Castle Conquer

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:46 am

I probably will not work on this for a while but I wanted to get the idea out there.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:53 am

Yeah my and WM talked about changing the theme of the sperm thread to something else, and we semi-agreed that this makes the most sense.

It was a funny conversation.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:55 am

1. i liked the sperm thing better. it adds the element of humor in maps. a thing that's been missing for a long time.
2. this version has a bad gameplay. worse than sperm map. on fertilization you have the sperms and the egg. sperms can't attack eachother so the only way to win is to take the egg.
here nobody will go for the castle because it's a lot easyer to kill all the other players. so kinda pointless if you ask me.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:43 am

You could have two starting territories per player: One bombards the castle and one attacks it, however all reinforcements are directly placed on the bombarding territory.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:09 pm

unriggable wrote:You could have two starting territories per player: One bombards the castle and one attacks it, however all reinforcements are directly placed on the bombarding territory.

first of all that's impossible. you can't code in the xml that a player gets all the yellow and another player gets all the blue. it's impossible. so if you make everything except the castle available from start then a guy might get 2-3 camps and somebody else might get none.

so the only solution now is to make the siege points start neutral.

BUT the problem of this map is that the siege points connect so let's say i start with yellow and you start with red.

i get my 6 armies + the 3 i have in the camp and attack the 3 neutrals in the yellow siege point. i take it without a single loss and put 8 armies there.

then it's your turn. you deploy your 6 and attack your siege point. you lose let's say 5 armies (very possible in a 9v3 attack). now you have 3 in siege and 1 in camp.

my turn again. i have 8 on my siege and i automatically get 6 on my camp. i come with my 8 and kill you. and because it's assassin it's game over. no need for taking the castle and stuff like that.

and even if it's not assassin i still kill you and now i have 2 camps and 2 sieges. next turn i use my troops and kill another player and so on. i simply go around the map and kill everybody without bothering to attack the castle.

see what i mean? the gameplay is screwed compared to the fertilization map where as the egg actually is important and all people must attack it.

Aerial Attack · Post by **Aerial Attack** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:15 pm

DiM,

You aren't reading the map/legend correctly - You can't attack the anyone else's home base. That would make Assassin and Terminator moot points in terms of game type. You have to conquer the castle to win - plain and simple

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:46 pm

Aerial Attack wrote:DiM,

You aren't reading the map/legend correctly - You can't attack the anyone else's home base. That would make Assassin and Terminator moot points in terms of game type. You have to conquer the castle to win - plain and simple

6 big black one way arrows. how the heck did i miss them? #-o

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:39 pm

fun, this does not look.

spiesr · Post by **spiesr** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:41 pm

It needs to be that whomever takes the castle wins atomatically, althought that is probably impossible...
And everyone would just build and not attack forever...

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:49 pm

Just posted this on the sperm thread before I saw this... i repeat myself:

There's too much potential for games to be decided entirely by luck.
• Scenario A: Player One wins because he auto-attacks the 100 with a stack of 45 and wins.
• Scenario B: Player One auto-attacks and comes within five armies of breaking the 100; Player Two wins by virtue of the fact that his turn comes after dumb-ass auto-attacker.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:50 pm

oaktown wrote:Just posted this on the sperm thread before I saw this... i repeat myself:

There's too much potential for games to be decided entirely by luck.
• Scenario A: Player One wins because he auto-attacks the 100 with a stack of 45 and wins.
• Scenario B: Player One auto-attacks and comes within five armies of breaking the 100; Player Two wins by virtue of the fact that his turn comes after dumb-ass auto-attacker.

Actually that is not how it works. To win the game the only way would be through holding the castle for 1 round.

If you managed to kill all 100 with 45. The next 1-5 players would probably bombard you to death pretty quickly.

WM

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:55 am

WidowMakers wrote:
oaktown wrote:Just posted this on the sperm thread before I saw this... i repeat myself:

There's too much potential for games to be decided entirely by luck.
• Scenario A: Player One wins because he auto-attacks the 100 with a stack of 45 and wins.
• Scenario B: Player One auto-attacks and comes within five armies of breaking the 100; Player Two wins by virtue of the fact that his turn comes after dumb-ass auto-attacker.
Actually that is not how it works. To win the game the only way would be through holding the castle for 1 round.

If you managed to kill all 100 with 45. The next 1-5 players would probably bombard you to death pretty quickly.

WM

That's not how <objective>'s work...

If you hold them you win... end of... there is no turn wait.

C.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:56 am

The objectives don't evaluate if they are achieved or not until the start of your turn. So you need to keep it for a turn.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:10 am

Coleman wrote:The objectives don't evaluate if they are achieved or not until the start of your turn. So you need to keep it for a turn.

Are you sure? I thought that was the plan -> But then Lack changed his mind?

Hmmm -> I shall have to do some investigation...

