about the current conquest maps are sufficient neutrals in between players, if it's completely random starting territs some people may be done before they get a turn.

and you know that going into the game. plus we already have that for Assassin on maps like Doodle Earth.

Then I'm going to have to oppose the idea. If there would be some territ control, I think it could be a really fun idea but one more thing deciding the game revolving around dumb luck I can't support.

[thenobodies80]

Add an option to do something we can already do with maps?
For what I can read in this thread, specially the latest agantcom's post, it seems a huge amount of work, high risk of mistakes and a long period to balance the option.
Imo too much for something we can already do balancing the map, while developing it.

I like greenoaks and mostly all his suggestions but this one is probably the weakest one to my eyes. (sorry )
I prefer to have maps developed exactly for the conquest style instead of having it as an option.

Nobodies

P.s. On a similar note, a conquest/mission mode, with dedicated maps, is something that intrigues me more....