Knights

Swimmerdude99 · Post by **Swimmerdude99** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:24 pm

I am a fan of the map concept, in fact would be one of my favorites. however the 5 troop thing is about to make me quit playing the map, it makes the game all dice in team games. it needs to be something like you always get 3 troops, but you get a bonus of 1 troop for every 5 territs? or soemthing like that?.... the automatic 5 is insane though

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:51 pm

swimmerdude99 wrote:I am a fan of the map concept, in fact would be one of my favorites. however the 5 troop thing is about to make me quit playing the map, it makes the game all dice in team games. it needs to be something like you always get 3 troops, but you get a bonus of 1 troop for every 5 territs? or soemthing like that?.... the automatic 5 is insane though

I haven't played the map yet, but this sounds interesting...

--Andy

danfrank · Post by **danfrank** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:26 pm

congrats on the beta ... Suggestion forting can be done adjacently as well as in the knights directions .. is that correct ? i feel forting should be done in the same manner knight moves only

ManBungalow · Post by **ManBungalow** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:29 pm

danfrank wrote: congrats on the beta ... Suggestion forting can be done adjacently as well as in the knights directions .. is that correct ? i feel forting should be done in the same manner knight moves only

Forts are made along attack routes. The XML doesn't allow different routes for attacks/forts.

danfrank · Post by **danfrank** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:32 pm

the five is a bit steep

Ninja Champion · Post by **Ninja Champion** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:42 pm

Found a small error:

G2 Should start as 3 neutral Game 10810496

Awesome map so far, I love it. Certainly some different gameplay.. I have no issue with the 5 troops due while I'm at it.

chapcrap · Post by **chapcrap** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:57 pm

I think the 5 troops is a lot for team games and larger games. I would agree with swimmer's idea.

Make it 3 and +1 for 5/6/7 terts or something.

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:29 pm

The error has been reported and the new xml should be uploaded any day now. I has buggered some of the games up. In 4, 6 and 8 player games, the amount of starting troops is less than normal.

OK, 3 troops per round with an additional troop for every 5,6,or 7 territs is now on the table as well as just lowering it to 3 troops per round.

My opioion on this is that it would cause the games more problems than solve. With the normal troop reinforcements, a player could easily take the third row from there back row to get extra troops without the opponent being able to take enough to remove it. Player who then goes first would have an overwhelming advantage. As for the larger games, this was designed as a 1v1 map so if the normal reinforcents came in, I would suggest a noraml one for 5 territs but with a max of 5. This would make games finish a round or two quicker and make the larger games more able to expand.

Thoughts?

chapcrap · Post by **chapcrap** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:52 am

The reinforcements and attacking are fine, IMO.

If you make the bonuses for 3 plus a bonus for every 7 terts, then in 1v1, people would still get 5 for the deploy unless they took 5 more terts, which could happen, or if they lose 3. I think that would effect the 1v1 play very much, but would allow larger games to be more viable.

With a deploy of 5 on the first turn, if someone actually was able to take 5 terts to increase the deploy to 6, the opponent should be able to take 1 because you only need to hit one neutral before being able to hit the opponent.

And it would speed up 1v1 games as well. Instead of taking forever to finish up once someone is clearly ahead and going to win, it will be able to move faster.

thehippo8 · Post by **thehippo8** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:09 am

chapcrap wrote:The reinforcements and attacking are fine, IMO.

If you make the bonuses for 3 plus a bonus for every 7 terts, then in 1v1, people would still get 5 for the deploy unless they took 5 more terts, which could happen, or if they lose 3. I think that would effect the 1v1 play very much, but would allow larger games to be more viable.

With a deploy of 5 on the first turn, if someone actually was able to take 5 terts to increase the deploy to 6, the opponent should be able to take 1 because you only need to hit one neutral before being able to hit the opponent.

And it would speed up 1v1 games as well. Instead of taking forever to finish up once someone is clearly ahead and going to win, it will be able to move faster.

Not sure if it's the Mafia Games ... but I'm convinced! Lynch "Five"!!

