The King's Court [Quenched]

[Electricksabers]

This is not a big deal, but the troops (numbers) on N40 and N41 are in the middle of the terry and not at the bottom. Just thought I would point it out.

BTW I like the map, and i am interested to see how the changes affect the play

[mc05025]

Beautiful and complicated map.

The bishop is the less powerful counselor.

The Lord Chamberlain in the most situations gives 1 more troops than the others counselors
the two other counselors have the abilities to attack knights and archers.
But the poor Bishop have nothing. Why don't you allow to bombard some villages?

[chipv]

That is a brilliant idea.

[carlpgoodrich]

I'm not crazy about the Bishop bombarding some villages. First, it will take a few lines to explain, and I'm not sure there is room. More importantly, the role villages play right now is as a small bonus that encourages expansion, and the extra threat of bombardment would make them much weaker. The abilities of the Duke and Field Marshal to attack/bombard the map are relatively weak, but since villages are a major source of income (err.. deployable toops?) this would be very powerful. Also, it doesn't make sense for a bishop to be attacking villages... what an a** hole he would be! If you want to make the bishop more powerful, I would rather see something like +2 per 3 villages (instead of +1 for 2 and bombard some villages). This would not change the role of villages in the gameplay, which I think is very good as is.

[Kabanellas]

Beautiful and complicated map.

The bishop is the less powerful counselor.

The Lord Chamberlain in the most situations gives 1 more troops than the others counselors
the two other counselors have the abilities to attack knights and archers.
But the poor Bishop have nothing. Why don't you allow to bombard some villages?

I've thought of that but dropped the idea. Mainly because letting him bombard 'V' villages would be unfair for Castles that have their second villages as 'V's

...and yes , I also wouldn't have the space for it in the legend board

[Culs De Sac]

Damn.. having to take a castle..seems a bit absurd to me... I don't like the new idea of it being a neutral.. thats just bonkers....

as for the 2 castle start instead of 4.. i guess its fine in 1v1.. just means more guess work.. i didnt mind the 4 castle scenario.


must say im really dissappointed about having to take the castle now... changes gameplay completely

[codierose]

sorry but this time piss poor changes

[GoranZ]

recent changes made the map even more interesting(now it doesn't matter if you are first or last)

btw field bordering B5, B6, N07, S2, N08 should be rock I think(IDK if k3 can attack N07 now)

Perfect map, very good work from the creators

[Area 51 Abductor]

Damn.. having to take a castle..seems a bit absurd to me... I don't like the new idea of it being a neutral.. thats just bonkers....

I agree, at least make the castle start out with only 1 neutral army. Its tough enough starting most games with a bad rolls. But on this one it pretty much gg if you start out with a bad roll.

[Rob Mc]

I understand that when I bombard my troops don't move off the catapult...but why can't I move troops off the catapult during the reinforcement phase of my turn?

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I understand that when I bombard my troops don't move off the catapult...but why can't I move troops off the catapult during the reinforcement phase of my turn?

Because territories that are bombarded by your catapults are not considered to be connected to the catapults. Only attackable territories are considered to be connected. For this reason the only place you would be able to fort your catapult guys to would be to the nearest Trebuchet, should you have taken it that turn and own it.

For this map, it would be nearly pointless to do so though, since you would just lose all your guys. Catapults are primarily used for helping you take back your castle area once someone has attacked you and failed to completely remove you from the area. They're also used for bombarding your opponents bonuses through the trebuchets, which often there is little to no point in doing until the catapults have accumulated a dozen or two troops on them.

[wolfmaster]

Need to check on some of army placement
for e2 village start with 1 neutral.
for n54 start with 2 neutral

[nemrehs1]

with knight K6 I couldn't assault archer S4.

Also, now F is the only castle which only has one village around it, this would give that player a starting disadvantage.

[Pirlo]

with knight K6 I couldn't assault archer S4.

Also, now F is the only castle which only has one village around it, this would give that player a starting disadvantage.

and would give the opponents an obvious clue

all i need is to get the ground color a bit lighter...

in general, this map is very sexy though

- Andrea the Charmer

[chipv]

Need to check on some of army placement
for e2 village start with 1 neutral.
for n54 start with 2 neutral

Well spotted, XML has been submitted, thanks.

with knight K6 I couldn't assault archer S4.
Also, now F is the only castle which only has one village around it, this would give that player a starting disadvantage.

S4 is an impassable so K6 cannot attack S4.

F has other advantages.

[nemrehs1]

F has other advantages.

What are the other advantages of F?

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

F has other advantages.

What are the other advantages of F?

First one that jumps out is that it's catapult can attack four other castles. No direct access from an impassable S archer as well, making it a little easier to keep archer attacks at bay with the knight. It's also a lot easier to clean up the mess left behind by an archer attack.

