Conquer Club

Androidz wrote:Oaktown the seas is Starting postions (its a conquest map i belive)

oaktown wrote:

Androidz wrote:Oaktown the seas is Starting postions (its a conquest map i belive)

Ah ha, you're right! I saw the bit about eight starting positions, but didn't make the connection that the dead-ends are starting positions.

Does anybody else find those to be odd choices for starting positions? For starters, they only have one outlet, so every game has to start the same way; second, they don't make sense historically - this suggests that outside powers are coming in to take over Europe at the start of the great war. ??

by oaktown on Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:52 pm

Let's nit-pick the 8 starting positions:
-Cyprus
-Iraq
-Finland
-Mediterannean Sea
-North Sea
-Bay of Biscay
-Bs
-Baltic Sea

The Med, North Sea, and Bay of Biscay all dump into the same bonus region, and each only have one way to begin. Those three players have to slog through a pre-determined set of neutrals, only to run into each other. Three bad starts. Med and North Sea are especially bad, since they each have to go through three territories before they can even see another region.

Bs: has two directions in which to go, and three regions to choose to expand into. Nice.

Finland: stuck in Russia, but will quickly control a capital, and nobody else bothers that player.

Iraq: nowhere near a capital, but who cares? Gets to conquer a region unmolested since nobody else starts in/near the Ottoman Empire. Advantage, Iraq.

Cyrpus: if the Bs players goes north or west, great start. if the Bs player goes south, the Cyrpus player is trapped because there is no way out of this region.

Baltic is interesting: only player to start bordering that region; instantly controls one capital, and it will take a while before anybody else can threaten him.

Has the notion of starting in the capitals been suggested? This would spread everybody out at least as well as they are spread out now, and would put everybody in a playable position with options. Then I would say either get rid of the seas, or add some connectivity.

Honestly, I liked this map better when I forgot it was a conquest map. As it is, the players who start in the west will NEVER go east, and the players who start east will NEVER go west. Why should they?

And what will happen in a five player game if only one player starts in the east? Let's say player 1 drops in Bs, and the others are all in western europe? The Bs player gets to casually collect capitals while the other four players crush each other trying to get Paris. Huge advantage to the eastern player, who will never see an opponent.

qwert wrote:Ok,so what you propose,dont tell me to eliminate starting position,because these is not so smart to say. Tell what is you think is best for map.
And if you have time you can go to page 1 first post and to read manual for these map,these is what you every time ask from me to write in first page.

one thing that would greatly improve the above problems in western sector and that I suggested before:
SPlit the Anglo-Franco-Italo bonuszone in at least 2 bonuszones !
Name them North sector west allies and south sector west allies..or Anglo-Franco sector (slugging in Flanders mudlands) en Franco-italo sector (doing its worst in the mediteranean and Alps).

qwert wrote:

one thing that would greatly improve the above problems in western sector and that I suggested before:
SPlit the Anglo-Franco-Italo bonuszone in at least 2 bonuszones !
Name them North sector west allies and south sector west allies..or Anglo-Franco sector (slugging in Flanders mudlands) en Franco-italo sector (doing its worst in the mediteranean and Alps).

Where will i put Paris then? Spliting Western allied in two sector will not improve starting position at all. If i split these in two sectors what i will get?
Maybe to split in England and france one sector and italy alone second sector? Still these have nothing with starting positions.

Paris should be with the Northern or Anglo-franco sector (Paris was threatened by Germany from the north).

Improvement is at least that the starting positions of 5,6 and 7 won't be running in eachother's path.
As the map is now, 5,6 and 7 starters MUST fight eachother for control over WesternAllies..which means numerous turns of throwing new troops at eachother before one or 2 will concentrate on another sector..BY WHICH TIME the 8,4,3,2,1 players have certainly control over a larger and more secure bonusarea.

With my suggested split (or why not the 3 countries?) there is ONLY the 6 player that must choose to wrestle with the 5 or 7 player for bonuszone control.
This is a much fairer starting situation for the 5,6,7 players compared to the 1,2,3,4,8 players.

It is so obvious.

by ZeakCytho on Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:22 pm

I still don't understand why there are start positions..

Oaktown
Honestly, I liked this map better when I forgot it was a conquest map. As it is, the players who start in the west will NEVER go east, and the players who start east will NEVER go west. Why should they?

qwert wrote:

by ZeakCytho on Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:22 pm

I still don't understand why there are start positions..

And why not. I want to create Conquest map who have gameplay objectives.

But there doesn't seem any reason for it other than "I want to." There's no historical reason to have starting points and conquest gameplay. Why not just make the objective "hold all of X capitals" but give a normally distributed drop.

qwert wrote:Hmm maybe is better to only capital start neutral and all other territory to be starting?

qwert wrote:

But there doesn't seem any reason for it other than "I want to." There's no historical reason to have starting points and conquest gameplay. Why not just make the objective "hold all of X capitals" but give a normally distributed drop.

Well i know that its not have historical reason,it will be good that every one start from one capital(they have ,but these is not possible.
Hmm maybe is better to only capital start neutral and all other territory to be starting?

It's possible for someone to start with a Capital - and for the rest of the map to be populated.

by ZeakCytho on Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:35 pm

In the bottom left legend, where it says "Hold 13 entente territory +3", perhaps reword that as "Hold any 13 territories in the Entente Powers +3" - if you don't have room down there, maybe put that in the top right with the other bonuses. Same goes for the Central Powers bonus.

qwert wrote:And if you have time you can go to page 1 first post and to read manual for these map,these is what you every time ask from me to write in first page.

by Androidz on Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:59 am

Is it still conquest in that case Finland can easly elimnate North sea on the first turn if you have autodeployment:S trough German empire.

by lt_oddball on Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:59 pm

Good to have Italy separate... but this Cyprus thing is gametechnically a useless appendix. How does a westernallies player manage to conquer or hold it ? Frustrating Italy, Balkans and Ottomans all the time ?

Better remove it (neutral, delete) or make it Rhodos (For Italy?) or let it be part of the Ottoman zone (Cyprus with its turkish name "kebab" )
(The balkans appear to be united on your map which is also not the realistic case of 1914..so you did it there already).

I'd say remove cyprus from the map altogether.

edit:
I forgot; you need a starting location nr. 8.
Ok, keep Cyprus as nr. 8, but make it neutral/grey.