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 am

With the idea of being able to get 5 more territs for a 6 troop deployment, it would be very easy for the first go player to take 16 territs for an extra 3 troops. Now if player two puts all of there 5 on one territ and goes crazy over the board, there is no way they can remove enough troops. Player one has an overwhelming advantage.

If normal spoils came into play, I really feel it would give player one an advantage.

Again I say, what about a normal 1 for 3 territs with a max of 5. This solves the problem of mass attacks in 1v1 but also allows for expansion in larger games from 3 to 5. It would also mean a reduction of troops near the end of 1v1 games, speeding up the decline of the losing player.

chapcrap · Post by **chapcrap** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:22 pm

Well, you could put a cap on it or change the system as the tert count grows. Think about the settings on ConquerMan. Something like that.

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:26 am

chapcrap wrote:Well, you could put a cap on it or change the system as the tert count grows. Think about the settings on ConquerMan. Something like that.

Looked at the conquer man style and again it causes problems.

If it is set up as 1 for 3 for the first 15 territs, players get the drop of 5 to start with. If player one takes a mass attack option and takes as many territs as possible (16 is very easily done); with the other set at one for 8 territs. Player one in round two can easily expect to hold half of the board with a drop of 6 or 7. This cannot be over come by player two. You take out any and all strategy from the game and it then becomes luck of the dice only.

I will wait a week to see what the games are doing and if, like now, most are finishing around round 20, then a change will happen to try and speed things up but right now, I do not want to rush into a change. The games seem to be playing as I expected. Long drawn out fights.

Just like chess.

Guys, do remember, even though I need to take into account all game types, this was primarily a 1v1 map but the larger games where taken into account. I do not want to destroy the 1v1 element to make the larger games better. And e do need to wait to see how they are going down as well before a change.

thehippo8 · Post by **thehippo8** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:37 am

As an aside, chess games that finish in less than 20 moves are called "minatures" - normal games of chess are expected to go past 45 moves!

theButterfly · Post by **theButterfly** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:04 am

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but did you realize you spelled "receive" incorrectly on the map?

chapcrap · Post by **chapcrap** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:18 am

If you don't want to change it just say no. You're argument doesn't really hold water.

You can not easily take 16 terts on your first turn. winning 11 3v1 is not good odds. And that's on top of not losing any 4v1 either. Even if someone did that, what they would deploy would be easily broken and the bonuses taken by the second player.

My suggestion for would be everyone gets 3 every time and then 1 for every 7 terts with a max of 6 for the deploy. This isn't to aid the 1v1 games. They will essentially be the same. This move is to try to alter team games to be more playable.

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:25 am

theButterfly wrote:Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but did you realize you spelled "receive" incorrectly on the map?

In 3/4 months of development, you are the first to notice that. Thanks and corrected.

XML incase you missed the last one nobodies.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/1/27/ ... nights.xml

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:41 am

chapcrap wrote:If you don't want to change it just say no. You're argument doesn't really hold water.

You can not easily take 16 terts on your first turn. winning 11 3v1 is not good odds. And that's on top of not losing any 4v1 either. Even if someone did that, what they would deploy would be easily broken and the bonuses taken by the second player.

My suggestion for would be everyone gets 3 every time and then 1 for every 7 terts with a max of 6 for the deploy. This isn't to aid the 1v1 games. They will essentially be the same. This move is to try to alter team games to be more playable.

Chapcrap, it is not a no, I am just not going to do it fast. I would like to see some more finished games before a decision is taken. I have no problem changing it. Please just allow some time for more of the larger games to finish. I do look at finished games a couple of times a day and look at the logs to see how it was played.

One for 7 would really slow the games down as the initial deploy would be 3. Expansion could only happen with mass attacks. So you get no strategy apart from mass advances and hope the dice win the day.
The one for 3 with a max of 6 would work nicely. It gives the larger games the ability to increase without destroying the 1v1 aspect.

