Conquer Club

Just one shield, for villages. The others would be incredibly redundant, unless you have a plan to make it look really good, which you probably do. But the only insistence is on the village shield.

Spockers wrote:

DiM wrote:

Telvannia wrote:

Goalie wrote:this map is terrible
never touch it again

Good god, someone call in the multihunters, it is spockers multi


(anyone else notice that spockers vanished when keyogi did?)

well they're both from australia, they played a lot of games in the same team and when they played standard games or when spockers was on another team keyogi always won.

i smell a multi.

Any more hard hitting evidence, House?

yeah ... uh ... your socks smell

rebelman wrote:

DiM wrote:
it's not autodeploy.

i thought the sanctuary was auto deploy

nope nothing is. no autodeploy bonus on this episode. there will be some autodeploy zones in the next episode.

good one

Coleman wrote:Just one shield, for villages. The others would be incredibly redundant, unless you have a plan to make it look really good, which you probably do. But the only insistence is on the village shield.

i'll see what i can fit in the legend. it's rather tight at the moment

Spockers wrote:Worthless post

Oh, no.

i have added shields for castles villages and the sanctuary in the legend but i have removed the glow for those words. i feel that the shields provide enough info. and to have just some words colored seemed odd. i'd rather have the words not colored than to color everything. i think it's more than clear the way it is now.

so here are all the files and links. the army tests are the same as before since i only did modifications in the legend.

XML file: http://www.sendspace.com/file/yiwciq
Large map link:http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250/DiM-topia/AgeofMightchapter1-large2copy.jpg
Small map link:http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250/DiM-topia/AgeofMightchapter1-small2copy.jpg

Large image:


Small image:


Large army test:

Small army test:

DiM wrote:i have added shields for castles villages and the sanctuary in the legend but i have removed the glow for those words. i feel that the shields provide enough info. and to have just some words colored seemed odd. i'd rather have the words not colored than to color everything. i think it's more than clear the way it is now.

grrr you are starting to make this too easy to follow - my major point farming plans might have to be put on hold

rebelman wrote:

DiM wrote:i have added shields for castles villages and the sanctuary in the legend but i have removed the glow for those words. i feel that the shields provide enough info. and to have just some words colored seemed odd. i'd rather have the words not colored than to color everything. i think it's more than clear the way it is now.

grrr you are starting to make this too easy to follow - my major point farming plans might have to be put on hold

i take it this means the legend is pretty clear now

so you get +5 just for holding one castle? are they going to start neutral?

mibi wrote:so you get +5 just for holding one castle? are they going to start neutral?

players start with a castle each all other territories are neutral

mibi wrote:so you get +5 just for holding one castle? are they going to start neutral?

No no - the castle is where you start...

C.

yeti_c wrote:

mibi wrote:so you get +5 just for holding one castle? are they going to start neutral?

No no - the castle is where you start...

C.

so what about 2 or 4 players? wouldnt that be imbalanced.

mibi wrote:so you get +5 just for holding one castle? are they going to start neutral?

mibi, mate, read a few pages back. (i think around page 30) and you'll find a simulation of a map with the starting neutrals.

the idea is that each player (in a 6p game) starts with a castle and gets +5.

the rest of the terits start neutral. so 87 neutral terits and 6 playable ones.

however all the neutrals have various starting armies on them. ranging from 1 to 6. this is done after devising a logic based on the importance of the terit and the distance that terit is from the castle.


the idea is that there are 6 factions in this map. 6 realms. broken from an original kingdom. war is raging and the peasants don't know what side to take so they're neutral. basically they'll work for whoever conquers them. so you start as the leader of a faction and have to conquer the nearby lands and then ultimately kill all the other leaders to unite the kingdom.

mibi wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

mibi wrote:so you get +5 just for holding one castle? are they going to start neutral?

No no - the castle is where you start...

C.

so what about 2 or 4 players? wouldnt that be imbalanced.

in 2p games each player gets 2 castles and 2 are neutral
in 3p games each player gets 2 castles and 0 are neutral
in 4p games each player gets 1 castle and 2 are neutral
in 5p games each player gets 1 castle and 1 is neutral
in 6p games each player gets 1 castle and 0 are neutral

i don't see what's imbalanced

Yeah, this was conquest gameplay, we discussed this a while back.

Not imbalanced.

Coleman wrote:Yeah, this was conquest gameplay, we discussed this a while back.

Not imbalanced.

In fact possibly the most balanced map here...

C.

yeti_c wrote:

Coleman wrote:Yeah, this was conquest gameplay, we discussed this a while back.

Not imbalanced.

In fact possibly the most balanced map here...

C.

could be. actually i'm pretty sure it is. but only time will tell.

There is a slight concern with going first at 3 players and below. A particularly lucky player with the dice could do a lot of damage to another player before they could act.

That said, they couldn't hope to charge two castles simultaneously, and a failure would leave a trail of 1s back to the aggressive castle.

DiM wrote:
in 2p games each player gets 2 castles and 2 are neutral
in 3p games each player gets 2 castles and 0 are neutral
in 4p games each player gets 1 castle and 2 are neutral
in 5p games each player gets 1 castle and 1 is neutral
in 6p games each player gets 1 castle and 0 are neutral

i don't see what's imbalanced

in response to an earlier query by me DiM indicated when the long awaited 8 player games come in all castles would be neutrals and you would start with peasants

lack would need to block this map from 8 player play when/if he adds it. Which is actually very possible and easy to do.

regarding the 8p games if it's possible to block the map then i'm fine with this. it would be the best solution. if not then the starting positions can be changed.

It'd be similar to the code that blocks 5 players from playing doubles.

If map (part of selection) than players > than 6 not allowed. It's really that simple (in psuedocode anyways). Err, assuming this app is in a code that has selections.

Coleman wrote:There is a slight concern with going first at 3 players and below. A particularly lucky player with the dice could do a lot of damage to another player before they could act.

That said, they couldn't hope to charge two castles simultaneously, and a failure would leave a trail of 1s back to the aggressive castle.

in 2p and 3p games let's each player gets 10 troops to place where he wants. so 10 plus the innitial 3 on the castle = 13 troops. to get to another castle you must go through at least 12-15 neutrals plus the other guy's 3 troops all spread over 4-6 terits. double that because the other player has 2 castles and the result is that in order to eliminate another player in round 1 you must kill 24-30 troops spread over 8-12 terits. in case there are 12 terits it means you must have perfect dice each and every time and win battles like 2v3 and so on. not impossible but with a success rate of 0.0...01% i'd say it's pretty negligible

Coleman wrote:It'd be similar to the code that blocks 5 players from playing doubles.

If map (part of selection) than players > than 6 not allowed. It's really that simple (in psuedocode anyways). Err, assuming this app is in a code that has selections.

ah cool then.