Conquer Club

cairnswk wrote:koontz, can you post for me an image of your bonus calculator please, so i can see where those green numbers come from?
my calculator does not get the same numbers.

It is the normal excel bonus calculator. The numbers are not much different from what you posted so I see no real problem with them. But the point is to stop the overtly huge bonuses you wanted to give out for holding small bonus regions, mainly the 2 corner ones.

cairnswk wrote:i am still not in favour of adding anymore figures to the map for clutter reasons - re captains of the guard.

I don ot see adding another figure as a huge problem. You already have G- for guards, so why not a C- for captains. It would take up far less room than what you had and even less than what you have now.

cairnswk wrote:Nor am i in favour of having starting territories. I beleive the concept of the game should populate as many regions as possible with players.

I agree with you in having as many in play at the start as possible, but as you know, this can sometimes lead to more problems. But lets try to finds a way to have all starting then without positions.

cairnswk wrote:Towards the autodeploy solution...
there are 126 regions.
10 are already coded as neutrals being buildings, royals and small regions.
this leaves 116 as the golden number.
the next favourable golden number is 104 (116-12=104)
so i would propose the following n12 :
1. each of the two small regions, - la ville and port neufue receive 1 more neutral (2) including the guard in port neufue
2. this leaves 7 other guards which can be coded highly (n6) leaving 3 more of choice (possibly in the high count regions)

As to [1], why are you now adding more neutrals, you wanted to keep them down. If I am reading you correctly, you want to have 3 neutrals in port neufue and 2 in la ville. This seems to me to be a waste of regions as no one will ever want to take them. Lets try to stick to your original number without adding more onto the board unless we really need to.

Guards at N6 seems a little excessive. I would lower that or even remove it from the game. Make the kings the high neutral. Then the guards can come into play.

cairnswk wrote:To decrease those odds between dice and the drop, would it be possible to code each region with autodeploy alternating between 1 and 2.

This is a negative. What you code is what you get. Nice idea though so I suggest that you suggest it in the suggestions forum.

cairnswk wrote:in one region, the catholics get +2 and the huguenots get +1
in another region the opposite happens, the catholics get +1 and the huguenots get +2

So you would want [C] to get a +1 in Carrousel A but a +2 in Carrousel B while the [H] would get +2 and +1 in the same regions. This would be a really bad idea as you could never guarantee players getting the same of each type of auto deploy. With a random drop, who is to say all of my drop would not end up on a +2 auto deploy whilst all of yours on a +1 auto.

cairnswk wrote:the other thing i have thought of doing is to increase the building access by 4 (one on each section)

OK, but not too much. No need to make it too easy to get to the buildings.

cairnswk wrote:so that the access to the royals in each section can be made conditional on holding both building access terts

And I believe you will end up with a map where no one will go for them or a large amount of stalemates. Make the kings easy enough to get to for the bonuses but hard enough to make players think about it. This can be done by raising or lowering the neutrals. This has the benefit of allowing you to not make the map overtly differcult and easier to code later on down the line.

cairnswk wrote:Also i am considering changing from just Henri and Charles to the 4 royals as the extra double bonus, this will give more opportunity in larger games,

This I do like, but make sure players know which is which.
From your new map.
I would have the normal bonuses just listed.
The doubling bonuses (I like the names bonus normale and royale bonus), I am not getting the sense that the kings double the normal region bonuses as you mention the groups involved in the fighting.
Say something like this
Les Bonus Normale.
Hold Henri, Marguerite, Charles or Catherine with any bonus region to double said bonus.
Les Bonus Royale.
Hold any Cathlolique leader and any Huguenot leader with any bonus region to quadruple said bonus.
Guard neutrals, I would lower or get rid of and raise the neutrals for the 4 kings.
The new layout is far better.

Thoughts on all these ramblings?

Just popping this to next page for reference

koontz1973 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:koontz, can you post for me an image of your bonus calculator please, so i can see where those green numbers come from?
my calculator does not get the same numbers.

