Conquer Club

Hey all--I was playing a 1v1 on Antarctica (trench, with adjacent reinforcement). I had bases O and N in the west, along with D in the northeast, and one in the far south. I realized my opponent kept on popping up up on the Ronne Shelf, that huge ice shelf in the northeast that borders many territories, and he would then assault me (trench allows that if it's a place that resets to neutral, like an ice shelf). I eventually got the Ronne myself and took a bunch of places around it, to secure the area...only to find the next round once again he had taken the Ronne, and taken back every other place I had held. I then realized--one of his bases, P, literally borders the Ronne! And of course in Antarctica, you can only take someone's base from the south pole.

So pretty much no matter what I did, the Ronne would always reset to 2, then he would be able to still take it again from his base each round, and then assault all those places that the Ronne borders; this pretty much kept my 2 bases in the west constantly pinned down, while he proceeded to expand into the map center (the Ronne also makes it very easy to get to the center of the map from Base P, and establish dominance over the center from there).

Also didn't help that he had bases B and C in the north, which also border a smaller ice shelf, Fimbul; not as big of a problem, but he was able to keep my eastern base at bay too by taking the Fimbul from either of his bases each turn and then cutting me off in Fuji Land 4.

Could sound like I'm whining, but this is kind of broken no? Is there something I'm missing, a good reason for why 3 bases on the map directly border those important ice shelf territories? It especially gives major advantages/disadvantages for games with trench and/or adjacent rules, and especially 1v1s, but it seems to me like for any game really, it gives a major advantage to anyone who has at least one of those bases, Base P especially.

Game 22638039

I noticed that this is your third game on this map; your opponent has played over 1,600 (1,601). I would say he has learned a few things from playing more than a few games on Antarctica.

yeah, it is a tactic used by those experienced on the map

Not sure we had trench games when this map was 1st made

TeeGee wrote:yeah, it is a tactic used by those experienced on the map

Not sure we had trench games when this map was 1st made

All the more reason to upgrade the maps, drops etc.

There should be different drops and neutrals coding for the different settings.
1v1 - on some maps player 1 starts with up to 7 troops and a bonus (or2)!?
polys - there are lots of maps that need coding for these.
trench - As indicated by Antarctica
number of players. - Big and small maps in particular.

Nucker wrote:

TeeGee wrote:yeah, it is a tactic used by those experienced on the map

Not sure we had trench games when this map was 1st made

All the more reason to upgrade the maps, drops etc.

There should be different drops and neutrals coding for the different settings.
1v1 - on some maps player 1 starts with up to 7 troops and a bonus (or2)!?
polys - there are lots of maps that need coding for these.
trench - As indicated by Antarctica
number of players. - Big and small maps in particular.

Idk why this would need to get changed just because it’s trench. It’s not a flaw, it’s a feature. It makes the map interesting and yes allows for specific conditions. You weigh those pro and con and drop / plan accordingly.

IcePack wrote:

Nucker wrote:

TeeGee wrote:yeah, it is a tactic used by those experienced on the map

Not sure we had trench games when this map was 1st made

All the more reason to upgrade the maps, drops etc.

There should be different drops and neutrals coding for the different settings.
1v1 - on some maps player 1 starts with up to 7 troops and a bonus (or2)!?
polys - there are lots of maps that need coding for these.
trench - As indicated by Antarctica
number of players. - Big and small maps in particular.

Idk why this would need to get changed just because it’s trench. It’s not a flaw, it’s a feature. It makes the map interesting and yes allows for specific conditions. You weigh those pro and con and drop / plan accordingly.

exactly, also drop is a factor so i don't see any problem. Its like you play Conquer Rome and you have 0 capitals on drop but the other guy has 8.. and your reaction is "ban the map"??

IcePack wrote:

Nucker wrote:

TeeGee wrote:yeah, it is a tactic used by those experienced on the map

Not sure we had trench games when this map was 1st made

All the more reason to upgrade the maps, drops etc.

There should be different drops and neutrals coding for the different settings.
1v1 - on some maps player 1 starts with up to 7 troops and a bonus (or2)!?
polys - there are lots of maps that need coding for these.
trench - As indicated by Antarctica
number of players. - Big and small maps in particular.

Idk why this would need to get changed just because it’s trench. It’s not a flaw, it’s a feature. It makes the map interesting and yes allows for specific conditions. You weigh those pro and con and drop / plan accordingly.

yup

Once again, churlish behavior. Why?!

I did not say ban the maps, I said fix them. If you don't realize that the drop is often a very important factor in who wins a 1v1, poly or otherwise you are not looking, thinking and probably belive luck is a strategy. I understand, I am part of the human race. Stupid as.... Every day.

Once again. Not ban (this really is a stupid answer) but fix.

You're saying : fix them. But it ain't broken !

Map shouldn't be different for different settings.
Players need to adapt game play for different settings, that's all.
There are maps I hate to play in trench, because I think they're just stupid in trench, so I do not play them in trench.
It's about choosing a combination of maps and settings you like and enjoy.
If you don't like playing 1vs1 antartica in trench, don't do it.
Also there is no maps that is balanced for 1vs1. Drop always give an advantage.

Note : Base P is a good base in almost every settings. Even when it's not trench. It's how the map was built.

Nucker wrote:Once again, churlish behavior. Why?!

I did not say ban the maps, I said fix them. If you don't realize that the drop is often a very important factor in who wins a 1v1, poly or otherwise you are not looking, thinking and probably belive luck is a strategy. I understand, I am part of the human race. Stupid as.... Every day.

Once again. Not ban (this really is a stupid answer) but fix.

You're saying : fix them. But it ain't broken !

100% Don is right, it’s not broken. It’s not a flaw, it’s a feature. If you don’t get it that’s fine, don’t play it.

A feature? Like if a really hot chick gets herpes and then she is less picky about who she has sex with, then you have a shot?

Hahaha love how my account of my misfortunes in Antarctica escalated to a comparison to a potential coital encounter with an STD-ridden woman

Anyway interesting discussion overall about based Base P, I can see both sides of it as something needing to be fix or just a feature to be dealt with

Not about this Antarctica situation in particular, but it is weird that map balance isn't really taken into account. Supposedly most of these maps passed through a beta stage, but perhaps not really.

I think drops should at least be programmed so that no player gets a bonus handed to them or almost handed to them on a drop. Of course, that would require extra lines of code, but it could be done.

I suppose most old players are just used to it now, but still... Every time a game is largely decided at the outset, it both undermines any claims of skill and compromises the fun and challenge. Yes, the losers might feel disgruntled, but the winners should also feel somewhat embarrassed.