Baseball: King of Diamonds (v15 p.27)

[Gormbroc]

Definitely an issue with the pitchers. Check this game: Game 8963094. In round nine, 3 players left. Blue has a HR but no other territs, and is trapped. Yellow is the only one with a pitcher left. If yellow takes the other HR, then neither Blue nor Red can win the game because neither will be able to attack Yellow's HR. If Red eliminates Yellow, then Blue and Red stalemate since Red can't attack Blue's HR.

[drunkmonkey]

Definitely an issue with the pitchers. Check this game: Game 8963094. In round nine, 3 players left. Blue has a HR but no other territs, and is trapped. Yellow is the only one with a pitcher left. If yellow takes the other HR, then neither Blue nor Red can win the game because neither will be able to attack Yellow's HR. If Red eliminates Yellow, then Blue and Red stalemate since Red can't attack Blue's HR.

Hold all bases to win.

[gStrong]

Haven't played it that much yet, but as far as I see it there is absolutely no reason to move out before the opponent does at the moment. (or at least in 1v1)

My current opponent seems to have a sure fire win strategy in 1v1 but his computer crashed when I took my turn.

We built up to 75 on the pitcher and he went out and took all the bases. I'm guessing he waited for me to start thensince it was freestyle he would start at the same time (not sure how yet) amd he would wim by holding the objective.

Only works with freestyle but it is a way to win 1v1

[AgentSmith88]

Haven't played it that much yet, but as far as I see it there is absolutely no reason to move out before the opponent does at the moment. (or at least in 1v1)

My current opponent seems to have a sure fire win strategy in 1v1 but his computer crashed when I took my turn.

We built up to 75 on the pitcher and he went out and took all the bases. I'm guessing he waited for me to start thensince it was freestyle he would start at the same time (not sure how yet) amd he would wim by holding the objective.

Only works with freestyle but it is a way to win 1v1

don't play 1v1 freestyle and you won't have to worry about it.

[Wolffystyle]

Hi, I just spent 30 minutes constructing an argument for beginning with as many pitchers as would fit (4 each for 1v1 games and 2 each for doubles, 3-player and 4-player games) but then firefox crashed.

Would you believe me that I constructed a very sound argument in regards to both gameplay and 'thematic elements' as Evil DIMwit was concerned about?

If my plea is not enough I will return back to this thread later to reconstruct that very argument.

But in short, I agree with osujacket and believe that beginning with only 1 pitcher leaves this map up to luck of the dice which is not what baseball is about. Baseball is deeply intertwined with strategy, relief and in playing your opponent.

Leaving a starting position of 1 pitcher makes this map all too similar to St. Patrick's Day map and will leave this (great) map to rot unplayed.

----
edit: additional starting pitchers would only add to the thematic element as being a manager's 'bullpen' and these pitchers, like in baseball, would come in relief when a 'starter' is down.

[carlpgoodrich]

Hi, I just spent 30 minutes constructing an argument for beginning with as many pitchers as would fit (4 each for 1v1 games and 2 each for doubles, 3-player and 4-player games) but then firefox crashed.

Would you believe me that I constructed a very sound argument in regards to both gameplay and 'thematic elements' as Evil DIMwit was concerned about?

If my plea is not enough I will return back to this thread later to reconstruct that very argument.

But in short, I agree with osujacket and believe that beginning with only 1 pitcher leaves this map up to luck of the dice which is not what baseball is about. Baseball is deeply intertwined with strategy, relief and in playing your opponent.

Leaving a starting position of 1 pitcher makes this map all too similar to St. Patrick's Day map and will leave this (great) map to rot unplayed.

----
edit: additional starting pitchers would only add to the thematic element as being a manager's 'bullpen' and these pitchers, like in baseball, would come in relief when a 'starter' is down.

First, luck is a HUGE part of baseball. More so than any other sport I can think of. In both baseball and most CC maps, taking luck into account is part of the strategy and is one of the reasons both games are so great. That being said, if the games are being decided entirely by luck, then I guess a change should be made. I guess my problem is that every 1v1 game I've ever played on any map has been decided entirely by luck, which is why I don't play them.

However, I don't think you can have a player start with 4 pitchers because then he'll have 39 troops to reinforce at the end of his first round, making it impossible to break whatever he has captured. I think a decent compromise might be the "mistake" xml that was up for a few days, where all the pitchers are given out but each player only gets one with 12, the others have 3. That way the autodeploy (or relief as you put it) is more significant for 2-4 player games, offsetting first round luck, but the number of troops you can use to reinforce on your first turn is much less. Actually, having written that, there would still be 12 troops to reinforce in 1v1. Maybe making the additional pitchers start with just 1 would be best (so there would be 6 reinforceable troops).

[Wolffystyle]

Yes, yes, Carl, you're absolutely right. 33 reinforceable troops is monstrous in an unlimited reinforcement game and would be too much. I am currently playing in one adjacent game (which would make it a better game).

