Feudal Epic, L&S, Pg. 49 [D, Gp, Gr]

[hecter]

In Feudal War, if you play 1v1, you each start with two castles. Will it be the same in this one, where you start with 2, or will it be starting with 3 a piece? Also, for doubles, will it work for 2 per player, or 2 per team?

In a 1v1 you'd get 8/3 rounded down, which will still be 2, per player. In four person doubles, you'll also be getting two per player.

[n00blet]

Update 3

Click image to enlarge.

Changed all castles to border only two terrs.

But Great Kingdom, Feudal Empire and Realm of Might all border 3 territories

[oaktown]

Oaktown, any words from you on the gameplay perspective?

Sure... my first real peek at this map, so apologies if this full of repeats.

Imperial Castle has quicker access to the outside world than the other castles - only one "2" between it and the 10-neutral 'gateway' territory. Not sure how much of impact this will have in games, but if you're trying to make everything as equal as possible...

Feudal Castle has the worst access to the other realms - to access a bridge, it has to go right past Might's gateway territory, which no other player has to do. The Might player can deny Feudal access while lurking around the rest of the map (for better for for worse).

Barbarian faces a much similar issue, as they could easily be cut off from the rest of the world by the Imperial player. Seems like to make the game as open as possible you don't want to set this map up so that each player has one clear enemy - give players some options.

Some Castles have access to more than one village, some only to one. The Imperial and Rhu players have pretty easy access to a second village should their first option be taken or if they just get greedy, while it would take slogging through enemy territory for the Might or Feudal players (for example) to access a second village.

Worst starting location in my opinion: Feudal, which is 11 territories away from a second village (starting at the gateway territory), and has to go through three potential enemies to get there. Access to the world must go through an enemy.

Best starting location: Clan Rhu. Second closest village is just five territories from his gateway territory, and the two factions that are closer to it will likely be fighting each other to get to it since their paths are parallel.

Moving the Xeu village down to the bottom of the map and swinging the Barbarian gate up to the top of his region might solve a lot of these problems.

Seems to me that Zeu 18-22 will be dead area for most of the game, as it doesn't conveniently get you anywhere of value.

I'm shocked - there doesn't seem to be a single location in which a territory can hit two territories of the same number... I lost a game in the first Feudal because I wasn't paying attention to which 7 I was attacking. Or was it a 9? Anyway, nice work on that!

[yeti_c]

Question.
In Feudal War, if you play 1v1, you each start with two castles. Will it be the same in this one, where you start with 2, or will it be starting with 3 a piece? Also, for doubles, will it work for 2 per player, or 2 per team?

Singles
1v1 -> 8/3 = 2.6666 - each player will have 2 castles each.
1v1v1 -> 8/3 = 2.6666 - each player will have 2 castles each.
1v1v1v1 -> 8/4 = 2 - each player will have 2 castles each.
1v1v1v1v1 -> 8/5 = 1.6 - each player will have 1 castle each.
1v1v1v1v1v1 -> 8/6 = 1.3333 - each player will have 1 castle each.
1v1v1v1v1v1v1 -> 8/7 = 1.14 - each player will have 1 castle each.
1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 -> 8/8 = 1 - each player will have 1 castle each.

Teams
2v2 -> 8/4 = 2 - each player will have 2 castles each. (4 per team)
2v2v2 -> 8/6 = 1.3333 - each player will have 1 castle each. (2 per team)
2v2v2v2 -> 8/8 = 1 - each player will have 1 castle each. (2 per team)
3v3 -> 8/6 = 1.3333 - each player will have 1 castle each. (3 per team)
4v4 -> 8/8 = 1 - each player will have 1 castle each. (4 per team)

I also disagree with the latest update. Feudal War was always interesting because you had to change tactics depending on where you were. If you had Feudal Castle, for example, it was better to just capture F1 and F2, and wait for the autodeploy to go foward, while in Realm, you didn't have to move your armies at all to get all the territories; it made you think more about the game, because everytime you played, it was a different strategy to be used.

This was what I was saying earlier... (Although as pointed out - the update didn't change it fully anyway!)

C.

[hecter]

This idea just came to me, and I don't know if I'm tired or what, but I figured that I'd tell you guys about it, just in case it was a good idea... What about one-way borders? Like so...

[n00blet]

This idea just came to me, and I don't know if I'm tired or what, but I figured that I'd tell you guys about it, just in case it was a good idea... What about one-way borders? Like so...

Well, i would disagree on the one from Imperial Dynasty to Ga'h, because it would be unfair for them to have such direct access. Otherwise, it doesn't seem like a bad concept.

[Ditocoaf]

This idea just came to me, and I don't know if I'm tired or what, but I figured that I'd tell you guys about it, just in case it was a good idea... What about one-way borders? Like so...

Well, i would disagree on the one from Imperial Dynasty to Ga'h, because it would be unfair for them to have such direct access. Otherwise, it doesn't seem like a bad concept.

I'd approve of this too, if only to open the map up a bit more.

[Kotaro]

I don't think it should be open more. We can already get easy mass armies with the auto-deploy, why should it be so easy to get out? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Ditocoaf]

I don't think it should be open more. We can already get easy mass armies with the auto-deploy, why should it be so easy to get out? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think it should be _easier_ to get out, I think there should be a decision about _where_ to get out. So that in some games, you might go one way, wheras in another game, you would go the other way (if you don't know which is better). I've already commented on how this map pretty much assigns you who your first enemy is going to be.

