1v1 only map? questions within...

[BaldAdonis]

your full of shit baldy, even classic plays that way. And I don't appreciate your tone in this post, just because im not a colonel any more doesn't mean I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

Stick to escalating games, or at the very least, don't give advice about two player games. You don't know what you're talking about, and if you don't distribute fairly often on Classic, you'll lose more than you should.

But one thing to bear in mind is that, in conquest gameplay, there often isn't a chance (or it doesn't make sense strategically) to spread out your deployment to maximize your attack dice, as there is in waterloo.

Yes yes. If you're silly enough to play a 6 player map like Feudal War, Age of Realms or City Mogul with two players, then you get what you deserve.

[Incandenza]

But one thing to bear in mind is that, in conquest gameplay, there often isn't a chance (or it doesn't make sense strategically) to spread out your deployment to maximize your attack dice, as there is in waterloo.

Yes yes. If you're silly enough to play a 6 player map like Feudal War, Age of Realms or City Mogul with two players, then you get what you deserve.

Oh, I dunno, I've been playing a bit of AoR 1v1 recently, and there's certainly a case to be made that it's not just about dice. But I see your point. The problem is that, of all the maps on the site, precious precious few make for good 1v1s, and even those on a somewhat ad-hoc basis.

I for one would like to see a small variety of dedicated 1v1 maps, with different gameplay philosophies applied to each. But this is a good first step.

[Georgerx7di]

your full of shit baldy, even classic plays that way. And I don't appreciate your tone in this post, just because im not a colonel any more doesn't mean I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

Stick to escalating games, or at the very least, don't give advice about two player games. You don't know what you're talking about, and if you don't distribute fairly often on Classic, you'll lose more than you should.

But one thing to bear in mind is that, in conquest gameplay, there often isn't a chance (or it doesn't make sense strategically) to spread out your deployment to maximize your attack dice, as there is in waterloo.

Yes yes. If you're silly enough to play a 6 player map like Feudal War, Age of Realms or City Mogul with two players, then you get what you deserve.

I edited my post. A friend told me that this was uncalled for. I did however find your comment disrespectful, and I still disagree with you; however he was right about the way in which I said it so I changed it.

[BaldAdonis]

I for one would like to see a small variety of dedicated 1v1 maps, with different gameplay philosophies applied to each. But this is a good first step.

What sorts of gameplay philosophies can you imagine coming up though? It seems that with the way the dice work (attacker's advantage), that almost every game will boil down to being the player who attacks more (so generally the one who attacks first). I like sully's idea about having multiple routes to the other player, but like Age of Realms you'd need fog to make it interesting. Setting up the paths could be terribly complicated, and a player's choice could be betrayed immediately even in the fog (e.g. if he takes 3 territories, he's probably going along the easy, long path).

e_i_pi had a plan involving a starting base and a symmetric map, with one path leading from a larger central section to each base. I figure with a few bombarding territories and small bonuses near the base, and larger bonuses in the centre, you can reward both offensive and defensive maneuvers.

I did however find your comment disrespectful, and I still disagree with you; however he was right about the way in which I said it so I changed it.

I'd be glad to play some games against you and show you how it works. Just give me a few weeks when I've got more time on my hands.

[Incandenza]

I for one would like to see a small variety of dedicated 1v1 maps, with different gameplay philosophies applied to each. But this is a good first step.

What sorts of gameplay philosophies can you imagine coming up though? It seems that with the way the dice work (attacker's advantage), that almost every game will boil down to being the player who attacks more (so generally the one who attacks first). I like sully's idea about having multiple routes to the other player, but like Age of Realms you'd need fog to make it interesting. Setting up the paths could be terribly complicated, and a player's choice could be betrayed immediately even in the fog (e.g. if he takes 3 territories, he's probably going along the easy, long path).

Well...

To tackle your last point first, I think that any 1v1 map would have to be built with fog in mind (though you'd be surprised how much fog simply baffles the average player).

And perhaps "philosophies" wasn't the best word choice, more like "variants". There's loads of elements that can be tweaked to produce different maps (and thus different gameplay experiences): size, bonus types, neutral strength, extra game features, etc. Tho the attacker's advantage is what it is, there's a demonstrable difference between playing doodle and 2.1.

e_i_pi had a plan involving a starting base and a symmetric map, with one path leading from a larger central section to each base. I figure with a few bombarding territories and small bonuses near the base, and larger bonuses in the centre, you can reward both offensive and defensive maneuvers.

"I am familiar with the works of Pablo Neruda."

[Hatchman]

Interesting idea Oaktown. I'm looking forward to the outcome.

For what it's worth, I've always though it would be a good idea if the person who starts the 1 vs 1 could select what percentage of territories should be neutral. This would minimize the impact of that first turn.

[ustus]

how would having the person who goes first choose how much of the map no one controls make this SAME PERSON any less likely to win? wouldn't they choose whatever number is best for them? on that note, wouldn't each percent neutral theoretically give both players an even start, and therefore give the first person the same greater chance to weaken the second person? please explain, doesn't make sense to me.

[Hatchman]

I meant he who sets it up yo.

On some sites, when you set up a game, you can basically make a 4-player game or whatever and have 2 players be neutral. If the map has 42 countries, this means everyone starts with 10 countries. The neutrals do nothing. So it's basically a 1vs1 with a bunch of neutrals. The non-neutral players start with 3 armies. Now, a 1vs1 on the same map with no neutral players would result in 7 armies on Turn 1 for the the guy who goes first. Feel me?

[AndyDufresne]

I like this discussion---there have been some good quality points made---I'm sure a few cartographers will take some of these ideas in account. I know in the Foundry as of late, we've been looking quite intensely into 1vs1 starts...so we'll see the fruit of some of this thought soon I expect!


--Andy