It is the normal excel bonus calculator. The numbers are not much different from what you posted so I see no real problem with them. But the point is to stop the overtly huge bonuses you wanted to give out for holding small bonus regions, mainly the 2 corner ones.

OK, but i still would have liked to see an image of your calculator, and how you arrived at those numbers.

cairnswk wrote:i am still not in favour of adding anymore figures to the map for clutter reasons - re captains of the guard.

I don ot see adding another figure as a huge problem. You already have G- for guards, so why not a C- for captains. It would take up far less room than what you had and even less than what you have now.

re clutter once again, and i think adding another lot of "C"s would not help the map for the clutter, nor it being another thing for players to have to account for.
There is already enough to take account of IMHO.

cairnswk wrote:Nor am i in favour of having starting territories. I beleive the concept of the game should populate as many regions as possible with players.

I agree with you in having as many in play at the start as possible, but as you know, this can sometimes lead to more problems. But lets try to finds a way to have all starting then without positions.

Agreed

cairnswk wrote:Towards the autodeploy solution...
there are 126 regions.
10 are already coded as neutrals being buildings, royals and small regions.
this leaves 116 as the golden number.
the next favourable golden number is 104 (116-12=104)
so i would propose the following n12 :
1. each of the two small regions, - la ville and port neufue receive 1 more neutral (2) including the guard in port neufue
2. this leaves 7 other guards which can be coded highly (n6) leaving 3 more of choice (possibly in the high count regions)

As to [1], why are you now adding more neutrals, you wanted to keep them down. If I am reading you correctly, you want to have 3 neutrals in port neufue and 2 in la ville. This seems to me to be a waste of regions as no one will ever want to take them. Lets try to stick to your original number without adding more onto the board unless we really need to.

no, n2 in port neufue and 2 in la ville.
well, after re-examining it, the guards are giveaways if you don't code them neutral as they hold the key entry to the buildings.
to me it makes sense to do that.
this leads to having the next golden number down which as i stated was 104. so if we have those two small regions with n2s, then it makes sense they can be a bonus of at least 2 (la ville) and 3 (port neufue) since port neufue holds one of the guards.

Guards at N6 seems a little excessive. I would lower that or even remove it from the game. Make the kings the high neutral. Then the guards can come into play.

OK, that's feasible.

cairnswk wrote:To decrease those odds between dice and the drop, would it be possible to code each region with autodeploy alternating between 1 and 2.

This is a negative. What you code is what you get. Nice idea though so I suggest that you suggest it in the suggestions forum.

yes i realise the coding aspect...i have done programming.
and yes this would be a good suggestion for alterdeploy, so i will put it in that forum.

cairnswk wrote:in one region, the catholics get +2 and the huguenots get +1
in another region the opposite happens, the catholics get +1 and the huguenots get +2

So you would want [C] to get a +1 in Carrousel A but a +2 in Carrousel B while the [H] would get +2 and +1 in the same regions. This would be a really bad idea as you could never guarantee players getting the same of each type of auto deploy. With a random drop, who is to say all of my drop would not end up on a +2 auto deploy whilst all of yours on a +1 auto.

can you guarantee that would happen.
Don't you think it in some regions it would make the fighting more intense because of +2, which could lead to region v region battles, which koontz, this is really what this map is all about. Even though in history the Catholics won, it would be interesting to have a map on CC that allows for this alternation.
let's see, examine this....
la ville and port neufue: C+1,H+1
parvis du sud: H+1,C+2
parvis du nord: C+1, H+2
port des tuileries: H+1,C+2
carrousel A: C+1, H+2
carrousel B: H+1,C+2
carrousel C: C+1, H+2
carrousel D: H+1,C+2
maisons du sud: C+1, H+2
port Ecole St Germain: C+1, H+2
cour du louvre: H+2,C+1

Thoughts?

cairnswk wrote:the other thing i have thought of doing is to increase the building access by 4 (one on each section)

OK, but not too much. No need to make it too easy to get to the buildings.

