Classic Conquest [Version 3.1]

[Doc_Brown]

I think Magadan needs to be bumped up to a neutral 8 so the barrier between Canada and China is comparable to the others.

[plurple]

I think Magadan needs to be bumped up to a neutral 8 so the barrier between Canada and China is comparable to the others.

I aggree that magadan needs to be bumped up maybe to 7, also hong kong to 7 or 8 as there is the same number of territories between china and india as the 2 NA starts.

I also need to bump anchorage up to 4 as cannada is the only start with a 3 available other than the landing spots

[Shannon Apple]

I did check the colour blindness filters on Illustrator as I went, so there are no issues with adjacent colours looking the same. I muted the background colours (map and connections) and made the region colours more vibrant. It looks "fresher." Sorry took me so long, I've been swamped, and this stuff does take a little time.

[plurple]

I did check the colour blindness filters on Illustrator as I went, so there are no issues with adjacent colours looking the same. I muted the background colours (map and connections) and made the region colours more vibrant. It looks "fresher." Sorry took me so long, I've been swamped, and this stuff does take a little time.

Thanks for these Shannon and the gentle reminder to upload to the beta site I have also taken to bump up a few of the neutrals as my initial choices may have been slightly to low:

Magadan went from 5 to a 7
Manila from a 4 to a 5
Anchorage from a 3 to a 4
Hong Kong from a 6 to a 8

[Shannon Apple]

Awesome!

[iancanton]

merry xmas!

Thanks for these Shannon and the gentle reminder to upload to the beta site I have also taken to bump up a few of the neutrals as my initial choices may have been slightly to low:

Magadan went from 5 to a 7
Manila from a 4 to a 5
Anchorage from a 3 to a 4
Hong Kong from a 6 to a 8

is this xml v1.04?

ian.

[plurple]

merry xmas!

Thanks for these Shannon and the gentle reminder to upload to the beta site I have also taken to bump up a few of the neutrals as my initial choices may have been slightly to low:

Magadan went from 5 to a 7
Manila from a 4 to a 5
Anchorage from a 3 to a 4
Hong Kong from a 6 to a 8

is this xml v1.04?

ian.

yes that should be the one i uploaded to beta and attached to post 1

[iancanton]

i observe that, in all 16 completed standard, 2-player, auto-placement, sequential, chained, fog, non-trench, non-bot games, neither madrid nor tokyo were ever taken, not even once. accordingly, i suggest reducing tokyo from n5 to n2 (which is 1 less than beijing's n3) and madrid from n6 to n3 (which is 1 less than berlin's n4) to bring them into action.

ian.

[plurple]

i observe that, in all 16 completed standard, 2-player, auto-placement, sequential, chained, fog, non-trench, non-bot games, neither madrid nor tokyo were ever taken, not even once. accordingly, i suggest reducing tokyo from n5 to n2 (which is 1 less than beijing's n3) and madrid from n6 to n3 (which is 1 less than berlin's n4) to bring them into action.

ian.

I think Tokyo isn't being utilised because it isn't on the way to any of the enemy bases and it weakens your neutral defences to get to it but we can try reducing it.

I am more surprised that Madrid is never taken as there are only 2 territories between UK landing and Brazil landing so am not sure if it is a good idea to reduce it to 3 as then UK start has access to an easier card on turn 2 which will make it the clear favourite starting position. I suppose it could be reduced to 4 or 5 but still a little surprised it isn't being used at all.

Just had a quick look and it looks like because Istanbull is a 5 and going through berlin first often means it is the preferred option. I think with UK already having access to 2 4's after it's landing zone making Madrid a 5 will make it a viable option without giving UK to easy an early game for cards and easy troop bonuses.

[plurple]

updated Tokyo to a 2 and Madrid to a 5.

Have also started some games on beta to test things

[actorday]

Looks like a great addition to CC World. If you need more testers I am available

[Shannon Apple]

Looks like a great addition to CC World. If you need more testers I am available

Thank you! It's in live beta now, so you can choose the map here on the main site.