Those are the ones that've jumped out to me. I'm not sure if there are any others that I've overlooked.

[Kabanellas]

it also has a good access to knights. From V6 you can reach K7 that controls a lot of other knights... Also, unlike Castle G (its direct opponent), Castle F catapult can reach S6 archer.

[danryan]

The archers seem to have been reduced to near irrelevance with the 4 neutral on the S archers - maybe it's just me but I've found the catapult to trebuchet is a much more effective bombardment route?

I'm completely ambivalent still on the castles starting neutral - my preference was the old start because if you fail on that first try for your castle from the noble you're in deep doo doo, but I can see it both ways as this is the classic conquest style start.

[Kabanellas]

The archers seem to have been reduced to near irrelevance with the 4 neutral on the S archers

Dan remember than those 4 neutral troops on 'S' archers exist on those that directly connect Castle Archers. That was implemented a long time ago in the first updates to the XML.

As for the change in the Starting points - chip and I we're still debating them. There's a downside to it like that you mentioned, people do have a fairly big chance of failing to get the castle (or castles) on the first round. On the other hand you have some cool advantages like having just 2 starting points per player on 1v1 and being capable of using the manual deployment feature.

[fumandomuerte]

The log reads different for maps when players are holding their catapults (only +2 besides castles)... That gives a lot of information about the location of certain player if you read it carefully in FoW games.
For example in certain castles the log marks +2 added to ? (castle) and then +2 added to ? (the catapult) while other castles have a +1 added to ? in the middle corresponding to an archer or a knight.

Not a problem and I actually like that trick

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

The archers seem to have been reduced to near irrelevance with the 4 neutral on the S archers

Dan remember than those 4 neutral troops on 'S' archers exist on those that directly connect Castle Archers. That was implemented a long time ago in the first updates to the XML.

As for the change in the Starting points - chip and I we're still debating them. There's a downside to it like that you mentioned, people do have a fairly big chance of failing to get the castle (or castles) on the first round. On the other hand you have some cool advantages like having just 2 starting points per player on 1v1 and being capable of using the manual deployment feature.

One easy way to fix the potential problems with not getting a castle on the first turn would be to readjust the neutral values on the castles to 1 (which would almost guarentee everybody would be able to take their castle round 1) or 2 (which at least increases the chance of players getting their castles round 1).

[Kabanellas]

One easy way to fix the potential problems with not getting a castle on the first turn would be to readjust the neutral values on the castles to 1 (which would almost guarentee everybody would be able to take their castle round 1) or 2 (which at least increases the chance of players getting their castles round 1).

but then the non-attributed Noble's Castles, would be a too easy catch. Actually they are already an easy catch at 3 neutral troops. The knights + castles bonus are cumulative so owning 2 castles makes a big difference.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

One easy way to fix the potential problems with not getting a castle on the first turn would be to readjust the neutral values on the castles to 1 (which would almost guarentee everybody would be able to take their castle round 1) or 2 (which at least increases the chance of players getting their castles round 1).

but then the non-attributed Noble's Castles, would be a too easy catch. Actually they are already an easy catch at 3 neutral troops. The knights + castles bonus are cumulative so owning 2 castles makes a big difference.

Then perhaps a more appropriate setup would be to have the castles at a higher neutral and then set the nobles to start with a higher number on them? A 6 noble and 4 castle will have a 3 to 1 chance of taking the castle. If you wanted to have better odds, then 7 noble and 4 castle would have approximately 6 to 1 chance. Having a 6 noble and 3 castle would produce a roughly 6 to 1 chance of taking the castle as well, if you wanted to leave the castle at 3.

The values can be played with, but I would think that the concept should at least work out.

[mc05025]

I play only big games (8 players) and I prefer to play with good players so I will tell you one problem about that kind of games.

In a lot of maps, the big games (8 players) with flat rate are very likely to end to a stalemate.
These games are veeeery boring and they end when a player or players miss their turns and be kicked out or with a suiside.

This map has an additional problem that the catapelts and archers make better defence than attacks.
I have allready seen games that there was a great danger to end at a stalemate. For example see game 8200655. A good playing at that game will end at a stalemate although red played very well and at the biggining of the game had three castles and much more troops than anyone else.

Sollution.

The only solution I can imagine is to give more combined bonuses so when a player becomes very strong to be very difficult for the others to fight him.
For example give extra bonuses for the player with two castles (triple villages bonus for two castles and x6 villages bonus for three castles etc).

That is only an example of course. I do not know if something like that created problems at other kinds of games like 1vc1. But at 8 player game the solution I suggested whould give a very good reason for everybody to make many big attacks and it would reduse very much the problem of the stalemates.


I agree that your last change at the castles (start only with a noble) made the game worse because if someone has one or two bad rolls at the beggining he has completely lost.