Well, as per map, two accesses for each building section.

cairnswk wrote:so that the access to the royals in each section can be made conditional on holding both building access terts

And I believe you will end up with a map where no one will go for them or a large amount of stalemates. Make the kings easy enough to get to for the bonuses but hard enough to make players think about it. This can be done by raising or lowering the neutrals. This has the benefit of allowing you to not make the map overtly differcult and easier to code later on down the line.
Agree with the later thinking...

cairnswk wrote:Also i am considering changing from just Henri and Charles to the 4 royals as the extra double bonus, this will give more opportunity in larger games,

This I do like, but make sure players know which is which.
From your new map.
I would have the normal bonuses just listed.
The doubling bonuses (I like the names bonus normale and royale bonus), I am not getting the sense that the kings double the normal region bonuses as you mention the groups involved in the fighting.
Say something like this
Les Bonus Normale.
Hold Henri, Marguerite, Charles or Catherine with any bonus region to double said bonus.
Les Bonus Royale.
Hold any Cathlolique leader and any Huguenot leader with any bonus region to quadruple said bonus.
Guard neutrals, I would lower or get rid of and raise the neutrals for the 4 kings.
The new layout is far better.

Thoughts on all these ramblings?

Some good suggestions in there, but some it could lead to misunderstanding.
I reconsider something in line with your suggestions.

Version 15.
1. legend changes with more catagorization and i think better clarity about gameplay conditions
2. changes as per koontz' suggestion for guards and royal neutrals.

...and a preview of the larger version

i'm also thinking...because this is a different style of map, this may need a "guide" to assault on the front page so that players can see what "assault in immediate vicinity" interpretation comes to...like below....and a help for sempai when doing the xml borders.

cairnswk wrote:....and a help for sempai when doing the xml borders.

Much appreciated, mate.

sempai

sempaispellcheck wrote:

cairnswk wrote:....and a help for sempai when doing the xml borders.

Much appreciated, mate.

sempai

NPs sempai
please let me know if i have something incorrect or you disagree about something...i can see that with some 3-way borders they may come under discussion.
doing this may also help define the region bonuses better since there is congested fighting in some areas, and it may be better to have higher autodeploys in that region.

Sorry cairns, been around but his is a mind bending map. Will give you more time this week and lets see if we can get this finished sooner rather than later shall we. But one point first is this.

cairns wrote:in one region, the catholics get +2 and the huguenots get +1
in another region the opposite happens, the catholics get +1 and the huguenots get +2

koontz wrote:So you would want [C] to get a +1 in Carrousel A but a +2 in Carrousel B while the [H] would get +2 and +1 in the same regions. This would be a really bad idea as you could never guarantee players getting the same of each type of auto deploy. With a random drop, who is to say all of my drop would not end up on a +2 auto deploy whilst all of yours on a +1 auto.

cairns again wrote:can you guarantee that would happen.

No I cannot as you cannot guarantee it would not happen. But when you have a random deploy over this many regions, half of which are +2AD and the other half are +1AD, I would imagine the chances of an equal split are very remote.

cairnswk wrote:Don't you think it in some regions it would make the fighting more intense because of +2, which could lead to region v region battles, which koontz, this is really what this map is all about. Even though in history the Catholics won, it would be interesting to have a map on CC that allows for this alternation.

It would make the fighting more intense in areas, but if I get a majority of the +2 auto deploys in a game, I can easily say that I would keep the majority of them into round 2 and then have a clear path to victory.
History and what CC should have is one thing, being a player who goes second is another. I cannot see that being much fun at all.

koontz1973 wrote:...

cairnswk wrote:Don't you think it in some regions it would make the fighting more intense because of +2, which could lead to region v region battles, which koontz, this is really what this map is all about. Even though in history the Catholics won, it would be interesting to have a map on CC that allows for this alternation.

It would make the fighting more intense in areas, but if I get a majority of the +2 auto deploys in a game, I can easily say that I would keep the majority of them into round 2 and then have a clear path to victory.
History and what CC should have is one thing, being a player who goes second is another. I cannot see that being much fun at all.