But with 16 opening territs in the 1v1, you get 5 and only need to get 2 territs to grab an extra one. Take 5 or 6 and you are almost guaranteed the extra one. This does give the player to go first a slight advantage and you will get players playing for that extra one like this. I would suggest that we cap it at 5 then, not 6. This is a pretty good compromise between our two views and should speed up games near the end.

Another idea, and this one is one I do not like (as I was against the bonuses in the first place) but layer the bonuses. So your get the normal amount for the first bonus but if you hold 2 bonuses, you get double. So instead of 2 x 2 you would get the 2 for the first but 4 for the second and 8 for the third, a max then of 14 instead of 6, similar with hold 4 shields, it would go 4, 8, 16, a max of 28 instead of 12.

Even a mixture of these two may happen.

thehippo8 · Post by **thehippo8** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:59 am

Wow ... I wish us mortals could have access to the data you see! META!!

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:13 am

thehippo8 wrote:Wow ... I wish us mortals could have access to the data you see! META!!

Just go to finished games and look at the game logs. Easily done. As of this morning, only 4 games with more than 2 players had finished. This is what I am saying, I do not want to rush into a change till more games have finished.

deantursx · Post by **deantursx** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:16 am

I think a pretty cool change would be changing the yellow squares in the middle to +1 autodeploys instead of the bonus

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:14 pm

deantursx wrote:I think a pretty cool change would be changing the yellow squares in the middle to +1 autodeploys instead of the bonus

Nice idea but I am going to reject it for 2 reasons.

1. Having the different type of bonuses is going to cause confusion with new players and also complicate a map that is proving to be more complicated than some would think at first glance. This comes with primarily with the different type of attack routes.

2. Once held, it would be very hard to break so games will end up with lots of attacking around 4 squares that will become blocks of troops. Only broken at the end of games when spoils become big enough to do so.

danfrank · Post by **danfrank** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:58 pm

koontz1973 wrote:
jammyjames wrote:Quick question - why is movement only limited to 2 forwards 1 side. In chess you can go 1 forward 2 side with a knight also?

Just curious - Does it make the XML far too awkward to do?

Cheers
You are right, you can do that, and you can do that in this one as well. Think about it.

As for the queary over the 5 troops per round, if any ideas on raising or lowering them, I am all ears but would like to wait for a couple of weeks and see what the results of games are. Most seem to be going near round 20 so it seems to be a long game map.

if you adjust it to 1 per 3 then starting with 5 is cool. but as 5 standard with no tert bonus then you have nothing to work towards. as far as it being a long game, the moves are unique and there is no quick fix to that

. I like this map for that reason the unique movement. Good Job Koontz ..

danfrank · Post by **danfrank** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:06 pm

koontz1973 wrote:
deantursx wrote:I think a pretty cool change would be changing the yellow squares in the middle to +1 autodeploys instead of the bonus
Nice idea but I am going to reject it for 2 reasons.

1. Having the different type of bonuses is going to cause confusion with new players and also complicate a map that is proving to be more complicated than some would think at first glance. This comes with primarily with the different type of attack routes.

2. Once held, it would be very hard to break so games will end up with lots of attacking around 4 squares that will become blocks of troops. Only broken at the end of games when spoils become big enough to do so.

Games are revolving around the medalions regardless . getting 7 or even 9 to 5 is proving to be an advantage especially if you if you get a good dice run..

I just thought of this , but possibly making the opponents king square , ( there has to be others ) and the opponents knight sqaures objective holds for a win is another way to end it. I played an esc game yesterday and only because my opponent layed down did it end around round 20.. That game was just back and forth all the way ...

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:00 pm

danfrank wrote: if you adjust it to 1 per 3 then starting with 5 is cool.

This is what I am leaning to.

danfrank wrote: I just thought of this , but possibly making the opponents king square

Not sure the kings square would work as it is one territ but maybe the whole back row or even the light squares for the back row.

I get the feeling that you guys want something to fight towards.

Knights

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [BETA]

Re: Knights [BETA]

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21

Re: Knights [BETA]

Re: Knights [21/01] Page 1 & 21