Baseball, like any sport or game requires luck. But I will argue that the outcome of Baseball compared to most major sports can be affected greatest by the strategy, match-ups and game-time managerial calls. A few quick examples for non-baseball fans are:

Pitcher-Batter match-ups (which side of the plate do you hit from, throw to or from the mound)
Defensive alignments (Infield in or out, outfield in or out, shifts)
Hitting direction (pull the ball or push the ball)
Hitting strength (bunt or punt, sac fly or move the runner with an well-placed infield ball)
Substitutions (Change a pitcher, fielder, batter or runner)
Moving the runner (advance the runner, take the out, intentionally walk a player for a force-out..)
yada yada yada

Without getting much farther into the dynamics of the sport, I will conclude by saying that Baseball is a sport heavily impacted by game-time decisions and ability to make adjustments later in the game.

Sure, you're right, a large amount of luck plays into baseball. The very best hitters only get a hit about one-third of the time and managers can sometime only pray that it comes at the right moment. But moving the runner, defensive shifts and forcing plays make huge impacts to the percentages that baseball strategy is build around. Though a great player hits .333 doesn't take into account his working the pitcher, his over .400 on base percentage or in him swinging for and reaching the fences (home run) when the team most needs it.

Diminishing the "commander's" ability to control only one element (one pitcher) goes directly against the "manager's" power in the game of baseball.

I am not suggesting a complete overhaul of gameplay (or maybe I am) but I do ask that the "commander" have control of more than one pitcher.

Also. In the game, the pitcher may throw to one of his infielders to attempt a pickoff. I do believe that this issue of being able to reinforce 33 troops at the end of round one gets countered by the pitcher's ability to throw to (attack at) a player on his team. Though this has most likely been discussed and we're already to the beta map. Maybe my push is a little too late.

Wolffy~

[natty dread]

I think gameplay considerations should be first priority in this situation. The number of starting pitchers should be decided based on what works for the gameplay.

[Wolffystyle]

I think gameplay considerations should be first priority in this situation. The number of starting pitchers should be decided based on what works for the gameplay.

I'm trying to give both a gameplay and 'spirit of the game' reasoning to why commanders should start with more than 1 pitcher when available.

I'm only using 1v1 as a example and everyone who says "don't play 1v1" needs realize that a map should be accessible to all.

Gameplay: As it sits, I agree with mr. CD. There is no reason to move out first and 1v1 games will be subject to stalls, boring cold-war scenarios until one player confidently has enough to go from babe to mound to pitcher with a large enough stack.

Now, I've only played the beta version once but the game was already over by round 2. Game 9035447. My buddy, Ingenio, moved out round 2 and took a base. He is rather intelligent and left a string of 2s for defense to challenge me (2,2,2,and whatever he had left after his assaults) as I came back to counter his move. His defenses succumbed. But the important note is that if you come from the school of "attacking dice are better than defensive dice" and you always assault large stacks than defend large stacks (think City Mogul) advantage will always go to he who waits and assaults his player rather than he who moves and assaults neutral.

[Evil DIMwit]

I think gameplay considerations should be first priority in this situation. The number of starting pitchers should be decided based on what works for the gameplay.

That's my tendency as well. I'm willing to change the starting pitchers back to the 'mistake compromise'; my only issue with that is that players are going to get confused as to why the game is set up that way.

If 12, 5, and 5 troops are too much for the pitcher in 1v1s, then it's possible to code three of the pitchers neutral, so that players start with 12 and 5 each for 1v1, and then only have one pitcher each for 3 and 4 player games. I don't know that that's the best idea.

Another option is to give a maximum of 2 pitchers per game, and to reduce all the starting positions by a bit, say 2 troops. It would slow down 5+ player games a bit, but now 2-4 player games would start with only 22 reinforceable troops per player.

[natty dread]

Another option is to give a maximum of 2 pitchers per game, and to reduce all the starting positions by a bit, say 2 troops. It would slow down 5+ player games a bit, but now 2-4 player games would start with only 22 reinforceable troops per player.

I like this idea.

[osujacket]

Think of it is starting pitcher vs bull pen pitcher.

Starting pitcher can go 9 innings so he gets 9 armies..
Middle relievers can go 5 so they start with 5 armies.
Closers get 1 so he starts with one army.

Fits into the mold of the game

[Wolffystyle]

I think gameplay considerations should be first priority in this situation. The number of starting pitchers should be decided based on what works for the gameplay.

That's my tendency as well. I'm willing to change the starting pitchers back to the 'mistake compromise'; my only issue with that is that players are going to get confused as to why the game is set up that way.

The justification is that your "relief pitchers" do not have as much stamina or endurance as a starting pitcher. Your main pitcher usually takes you 7+- 2 innings whereas your pitchers in relief will only take you 1,2 or 3 innings max. (or 5 as osujacket says)...

If 12, 5, and 5 troops are too much for the pitcher in 1v1s, then it's possible to code three of the pitchers neutral, so that players start with 12 and 5 each for 1v1, and then only have one pitcher each for 3 and 4 player games. I don't know that that's the best idea.