Forgetting the alternating autodeploy for each region then....

OK, another idea.....what if in each region everyone gets +1 autodeploy...
and then if you hold more than half of any region you get half the region bonus until you hold all the region > then all the region bonus.

cairnswk wrote:OK, another idea.....what if in each region everyone gets +1 autodeploy...

Still not a fan of the auto deploy for the duellers. It give an overwhelming advantage to the first player in small games. But let me ask this then, why the auto deploy? It gives nothing in the way of accuracy historically and seems sort of gimmicky. Different I agree with and I like different.

cairnswk wrote:and then if you hold more than half of any region you get half the region bonus until you hold all the region > then all the region bonus.

Never knew we could give out half armies.
But the idea of giving out the bonuses for half the region would be OK but how would you word it considering you have a couple of single bonuses? And not with the auto deploys on top.

About these two ideas though. I am getting the feeling that it will be an either or type discussion here. You know I am not a fan of the auto deploys for all over the map so I would use the space you used to describe them to give the second idea a go.

DoomYoshi wrote:23/11/12: It seems kind of crazy that there is a global +1 on all duelers, but its just crazy enough, I think it will work.

cairnswk wrote:23/11/12: that may be temp -> removable or changeable depending on gameplay discussion

DoomYoshi wrote:23/11/12: With the new conditional bonuses, is it possible to code +1 autodrop on Green soldiers if Henri de Navarre is held? That would make for an awesome game I think.

DoomYoshi wrote:24/11/12: Final note: these are pretty radical ideas we are working with, but if you can pull this off cairns, this has a definite chance to be a legendary map. The difficulty lies in the balance, and I foresee a lengthy stay in the final forge for this one while everything is worked out.

cairnswk wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:30/11/12: You have on the map that the duellers are +1 auto deploy. Will players also get deployable troops? If so, how many. Small games you would get rather a lot. How do you counter first go advantage? If no deployable troops, this needs to be stated somewhere on the map and in the game play notes.

Perhaps we need to minimise that somehow

koontz1973 wrote:1/12/12: Al right cairns, I can start to see where this one is going now, it take me time sometimes to see these things. All looking good. As always, sticky for a few days and then you get the move.

After that, there is wobbles...about CB and other graphics issues
20/2/13 moved to recycle bin...and out on 23/7/13

kkontz1973 wrote:3/9/13: Les Bonus.
+1 auto deploy dueller
Do all duellers get an auto deploy?
If I hold Henri or Charles, I double my bonus?
So if I hold Henri and all of the green men in Port Neufue, what is my bonus? Or does the doubling or the bonus only happens when I hold the bonus (both green and yellow duellers)?

moving onto our current discussion...

koontz1973 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:OK, another idea.....what if in each region everyone gets +1 autodeploy...

Still not a fan of the auto deploy for the duellers. It give an overwhelming advantage to the first player in small games. But let me ask this then, why the auto deploy? It gives nothing in the way of accuracy historically and seems sort of gimmicky. Different I agree with and I like different.

While i appreciate your discussion input, i have to account for the interest of DoomYoshi also who stated this would be good if we could pull it off.
Why the autodeplay? Because it was different, and i wanted to see if it could work...i still beleive it could.
Gimmicky, well, yes if you think that traditional bonuses are the only way to allocate bonuses within the current engine...at least this attempts to incorporate another idea into gameplay to coincide with traditional bonuses.
If we went down the track of historical accuracy, all the duelers would start with 20 armies each and then -1 each turn...replicating losing strength...but then that would give great disadvantage to every player to follow the first.

By giving +1 autodeloy, it gives opportunity to build strength slowly.
1. if CA and HB starts with 3 each (as should every other dueler except n3s) and there is no initial/traditional drop, and CA goes first, then he's only going to increase his strength on CA by +1....and to be honest anyone who attacks 4 against 3 with the random die we have...is either very courageous and considers themselvs extremely lucky or absolutely stupid...and so on for every other round that is completed.
This means also that players may not actually start attacking each other for the first few rounds, ensuring that there is no repeat of 1 round kill assassin games as per my other recent map, or even in 1v1.
As for 1v1, i think that even if the first player does get "slight" advantage, then it could easily be equalled by the opponent if as there as 104 terts to be conquered...this is not going to necessarily be a good 1v1 map, and i wasn't aiming at that when i started this...my initial intention was to create a Battle Royal map...but never got there.