C.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:17 am

yeti_c wrote:
Coleman wrote:The objectives don't evaluate if they are achieved or not until the start of your turn. So you need to keep it for a turn.

Are you sure? I thought that was the plan -> But then Lack changed his mind?

Hmmm -> I shall have to do some investigation...

C.

I guess this is a big deal. Well If it does not require holding for one round, there is a problem.

Lets wait and see.

WM

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:26 am

WidowMakers wrote:
yeti_c wrote:
Coleman wrote:The objectives don't evaluate if they are achieved or not until the start of your turn. So you need to keep it for a turn.

Are you sure? I thought that was the plan -> But then Lack changed his mind?

Hmmm -> I shall have to do some investigation...

C.
I guess this is a big deal. Well If it does not require holding for one round, there is a problem.

Lets wait and see.

WM

Hmmm -> In the "XML mods" topic... the idea of turns and 1 turn is mentioned but I couldn't find anything concrete...

However I suspect Coleman might be right actually (and that makes ME wrong... I hate being wrong!!!)

C.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:52 pm

Does this sound like a good idea. I need to know because I want to make it all in 3D (example: Castle, armies) and that will take some time. I am willing to do it but only if there is support. This map will only have 13 territories (but very different gameplay) so the detail to the map will be very high.

WM

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:09 pm

I scratch my head on this map. **Eats a banana, scratches his head**
It is such an odd...but interesting departure from the Classic. I don't even know where to stand on this. Very rarely am I ever on board with map ideas in the early going...and this isn't any different.

But, we do know there are niches for maps that take game play, and twist and contort it...look at DiM's maps, along with some of Cairnswk's maps also.

If 3 people are playing, would the other camps simply be not applicable? Or would each person get two camps?

More feedback and input on this idea is needed...but I like that everyone is thinking outside the banana peel now.

--Andy

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:52 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:If 3 people are playing, would the other camps simply be not applicable? Or would each person get two camps?

--Andy

It works just like other maps. Divide the number of territories by the number of players and the remainder are neutral.

2 players => each start with 2 camps (2 camps neutral)
3 players => each start with 2 camps (0 camps neutral)
4 players => each start with 1 camp (2 camps neutral)
5 players => each start with 1 camp (1 camp neutral)
6 players => each start with 1 camps (0 camps neutral)

All siege points around castle start with 1 neutral army.
All bonus is automatically deployed to camp (a -3 bonus to eliminate teh automatic 3 amies)

Only when cards are played would a person be able to deploy in other territories.

This map would never allow a player to be eliminated by another. So no assassin or terminator.

You must hold the castle to win!!

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:35 pm

The biggest problem is ensuring that players start with their respective attackers.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:37 pm

unriggable wrote:The biggest problem is ensuring that players start with their respective attackers.

I dont know what you mean. There are only 6 starting territories, the camps. The siege points and castle start neutral.

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:44 am

WidowMakers wrote:I probably will not work on this for a while but I wanted to get the idea out there.

i cant see the image

zimmah · Post by **zimmah** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:12 pm

yeti_c wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:
oaktown wrote:Just posted this on the sperm thread before I saw this... i repeat myself:

There's too much potential for games to be decided entirely by luck.
• Scenario A: Player One wins because he auto-attacks the 100 with a stack of 45 and wins.
• Scenario B: Player One auto-attacks and comes within five armies of breaking the 100; Player Two wins by virtue of the fact that his turn comes after dumb-ass auto-attacker.
Actually that is not how it works. To win the game the only way would be through holding the castle for 1 round.

If you managed to kill all 100 with 45. The next 1-5 players would probably bombard you to death pretty quickly.

WM

That's not how <objective>'s work...

If you hold them you win... end of... there is no turn wait.

C.

can't you just program your way around it? i'm still pretty noob to xml files but i'm kinda sure you could work your way around it if that was the only problem..

Bad Speler · Post by **Bad Speler** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:54 pm

I'm very concerned that this will be a build up game in every no cards game.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:17 am

zimmah wrote:
yeti_c wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:
oaktown wrote:Just posted this on the sperm thread before I saw this... i repeat myself:

There's too much potential for games to be decided entirely by luck.
• Scenario A: Player One wins because he auto-attacks the 100 with a stack of 45 and wins.
• Scenario B: Player One auto-attacks and comes within five armies of breaking the 100; Player Two wins by virtue of the fact that his turn comes after dumb-ass auto-attacker.
Actually that is not how it works. To win the game the only way would be through holding the castle for 1 round.

If you managed to kill all 100 with 45. The next 1-5 players would probably bombard you to death pretty quickly.

WM

That's not how <objective>'s work...

If you hold them you win... end of... there is no turn wait.

C.

can't you just program your way around it? i'm still pretty noob to xml files but i'm kinda sure you could work your way around it if that was the only problem..

It's OK we worked out that I was wrong = objectives are evaluated at the beginning of every turn not at the end...

C.

Castle Conquer

Castle Conquer

Re: Castle Conquer