Page 1 of 1
Conquerman and "-1 territory adjustment"
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:40 am
by toprichard
From game 1691040.
I can't see on the key any details of why someone should get a -1 bonus for territory count. Am I missing something?
TopRich
Re: Conquerman and "-1 territory adjustment"
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:47 am
by yeti_c
toprichard wrote:From game 1691040.
I can't see on the key any details of why someone should get a -1 bonus for territory count. Am I missing something?
TopRich
It's explained in the legend - due to the large amount of territories on the map - the more you hold the less you get...
It is in the bottom right hand corner.
C.
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:47 am
by toprichard
Sorry but that still doesn't explain it.
Turn 3 for Red:
33 territories: 33/4 should be 8 armies but red got 11-1=10
Turn 4 for red: 32/4 should be 8 but red got 10
Eh?
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:58 am
by BaldAdonis
toprichard wrote:Sorry but that still doesn't explain it.
Turn 3 for Red:
33 territories: 33/4 should be 8 armies but red got 11-1=10
Turn 4 for red: 32/4 should be 8 but red got 10
Eh?
It works like this: for the first 30, you get 1 for each 3. For the next 30, you get one for each 4. So, in your example, he has 33, so he gets 1 for each 3 in the first thirty, hence 10, and 1 for each 4 in the next thirty, hence 0. It's poorly worded in the legend, but they mean you to infer this.
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:34 am
by yeti_c
Baldadonis is correct.
If it were done the way you have it - it would mean that as soon as took the 31st territory - then you would lose armies... which is not conducive to deciding a game!!
C.
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:14 am
by toprichard
Understand now. The Legend is shockingly bad.
Thanks
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:36 pm
by luv2tri2
the entire map is bad
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:39 pm
by owenshooter
luv2tri2 wrote:the entire map is bad
here it comes... 3......2........1......-0
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:41 pm
by The1exile
Is that it? You've just explained one of the mysteries of CC to me, BA. Not that I have any intention of playing CM any time soon, unless I feel like endurance testing a new version of firefox or something.
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:57 pm
by john1099
The1exile wrote:Is that it? You've just explained one of the mysteries of CC to me, BA. Not that I have any intention of playing CM any time soon, unless I feel like endurance testing a new version of firefox or something.
Me as well, I didn't know about that.