I think it will make for great play because in order to get anywhere, players are going to have to take the ultimate risk against the die...slowly kill everyone in a region for one bonus.

cairnswk wrote:and then if you hold more than half of any region you get half the region bonus until you hold all the region > then all the region bonus.

Never knew we could give out half armies.
But the idea of giving out the bonuses for half the region would be OK but how would you word it considering you have a couple of single bonuses? And not with the auto deploys on top.

About these two ideas though. I am getting the feeling that it will be an either or type discussion here. You know I am not a fan of the auto deploys for all over the map so I would use the space you used to describe them to give the second idea a go.

[/quote]

No, we don't give out half armies , I think if i were to go to half bonuses, the wording would have to be something like
"Half bonus rounded up to next number"...since this will still 1 and 3 the opportunity of getting somwhere quicker....the 2s and 4s are easy of course.

So if we remove the current scheme and revert to the bonuses in V14 (or review that), then i think this would be OK.

Summary:
1. Keep the +1 autodeploys
2. Revert to V14 bonuses
4. keep Le Bonus Royale
3. Implement half bonuses for holding half a region i.e. "min requirement"

cairnswk wrote:1. Keep the +1 autodeploys

cairns, I am not convinced this will ever work. I have spoken to ian about it and nor is he. I would say to drop it or convince us.

cairnswk wrote:2. Revert to V14 bonuses

OK

cairnswk wrote:3. Implement half bonuses for holding half a region i.e. "min requirement"

No problem as long as you remove the auto deploys.

cairnswk wrote:4. keep Le Bonus Royale

OK

koontz1973 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:1. Keep the +1 autodeploys

cairns, I am not convinced this will ever work. I have spoken to ian about it and nor is he. I would say to drop it or convince us.
...

Well, i don't want to drop it, and i am not convinced that anyone has the absolute insight into how this will play in every combination available, without at least trying it.
So i suggest without further ado...it goes immediately to beta (with xml done) to see how it is going to play, and then adjustnents and graphics can be done from there.
People seem more inclined to comments on maps after they have played them, and this is what BETA is for.

cairnswk wrote:If we went down the track of historical accuracy, all the duelers would start with 20 armies each and then -1 each turn...replicating losing strength...but then that would give great disadvantage to every player to follow the first.

THIS is a great idea.
And I would think that, if this was a disadvantage, it would be a disadvantage to the first player, who starts with 19 on each region when everyone else has 20.
To be honest, I like it much better than the +1 autodeploy.

sempai

While my Français isn't perfect, I think the title should be Massacre DE Paris. when I read Massacre à Paris I read it like Massacre to Paris, whereas Massacre de Paris is Massacre of Paris.

Industrial Helix wrote:While my Français isn't perfect, I think the title should be Massacre DE Paris. when I read Massacre à Paris I read it like Massacre to Paris, whereas Massacre de Paris is Massacre of Paris.

'à Paris' is also 'in Paris', which fits better than massacering the whole city ('de')

Teflon Kris wrote:

Industrial Helix wrote:While my Français isn't perfect, I think the title should be Massacre DE Paris. when I read Massacre à Paris I read it like Massacre to Paris, whereas Massacre de Paris is Massacre of Paris.

'à Paris' is also 'in Paris', which fits better than massacering the whole city ('de')

thanks for popping in for comment, what about some gameplay comments please.
Massacre à Paris...this is the title guys.

sempaispellcheck wrote:

cairnswk wrote:If we went down the track of historical accuracy, all the duelers would start with 20 armies each and then -1 each turn...replicating losing strength...but then that would give great disadvantage to every player to follow the first.

