Conquer Club

Feudal Wars was created when 6 player games were the maximum. There are 6 starting points on the map, therefore only 6 players maximum can join. This map is still very popular today, even in the age of 8 player games.

Is there any sort of rule or restriction on minimum number of player starting points for a map? If another limited player map was created, would it be allowed to complete the Foundry process? I have a bevvy of map ideas I'd be willing to pour time into if there was no restriction, maps that I think would add considerably differing elements of gameplay, almost to the point that it's a new game.

Two. Two is the limit. A lower bound, if you will.
That does beg thew question though: has anyone considered making a map for only two players? Preferably starting with more than one territory each, if that is possible. It would make it more like a chess match, where you know how the game will initialize, and the luck of the drop is consolidated into which player starts.

Judging by the flack that maps take when they are unbalanced in a certain style (like 2 player CC Mogul), I imagine mapmakers would be open to reducing the number of options allowed on each map. If nothing else, it would let them focus on creating good game play mechanics for the settings they prefer, and not worrying about how it would fair in the (two) other main settings.

(For the record, I consider 2 player, multi-player flat/no cards, and multiplayer escalating to be the main settings. Everything else is a branch of these, and a map that works well under these settings will work well with anything).

2 player only maps would be easily done with the <positions> tags - and the <neutrals> tags...

However - each and every game would start out exactly the same.

You couldn't even specify 2 territories that are random - as you would need 1 for the neutral player - thus meaning that 3 players games would be available (every person starting with just 1 territory).

3 player games might be more worth it - as they would then capture 2 player games too.

C.

BaldAdonis wrote:Two. Two is the limit. A lower bound, if you will.
That does beg thew question though: has anyone considered making a map for only two players? Preferably starting with more than one territory each, if that is possible. It would make it more like a chess match, where you know how the game will initialize, and the luck of the drop is consolidated into which player starts.

Exactly what I'm thinking. I have ideas for at least 3 maps that rely on it being 1v1, with each player starting on opposite sides of the map, and both having absolutely equal access to bonuses and specials (bombardment, attacking over several spaces, etc)

BaldAdonis wrote:Judging by the flack that maps take when they are unbalanced in a certain style (like 2 player CC Mogul), I imagine mapmakers would be open to reducing the number of options allowed on each map. If nothing else, it would let them focus on creating good game play mechanics for the settings they prefer, and not worrying about how it would fair in the (two) other main settings.
(For the record, I consider 2 player, multi-player flat/no cards, and multiplayer escalating to be the main settings. Everything else is a branch of these, and a map that works well under these settings will work well with anything).

The main "fix" I can see to making 1v1 maps is that you would have decent 1v1 maps. 1v1 is largely a crapshoot at the moment. I have started 1v1 games and just waited the 5-8 rounds for the loss to come in. It's frustrating when it happens, as it basically becomes a hope that the dice will be amazing for you and crap for your opponent. This is the change I want to create in 1v1:

Old
Drop: 40%
Dice: 30%
Strategy: 30%

New
Drop: 0%
Dice: 10%
Strategy: 90%

I think it could make for a very competitive map if it was created properly. I just want to make sure it's permissible

yeti_c wrote:2 player only maps would be easily done with the <positions> tags - and the <neutrals> tags...

However - each and every game would start out exactly the same.

That's exactly the point. If the map is perfectly balanced (ie - symmetrical), then no one player starts with an advantage. It comes down purely to tactics.

e_i_pi wrote:

yeti_c wrote:2 player only maps would be easily done with the <positions> tags - and the <neutrals> tags...

However - each and every game would start out exactly the same.

That's exactly the point. If the map is perfectly balanced (ie - symmetrical), then no one player starts with an advantage. It comes down purely to tactics.

Or Dice.

C.

