Conquer Club

isaiah40 wrote:Okay, if I am to understand this right, you would get your normal 3 irregardless of how many territories you have. Plus you would get the +2 for every 2 territories within the same bonus area, right? So if I hold 4 territories in one bonus, I would get 4 (2 territories x +2) plus the 3 for a total of 7.

Right.

Just one thing...

isaiah40 wrote:irregardless

Played my first game on this map today, and rather enjoyed it. It plays like a combo of New World, Poland, and AoR2 (if you absolutely had to take the sanctuary). I'm curious as to how it plays in team games. Well done, natty.

Incandenza wrote:Played my first game on this map today, and rather enjoyed it. It plays like a combo of New World, Poland, and AoR2 (if you absolutely had to take the sanctuary). I'm curious as to how it plays in team games. Well done, natty.

Thanks, but you should thank Isaiah for the gameplay, I'm just the artist

Anyway, there are some changes planned for the gameplay, if you have an opinion about them please share...

proposed changes wrote:- remove max. starting positions limit
- remove std. territory bonus of 1 for 3 and make it 3 for any amount
- Possibly: base autodeploy -> back to +1

I really need to read map legends more closely...

Considering how important the South Pole is, I thought it would be a killer neutral.

Other than that, love the map

TheForgivenOne wrote:I really need to read map legends more closely...

Considering how important the South Pole is, I thought it would be a killer neutral.

Other than that, love the map

i was also surprised it was not

greenoaks wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:I really need to read map legends more closely...

Considering how important the South Pole is, I thought it would be a killer neutral.

Other than that, love the map

i was also surprised it was not

I thought it was for like 5 games. Until I didn't fully kill someone off, and deployed somewhere else. Then my opponent got mad for delaying the end lol

So.. what, you think I should add the text "South Pole is NOT killer neutral"?

Nope, we should be less stupid.

Just a little curious what made you decided to use a -10 instead of killer neutrals?

I think the point was to have it be part of the bonus for holding the sectors + SP. Also, makes for different gameplay then the norm (as your post attests to). Unfortunately, I still think that +30 is too small for the sectors +SP bonus given all the decays and how hard it is to hold. I would be interested to hear how many times people have actually seen that bonus used. IMHO it should be in the 40-50 range.

I don't think increasing the sp/sector bonus would help the gameplay currently.

i have never attemped to get that bonus nor seen anyone else try.

my games have been extremely lobsided when someone takes the SP

I have an additional idea.

Would it help any if the bases could attack 2 territories away? Ie. The territory they are on and all territories adjacent to that.

natty_dread wrote:I have an additional idea.

Would it help any if the bases could attack 2 territories away? Ie. The territory they are on and all territories adjacent to that.

that would make it harder to lock someone in

Maybe that would be a good thing, idk?

natty_dread wrote:Maybe that would be a good thing, idk?

certainly in the latter or dominant stage of a game, no. but nothing would or should.

in the early stage it would force a dominant player to split their blocking force, thereby creating an opportunity to use those base troops to reduce the alpha players regions.

i like this suggestion

After winning a 1v1 tourney on this map, I kinda like it as it is. I'm not sure if I really understood where he was going with his argument. Admittedly, first turn is important, but it's by no means impossible to win either way. I feel it's just heavily dependent on how many bonuses you can get with that turn, or more specifically, how your dice help with that. He does make a valid point that it becomes difficult to break an opponents bonus with the decrease in bases, but the same could be said of you being able to get some bonuses of your own.
So yeah, if you're using 1v1 as a reasoning for those 3 points/changes you raised/recommend, I don't think it's a necessary development...

If I remember correctly, I was one of the advocates for the decreased bases and increased auto-deploy and I really felt it was an improvement. While previously I felt I had no chance in winning as second, because of the lead the opponent developed, In the tourney I mentioned previously, I was able to win as many times starting second as I did first.

Leehar wrote:After winning a 1v1 tourney on this map, I kinda like it as it is. I'm not sure if I really understood where he was going with his argument. Admittedly, first turn is important, but it's by no means impossible to win either way. I feel it's just heavily dependent on how many bonuses you can get with that turn, or more specifically, how your dice help with that. He does make a valid point that it becomes difficult to break an opponents bonus with the decrease in bases, but the same could be said of you being able to get some bonuses of your own.
So yeah, if you're using 1v1 as a reasoning for those 3 points/changes you raised/recommend, I don't think it's a necessary development...

Ok, this is making it even harder to decide... damn it!

What do you think of the bases attacking at range 2 idea?

natty_dread wrote:

Leehar wrote:After winning a 1v1 tourney on this map, I kinda like it as it is. I'm not sure if I really understood where he was going with his argument. Admittedly, first turn is important, but it's by no means impossible to win either way. I feel it's just heavily dependent on how many bonuses you can get with that turn, or more specifically, how your dice help with that. He does make a valid point that it becomes difficult to break an opponents bonus with the decrease in bases, but the same could be said of you being able to get some bonuses of your own.
So yeah, if you're using 1v1 as a reasoning for those 3 points/changes you raised/recommend, I don't think it's a necessary development...

Ok, this is making it even harder to decide... damn it!

What do you think of the bases attacking at range 2 idea?

