Moderator: Cartographers
yeah ... uh ... your socks smellSpockers wrote:Any more hard hitting evidence, House?DiM wrote:well they're both from australia, they played a lot of games in the same team and when they played standard games or when spockers was on another team keyogi always won.Telvannia wrote:Goalie wrote:this map is terrible
never touch it again
Good god, someone call in the multihunters, it is spockers multi
(anyone else notice that spockers vanished when keyogi did?)
i smell a multi.
nope nothing is. no autodeploy bonus on this episode. there will be some autodeploy zones in the next episode.rebelman wrote:i thought the sanctuary was auto deployDiM wrote:
it's not autodeploy.![]()
i'll see what i can fit in the legend. it's rather tight at the momentColeman wrote:Just one shield, for villages. The others would be incredibly redundant, unless you have a plan to make it look really good, which you probably do. But the only insistence is on the village shield.




grrr you are starting to make this too easy to follow - my major point farming plans might have to be put on holdDiM wrote:i have added shields for castles villages and the sanctuary in the legend but i have removed the glow for those words. i feel that the shields provide enough info. and to have just some words colored seemed odd. i'd rather have the words not colored than to color everything. i think it's more than clear the way it is now.
i take it this means the legend is pretty clear nowrebelman wrote:grrr you are starting to make this too easy to follow - my major point farming plans might have to be put on holdDiM wrote:i have added shields for castles villages and the sanctuary in the legend but i have removed the glow for those words. i feel that the shields provide enough info. and to have just some words colored seemed odd. i'd rather have the words not colored than to color everything. i think it's more than clear the way it is now.
players start with a castle each all other territories are neutralmibi wrote:so you get +5 just for holding one castle? are they going to start neutral?
mibi, mate, read a few pages back. (i think around page 30) and you'll find a simulation of a map with the starting neutrals.mibi wrote:so you get +5 just for holding one castle? are they going to start neutral?
in 2p games each player gets 2 castles and 2 are neutralmibi wrote:so what about 2 or 4 players? wouldnt that be imbalanced.yeti_c wrote:No no - the castle is where you start...mibi wrote:so you get +5 just for holding one castle? are they going to start neutral?
C.
could be. actually i'm pretty sure it is. but only time will tell.yeti_c wrote:In fact possibly the most balanced map here...Coleman wrote:Yeah, this was conquest gameplay, we discussed this a while back.
Not imbalanced.
C.
in response to an earlier query by me DiM indicated when the long awaited 8 player games come in all castles would be neutrals and you would start with peasantsDiM wrote:
in 2p games each player gets 2 castles and 2 are neutral
in 3p games each player gets 2 castles and 0 are neutral
in 4p games each player gets 1 castle and 2 are neutral
in 5p games each player gets 1 castle and 1 is neutral
in 6p games each player gets 1 castle and 0 are neutral
i don't see what's imbalanced
in 2p and 3p games let's each player gets 10 troops to place where he wants. so 10 plus the innitial 3 on the castle = 13 troops. to get to another castle you must go through at least 12-15 neutrals plus the other guy's 3 troops all spread over 4-6 terits. double that because the other player has 2 castles and the result is that in order to eliminate another player in round 1 you must kill 24-30 troops spread over 8-12 terits. in case there are 12 terits it means you must have perfect dice each and every time and win battles like 2v3 and so on. not impossible but with a success rate of 0.0...01% i'd say it's pretty negligibleColeman wrote:There is a slight concern with going first at 3 players and below. A particularly lucky player with the dice could do a lot of damage to another player before they could act.
That said, they couldn't hope to charge two castles simultaneously, and a failure would leave a trail of 1s back to the aggressive castle.
ah cool then.Coleman wrote:It'd be similar to the code that blocks 5 players from playing doubles.
If map (part of selection) than players > than 6 not allowed. It's really that simple (in psuedocode anyways). Err, assuming this app is in a code that has selections.