Ive thought on this before too and am in full support of it, 1v1 is by far my favorite style to play on CC, always has been... and if a series of (or just 1 or 2) maps were made for 1v1 style only, it would be great and id surely play it alot

if a change is ever made to the map select/game finder page that splits up the maps into different pages, we could have a dedicated page for 1v1 maps. This would also allow us to post alternate, 1v1 versions of the existing maps - same map, but we recode the XML files to include even starting positions. Any existing map could be a great 1v1 map if we make it so.

e_i_pi wrote:Drop: 0%
Dice: 10%
Strategy: 90%

I think it could make for a very competitive map if it was created properly. I just want to make sure it's permissible

The drop will still include who plays first, so you'll never get it exactly fair. It's like the white-advantage in chess. I've been tinkering with methods to change this, but it would certainly benefit from "fair-drop" maps.

yeti_c wrote:However - each and every game would start out exactly the same.

You couldn't even specify 2 territories that are random - as you would need 1 for the neutral player - thus meaning that 3 players games would be available (every person starting with just 1 territory).

3 player games might be more worth it - as they would then capture 2 player games too.

I think that's the point: that every game would start out the same, so the mapmaker could set it up to be as fair as possible. 3 player games are fundamentally different from 2 player, so allowing even that would change the map requirements.

Does the number of territories allowed under <positions> tags limit the number of players, or is there another way of limiting it? Would maps be able to give multiple territories to 2 players, while still disallowing any other number of players?
Also, is a neutral starting territory necessary? For a two player map, would you need to leave 1/3 of the available positions open to neutrals? So that a strictly two player map would still be impossible, because a 3rd player could step in for neutral.

<positions> tags can have any number of territories in them...

It's the amount of the <position> tags that are in the XML that determine if they are used.

2 players get the number of <position> tags dealt out evenly - without a neutral player.

In fact - all of the maps out there (without positions) could have a set of positions tags plugged in to them as is to make them viable 2 player maps without affecting any other style of game.

C.

So you could set 40 territories in Classic to neutral, then one each as a position, so that two players would start there, and no other number could play?
Would it be possible to set 4 available territories, while still blocking anymore than two players? (Or, in a wild pipedream I just had, allowing two teams, but not more than two players otherwise?)

No to all of the above.

C.

So you need to allow at least 3 territories then? Exclusive two player maps are impossible?

BaldAdonis wrote:So you need to allow at least 3 territories then? Exclusive two player maps are impossible?

No.

2 players get the number of <position> tags dealt out evenly - without a neutral player.

C.

Why doesn't thins work then?

So you could set 40 territories in Classic to neutral, then one each as a position, so that two players would start there, and no other number could play?

BaldAdonis wrote:Why doesn't thins work then?

So you could set 40 territories in Classic to neutral, then one each as a position, so that two players would start there, and no other number could play?

Setting 40 territories to neutral would kill the map for any other game type.

C.

yeti_c wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote:Why doesn't thins work then?

So you could set 40 territories in Classic to neutral, then one each as a position, so that two players would start there, and no other number could play?

Setting 40 territories to neutral would kill the map for any other game type.

C.

yeti - I think you missed the bit in bold

BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote:Why doesn't thins work then?

So you could set 40 territories in Classic to neutral, then one each as a position, so that two players would start there, and no other number could play?

Setting 40 territories to neutral would kill the map for any other game type.

C.

yeti - I think you missed the bit in bold

Well it still wouldn't work - because you'd get no starts... (There has to be 3 spots)

I think BA missed my point earlier - that we *could* setup <positions> for 1v1 games on all current maps (that don't have positions) in them... which is why I answered as I did with regards to Classic.

A 1v1 map on it's own would be best to have all territories forced to be neutral - and then just 2 sets of <position> tags for each player. That way you could force the drop to be as fair as possible.

C.

That's what I'm going for.

Just to clarify: suppose there was a new map, with 26 territories (A-Z), called "2 Player Map". The purpose of this is to be an exclusively 2 player map - no other number of players are allowed. I want to know if <positions> and <neutral> tags will:

• Allow you to set 24 territories to neutral, and have only two playable starting positions. If so, would you have to allow 3 starting positions (to give "neutral" a spot), or could you keep it at two so that only 2 players would be able to use the map? I suppose you can't do this, if you need at least 3 positions for a start.
• Allow you to set fewer than 24 territories to neutral, and to split the remaining ones evenly with position tags so that starts could be completely controlled (or do <positions> tags force the available territories to be distributed randomly to both players?) I'd like to give Territories A-D to Player 1, and W-Z to Player 2, but I don't want any chance that Player 1 will get A, B, X, Y and 2 will get C, D, W, Z (or any other mixed combinations).
• Allow for two teams to play in the place of two players, provided that the <positions> territories are enough to distribute to a whole team. In the above example, with quads, I'd give Players 1-4 territories A-D, and Players 5-8 territories W-Z (they can be distributed randomly within a team, but not between teams).