Let's look at unlimited: 15 takes Babe with 13 left and then takes an infield ball and an infield region and reinforces all to there (10+4+4=18). Player B follows player A's path but has to take another infield and has 15 v 1,1,1,18 ( I cant get my assault odds up but I am guessing player A ends with around 5 or 6 left on average. Player B forts 4 and 4 to his infield region.

Round 2: Player A drops 3 on a pitcher and takes babe and ball again and can hit Player B's 9 or 10 troop infield with his 6 and with 4 from his pitcher route. Okay now anything can happen round 2 and beyond.

Another option is to give a maximum of 2 pitchers per game, and to reduce all the starting positions by a bit, say 2 troops. It would slow down 5+ player games a bit, but now 2-4 player games would start with only 22 reinforceable troops per player.

I don't get this. Sorry.

[carlpgoodrich]

Another option is to give a maximum of 2 pitchers per game, and to reduce all the starting positions by a bit, say 2 troops. It would slow down 5+ player games a bit, but now 2-4 player games would start with only 22 reinforceable troops per player.

I like this idea.

So far I haven't heard anyone complain about 5+ player games. I would be very careful about changing what seems to be working.

Also, for everyone who says you can't win 1v1 when you attack first, why don't you just leave some troops on your pitcher? Attack Babe, a baseball and one territory, while leaving x troops on your pitcher. The other person (in a foggy game) won't know how many you left, and won't know until he has already committed a certain number of troops to attacking. If you make x large, then you get to do the attacking next turn. Now, I haven't done this (I don't usually play 1v1), but maybe a different strategy makes this a moot point.

[Evil DIMwit]

I can buy the relief pitcher thematic argument.

[PLAYER57832]

have not followed the discussion so far, sorry

I am sure this latest change makes it better for multiple player play. However, I think the earlier version (but where the 2 homes could not attack each other directly) were better for 1 vs 1 play.

Not saying you should change the map back, but it might be useful to consider for future maps.

[neanderpaul14]

Does everyone realize if this map is played just right/wrong it can wind up in a total stalemate with only the 2 Homeruns being held by 2 players????

[greenoaks]

Does everyone realize if this map is played just right/wrong it can wind up in a total stalemate with only the 2 Homeruns being held by 2 players????

how would that become possible ?

[Evil DIMwit]

Does everyone realize if this map is played just right/wrong it can wind up in a total stalemate with only the 2 Homeruns being held by 2 players????

how would that become possible ?

You'd have to be playing Nuclear and really luck out with the spoils to have three or fewer non-homerun territories and have every one of them nuked. Not likely to happen, though.

[PLAYER57832]

Does everyone realize if this map is played just right/wrong it can wind up in a total stalemate with only the 2 Homeruns being held by 2 players????

Actually, it can be a stalemate from the very start.

The first person to attack instantlt has a disadvantage, unless maybe they get very lucky and the opponent does not.

I mean, to start, you have to take out at least Babe, then either a ball or homerun, either way, then next player now has an easier path... unless you are dumb enough to leave all your armies on the batter or a ball. (leaving some really doesn't solve this problem because you cannot take enough bonuses to make up for the lost armies).

I am not sure how to solve this. Maybe there needs to be some kind of penalty if you don't bat or such? I think this map has real potential.

I misplayed here (did not intend to attack homerun), but this is an example
Game 9089002
I took out second base, was down to 6 armies. My opponent came, had 17 standing. My only real chance was to try to take him out with my 5.

[osujacket]

horrible horrible map for singles now.

Please please change it....

Attack first kill three neutrals and most likely lose.

[Evil DIMwit]

I don't really know to what extent I can change it and still stick with the theme.

[HighlanderAttack]

In my opinion not much of the field matters at all. As stated in a few earlier posts (which I only read a few) the first person to attack in a 1v1 game now has the disadvantage of the second player getting attackers advantage. Really with normal dice the first player to attack has no real chance of winning. I have tried it in a few and failed miserably just because I got tired of stacking.

Unfortunately you need to have some armies starting out in the field or this becomes the worst 1v1 style map that CC has. This is my opinion and I just wanted to get it out there.

Good luck with any adjustments.

I also want to note I have not played team or multi player games yet--I am sure it is suited better for those styles.

[DaveH]

I'd just like to add my endorcement to the previous posts about how inadequate the map now is for 1 v 1 games. Who has the patience to go second will win, provinding the dice are not totally against him.

Looking at earlier games though, there are singles games with all players shared out and this seems to be a more naturalk way of playing singles games. I don't know why it was changed, but it does need to be changed back asap - unless there were also errors with this format that I have not picked up in these posts.

Good idea but needs tweeking for singles
Dave

[carlpgoodrich]

You know, one thing that would help is to change the neutral on the babe back down to 1. If I remember correctly, the reason its 2 is to prevent people from stacking on the pitcher and taking the babe for a card. I know this wouldn't completely solve the problem, but it might help.