[j1mathman]

it isn't a big deal, but it is a bit slow at the start. i've played round 2 and the neutrals are quite chunky, the starting point only auto deploying +1 makes it a bit slow to start.

of course someone could just sit back a few turns to load up but idk other maps like new world will auto deploy 3 on home bases (and the landing zone)

where do we see your current neutral troop counts (besides looking at the sunny games on finder or reading all chat)?

i do think it's a cool idea for a map ty for your contribution

[GaryDenton]

The map says "EVERY 2 regions held in each contintent = bonus 1."
It should read "2 regions held in a continent = bonus 1."
That is both inaccurate and a spelling mistake. You do not get more than one bonus for every 2 regions in a continent.

[Fuchsia tude]

You do not get more than one bonus for every 2 regions in a continent.

...I don't? Are you sure about that? The log sure seems to think I do...

[GaryDenton]

I see Africa is giving you 3, which is the first I have seen of an additional bonus.

[plurple]

I see Africa is giving you 3, which is the first I have seen of an additional bonus.

This map uses the newer bonus structure so the stats and map page will only show 1 for each continent but the overview and log pages will do things correctly it has been brought to BigWham's attention but has been a bug for a long time so not a high priority to fix this.

As you can see is Fuschia's screen shot they own 2 North america regions and so get 1 for that continent however they own 6 africa regions and so get 3 not just 1 troop, and so on for the other continents based on how they started the turn.

[fixfabricator]

I don't know if other maps, like New World, automatically deploy three on home bases (and the landing zone), but it would be possible for someone to sit back for a few turns to load up.

As far as I can see, the only places to view your current neutral troop counts are the sunny games on Finder and the entire conversation.

Mod Edit: Actually remove the sus link this time.

[plurple]

I don't know if other maps, like New World, automatically deploy three on home bases (and the landing zone), but it would be possible for someone to sit back for a few turns to load up.

As far as I can see, the only places to view your current neutral troop counts are the sunny games on Finder and the entire conversation.

Mod Edit: Removed suspicious link

[plurple]

it isn't a big deal, but it is a bit slow at the start. i've played round 2 and the neutrals are quite chunky, the starting point only auto deploying +1 makes it a bit slow to start.

of course someone could just sit back a few turns to load up but idk other maps like new world will auto deploy 3 on home bases (and the landing zone)

where do we see your current neutral troop counts (besides looking at the sunny games on finder or reading all chat)?

i do think it's a cool idea for a map ty for your contribution

I think I agree that just getting the +1 auto is low and makes starting slow especially in multiplayer games where you only have the 1 base, I think trying it with 2 auto deploy might be better 3 or higher may be to much.

[iancanton]

from the live site, there are so far 26 completed standard, 2-player, auto-placement, sequential, escalating, chained, fog, non-trench games, from Game 23065387 to Game 23186540.

for this setting, balance appears to be fairly good. player 1 won 15 games (58%) and player 2 won 11 games (42%), while skill is not especially rewarded, as the higher-ranked player won 12 games (46%) and the lower-ranked player won 14 games (54%).

for these games, the best starting point was australia (12 wins from 20 = 60%), while worst was china (8 wins from 20 = 40%).

ian.

[Fuchsia tude]

for this setting, balance appears to be fairly good. player 1 won 15 games (58%) and player 2 won 11 games (42%), while skill is not especially rewarded, as the higher-ranked player won 12 games (46%) and the lower-ranked player won 14 games (54%).

Is that...a good thing, though? If the lower-ranked player wins slightly more than 50-50, and even if it were slightly below 50-50, that seems like less "skill is rewarded" at all and more "winning is a coin flip".

[morleyjoe]

Hey guys - great to see new maps and ideas.

One thing the I think is a bit flawed, is the bonusing for North America and Asia. In a two player poly game, my opponent had one of his players starting with US and Canada, and his other player had China and India. This meant that he was able to have extra bonuses but just taking the landing spots. So after the first turn, while we each only took the landings spots, he was already +2 ahead of me for the exact same effort. Not sure how to fix that, other than not allowing a player to drop US and Canada, or China and India at the start.

[Votanic]

for this setting, balance appears to be fairly good. player 1 won 15 games (58%) and player 2 won 11 games (42%), while skill is not especially rewarded, as the higher-ranked player won 12 games (46%) and the lower-ranked player won 14 games (54%).

Is that...a good thing, though? If the lower-ranked player wins slightly more than 50-50, and even if it were slightly below 50-50, that seems like less "skill is rewarded" at all and more "winning is a coin flip".

lol
Uh, waitaminute, winning is the direct measure of skill, not rank.
It appears that some pixel-brass polisher has put the horse before the cart...