Idk, I'll have to look at the map again to see what effect it will have, but I'm not sure I see the benefit(other than the obv of being able to move 1 step quicker)? You're just skipping an extra 2 neutral, which most people would like to take anyway as a step to a bonus? It may lend some extra mobility, but I don't think just giving it 1 extra range will have too much material impact. I can see the benefit for Base P in side-stepping the shelf there that I've seen cause quite a few problems, but on the other hand it won't lend that much aid to something like Base L

Perhaps maybe you could increase all the neutral value's to 3 instead of 2? I'm not sure I understood the prior reasoning for it, but I'd think a 3 would decrease the rate at which people rack up bonuses which can only be a positive?
Is the jumping from 3 to 10/15+ is perhaps one of the reasons why we have some of the problems mentioned earlier?

I don't know, it would seem to me that increasing the neutrals would make it more dice-dependent, ie. whoever gets the best dice gets the highest bonus... with 2 neutrals, it's less likely to get stunted only because you get bad dice.

natty_dread wrote:I have an additional idea.

Would it help any if the bases could attack 2 territories away? Ie. The territory they are on and all territories adjacent to that.

I like the suggestion, AND i dread the suggestion.
I am going to look at it from the dominant players outlook. he has the majority of the bonussess, and the other needs to break him. it would make going second more usefull, in fact i would simply wait a turn, and only attack there where he has a hard time reaching me...
then when he takes the 2's, i take his 1's...

I like the suggestion, but i do not think it is wise to have the +2 autodeploy then..

SirSebstar wrote: I like the suggestion, but i do not think it is wise to have the +2 autodeploy then..

I don't see why not? It allows you to hit back more easily, but it's not like it gives a specific advantage to any 1 player? The whole idea behind why I liked the +2, is that you can hit back at an opponent more easily...

natty_dread wrote:I don't know, it would seem to me that increasing the neutrals would make it more dice-dependent, ie. whoever gets the best dice gets the highest bonus... with 2 neutrals, it's less likely to get stunted only because you get bad dice.

I don't really see how thats the case? If memory serves, you'll start with 5 on your base first turn, then add 3 with your deploy, even with exceptional dice, you can only get a +4 bonus at most, which is the same as now except it'd happen less regularly, tho Sebs point comes into play here where the auto-deploy lets other bases rack up relatively easy +2 bonuses as well

Leehar wrote:

SirSebstar wrote: I like the suggestion, but i do not think it is wise to have the +2 autodeploy then..

I don't see why not? It allows you to hit back more easily, but it's not like it gives a specific advantage to any 1 player? The whole idea behind why I liked the +2, is that you can hit back at an opponent more easily...

I am looking at this from both a 1vs1 and a teamgame point of view.
I am going to take the 1vs1 since thats most easy to explain. Think about the game, we are both equally devided and right next to eachother,. I get the 1st turn. I decline to attack, i just get the autodeploy +drop and wait for your move.

You attack and clear out a lot of 2's. The +2 range of the bases now means I can either directly attack your 1's or take 1 neutral and then attack your 1's. I have 11 troops at the least to do this. It means if you attack wildly as first player, you are now nearly defenceless against the majority of the terits i am holding even with +2 auto on your base.. does this make any sense to you?

Also, Natty, how about 1 range for attack but 2 for bombing? Sure i cannot get my territs back, but at least i can reduce your advantage?? or something?

SirSebstar wrote:

Leehar wrote:

SirSebstar wrote: I like the suggestion, but i do not think it is wise to have the +2 autodeploy then..

I don't see why not? It allows you to hit back more easily, but it's not like it gives a specific advantage to any 1 player? The whole idea behind why I liked the +2, is that you can hit back at an opponent more easily...

I am looking at this from both a 1vs1 and a teamgame point of view.
I am going to take the 1vs1 since thats most easy to explain. Think about the game, we are both equally devided and right next to eachother,. I get the 1st turn. I decline to attack, i just get the autodeploy +drop and wait for your move.

You attack and clear out a lot of 2's. The +2 range of the bases now means I can either directly attack your 1's or take 1 neutral and then attack your 1's. I have 11 troops at the least to do this. It means if you attack wildly as first player, you are now nearly defenceless against the majority of the terits i am holding even with +2 auto on your base.. does this make any sense to you?

Also, Natty, how about 1 range for attack but 2 for bombing? Sure i cannot get my territs back, but at least i can reduce your advantage?? or something?

Sure, but if you have only 5 bases each, that doesn't mean thats your only option, it's obv quite foolish to go around taking neutrals in front of your opponent, which is why you can choose to move elsewhere, or not take so many neutrals that it becomes indefensible. Same with team games, you stack and attack elsewhere from where you adjoin an opponent. Again, this isn't really the place to discuss strats, but I really don't see an inherent disadvantage from the auto-deploy or less bases. Maybe we can play a team game together to discuss the problems?

it would requirenatty to program in the attack up to 2 terits first. but with you? always, if you will have me ofcourse...

So, with some further thought, here's what I propose:

- bases attack at range 2
- max. starting positions are increased to 6
- autodeploy is kept at +2 for now, if this doesn't work out it can be changed later
- standard territory bonus is removed, replaced with +3 for any (you still get the +2 for 2 for bonus areas)