I think that's what e_i_pi was asking about. Those are the map ideas I would find most interesting at least.

yeti_c wrote:A 1v1 map on it's own would be best to have all territories forced to be neutral - and then just 2 sets of <position> tags for each player. That way you could force the drop to be as fair as possible.

You already have this though, with conquest maps. I find them extremely tedious, and I'd prefer to have 1/4-1/3 of the map territories for each player, but with the structure of predetermined drops.

OK - to clarify - becuase you are struggling to understand what I am saying.

With the current XML System...

Take A map with 26 territories named A-Z.

If you
a) make A-X Neutral = No games possible. (There are only 2 possible starting locations for the drop and the engine requires 3)
b) Set the following positions up.

Code: Select all

<positions>
  <position>
    <territory>A</territory>
    <territory>B</territory>
    <territory>C</territory>
    <territory>D</territory>
    <territory>E</territory>
    <territory>F</territory>
    <territory>G</territory>
    <territory>H</territory>
    <territory>I</territory>
    <territory>J</territory>
  </position>
  <position>
    <territory>K</territory>
    <territory>L</territory>
    <territory>M</territory>
    <territory>N</territory>
    <territory>O</territory>
    <territory>P</territory>
    <territory>Q</territory>
    <territory>R</territory>
    <territory>S</territory>
    <territory>T</territory>
  </position>
</positions>


Then you will each start with 10 territories - and the remaining 6 will be neutral. (Note the 2 non neutral territories (Y Z) will be neutral because 2/3 < 1)

Teams will not work - as each player would need to be given a position - positions aren't assigned to a team... so your "team" game wouldn't be controllable. The positions would be randomly assigned.

You already have this though, with conquest maps. I find them extremely tedious, and I'd prefer to have 1/4-1/3 of the map territories for each player, but with the structure of predetermined drops.

No you do not... you have all but a few territories assigned Neutral - with NO positions.

I strongly suspect that you are confusing your terminology...

Neutral starts = <neutral>X</neutral> within the territory tag. (The omission of this tag is a territory that is randomly assigned - if it's not been assigned by a taken position tag.
Positions = <positions></positions> tags at the start of the XML.
Position = <position></position> tag within the <positions> tags - that define a number of territories that 1 player will receive.

C.

I strongly suspect that I am confusing terminology as well, because I have no idea what is possible in the xml. Thanks for explaining.

One last question: I understand that strictly two player map with only one territory each is impossible. Is the set up in your example a strictly two player map? what would happen if each position was less than 1/3? (ie. would a third player be able to weasel in by taking the leftover territories?

BaldAdonis wrote:I strongly suspect that I am confusing terminology as well, because I have no idea what is possible in the xml. Thanks for explaining.

One last question: I understand that strictly two player map with only one territory each is impossible. Is the set up in your example a strictly two player map? what would happen if each position was less than 1/3? (ie. would a third player be able to weasel in by taking the leftover territories?

In the above example? - No. because there are no territories for them to have... if there were 3 non neutral territories - then the 3rd player would have 1 territory - whilst the other 2 would have 10...

Of course - if that 1 territory was uber powerful - then the map *could* balance... as long as they couldn't get killed before they took a turn.

C.

I mean if they got less than 1/3 of the territories. Say you gave them 8 instead of 10. Would you be able to force 3 player games to be impossible to make, just by setting neutrals?

BaldAdonis wrote:I mean if they got less than 1/3 of the territories. Say you gave them 8 instead of 10. Would you be able to force 3 player games to be impossible to make, just by setting neutrals?

The choice of 2 players is only available from the fact that there are 2 position tags as there are under 2 available territories for the drop.

(So yes reducing the positions to 8 would be fine : Note that the underlying territories for the positions are neutral (in this case))

C.

Well this has completely borked my idea. I need 2 starting territories only :/