THIS is a great idea.
And I would think that, if this was a disadvantage, it would be a disadvantage to the first player, who starts with 19 on each region when everyone else has 20.
To be honest, I like it much better than the +1 autodeploy.

sempai

So we have 2 for +1 autodeploy, 2 against, and 1 for starting with +20
question sempai, how do you figure 1st players starts with 19 and others start with 20.

Before changing (forget V14 and 15), this was where the gameplay discussion was at.

The only change i'd add here is to allow a half-region bonus as well as full region and royal bonuses.



So now the poll allows you to say where you option is preferred for the gameplay you want?

cairnswk wrote:question sempai, how do you figure 1st players starts with 19 and others start with 20.

Every region starts with 20 and loses 1 per turn.
Unless I'm mistaken, decay territories lose a troop at the start of the player's turn (before deploy).
Player 1 starts his turn, and before he deploys, all his duelers lose 1 troop, leaving them with 19.

sempai

cairnswk wrote:By giving +1 autodeloy, it gives opportunity to build strength slowly.
1. if CA and HB starts with 3 each (as should every other dueler except n3s) and there is no initial/traditional drop, and CA goes first, then he's only going to increase his strength on CA by +1....and to be honest anyone who attacks 4 against 3 with the random die we have...is either very courageous and considers themselvs extremely lucky or absolutely stupid...and so on for every other round that is completed.

in a head-to-head singles or team game, attacking 4v3 wherever it is available will be the best strategy, to make maximum use of rolling 3 dice to thin down enemy capability before player 2 has a chance to move. starting advantage will therefore be more sharply pronounced than usual.

cairnswk wrote:As for 1v1, i think that even if the first player does get "slight" advantage, then it could easily be equalled by the opponent if as there as 104 terts to be conquered...this is not going to necessarily be a good 1v1 map, and i wasn't aiming at that when i started this...my initial intention was to create a Battle Royal map...but never got there.

the normal starting advantage will be more than "slight". if the map is unlikely to give results for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 that are at least approximately as balanced as world 2.1, then u will rightly have a hard time pushing it past the gameplay stage.

cairnswk wrote:I think it will make for great play because in order to get anywhere, players are going to have to take the ultimate risk against the die...slowly kill everyone in a region for one bonus.

the best first turn in 1v1 is probably to roll 30-odd times with 3 dice against the enemy, with player 2 having 30 to 40 troops massacred before he plays.

cairnswk wrote:3. Implement half bonuses for holding half a region i.e. "min requirement"

using the word region here is unnecessarily confusing. i presume u're trying to say half a continent in xml-speak. neighbourhood bonus or bonus vicinale will avoid confusion with the meaning of region as used in the game log. try to design the map so that the smallest continents are away from the corners, otherwise u fail the gameplay aim of having many ways to win; an example of a map that fails this test is battle of actium, where virtually every game follows the same basic strategy of grabbing the base camps. a modified half-bonus therefore sounds like a decent plan if it does not apply to the corner bonuses.

ian.

Sure is a lot of interest in this one....2 votes for gameplay??

cairnswk wrote:Sure is a lot of interest in this one....2 votes for gameplay??

Personally, I think the 20 start with -1 decay would work much better, so I've been waiting for you to add that option to the poll.

sempai

cairnswk wrote: i am not convinced that anyone has the absolute insight into how this will play in every combination available, without at least trying it.

That would be nice to be able to try it with each bonus type to be able to see what would work the best. That seems like that would be the only way
to tell with out some what guessing. Too bad you couldn't set the map up in a test (not open to the public) to see what would work the best before you open it to the public in beta. It would be nice to have it right before beta because you don't want to turn any one off from the map right off the bat.

sempaispellcheck wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Sure is a lot of interest in this one....2 votes for gameplay??

Personally, I think the 20 start with -1 decay would work much better, so I've been waiting for you to add that option to the poll.

sempai

It depends on the map makers vision for the map. If they see the armies per territory as fighting strength or fighters on that territory. If it is seen as fighting strength this is a neat idea. If it is seen as fighters per territory this is not a good idea.