[hecter]

Well, i would disagree on the one from Imperial Dynasty to Ga'h, because it would be unfair for them to have such direct access. Otherwise, it doesn't seem like a bad concept.

Well no, that's by no means a final draft, it's just more of a concept type thing... Add a bit more dynamic to the gameplay, open up the map a bit more, stuff like that.

[yeti_c]

Everyone is going to use the 1 way exit though - because they're no point in bashing your way through your 10 barrier then - because it's a nice cushion - and the 1 ways have less neutrals... the only way I would support this - was if the 1 way exit had (say) 20 neutrals on it.

C.

[gimil]

Everyone is going to use the 1 way exit though - because they're no point in bashing your way through your 10 barrier then - because it's a nice cushion - and the 1 ways have less neutrals... the only way I would support this - was if the 1 way exit had (say) 20 neutrals on it.

C.

I agree with yeti, once we add anoher exit point to each castle that will just leave one more bulk of neutrals untouched. PLus with what hector proposed only a few castles are benefiting from other expansion options. There is to many castles in hectors set up that have their second exit right next to the first one. This defeat the purpose of increase options if alot of castles aren't really getting more options...

[Ditocoaf]

Everyone is going to use the 1 way exit though - because they're no point in bashing your way through your 10 barrier then - because it's a nice cushion - and the 1 ways have less neutrals... the only way I would support this - was if the 1 way exit had (say) 20 neutrals on it.

C.

I agree with yeti, once we add anoher exit point to each castle that will just leave one more bulk of neutrals untouched. PLus with what hector proposed only a few castles are benefiting from other expansion options. There is to many castles in hectors set up that have their second exit right next to the first one. This defeat the purpose of increase options if alot of castles aren't really getting more options...

It doesn't have to be in that way...

I feel that options are limited due to the original draft being almost-finished, and already arranged in a fairly complete way. How things are, it's really too late to fix the fact that you pretty much have your first enemy assigned to you. One great thing about FW, is that even though you start out in one castle, you can expand to either side; go for a village or a castle first. On occasion it is even beneficial to take down both stacks of 10, to grab the extra bonus.
In this map, no such choices exist until after you've already captured your kingdom, progressed through the first villiage, and conquered your first enemy. This means half the players won't have a place where they must decide which way to expand!

[hecter]

Or you could have the one-ways connected to your way out, or you could have more neutrals on the one-ways, ect. How about this?

Of course, that doesn't really work now, does it? Maybe a mix could be done. But, as it's been said, we're pretty limited since the map is so complete already.

[edbeard]

you'd have to redraw the entire map to add this one-way idea which might not be feasible or even add much to the gameplay.

[Kotaro]

It doesn't really add to the gameplay. In Feudal War, the only way to get out was through a 10; because of this, the strategy differed with everyone. Do you rush through the 10, grab a village, and then build up, or hide behind a 10 and wait for someone to come in for you? With a one way, 0 chance for counter attack, and only 1 neutral, everyone would go out early, and there'd be no strategy whatsoever.

Back to the name issue <_< Feudal Campaign ftw!

[hecter]

It doesn't really add to the gameplay. In Feudal War, the only way to get out was through a 10; because of this, the strategy differed with everyone. Do you rush through the 10, grab a village, and then build up, or hide behind a 10 and wait for someone to come in for you? With a one way, 0 chance for counter attack, and only 1 neutral, everyone would go out early, and there'd be no strategy whatsoever.

There are a ton of ways around that, not the least of which is the idea I just posted Another would be adding more neutrals on one way attacks. Perhaps mix and match. But I do feel that the map needs to be opened up more, and I know I'm not alone in this.

[gimil]

We know the open is a little less open to start out with. Its not really a problem but a matter of opinion wether you like it or not.

[yeti_c]

Another consideration - is that the victory condition is fairly meaningless...

If you hold all 8 of the castles - then you're gonna win anyway...

Perhaps the victory condition could be to hold 6 of the castles?

Or - all of the villages and a castle?

Something that is actually obtainable whilst other people are alive...

C.

[Ditocoaf]

We know the open is a little less open to start out with. Its not really a problem but a matter of opinion wether you like it or not.

Can you really say its a good thing that your first opponent is assigned to you? When I'm playing FW, I often leave on either side, depending on how many people are playing and who is playing (and whether fog is on). Here, you're moving in one directoin, fighting one person, until one of you wins. Then things open up. So half the players will never choose which way to expand!

[gimil]

We know the open is a little less open to start out with. Its not really a problem but a matter of opinion wether you like it or not.

Can you really say its a good thing that your first opponent is assigned to you? When I'm playing FW, I often leave on either side, depending on how many people are playing and who is playing (and whether fog is on). Here, you're moving in one directoin, fighting one person, until one of you wins. Then things open up. So half the players will never choose which way to expand!

99.9% of the time in FW you go for the one opponent anyway. So half the players still don't get to chose how they expand anyway.

[Ditocoaf]

We know the open is a little less open to start out with. Its not really a problem but a matter of opinion wether you like it or not.

Can you really say its a good thing that your first opponent is assigned to you? When I'm playing FW, I often leave on either side, depending on how many people are playing and who is playing (and whether fog is on). Here, you're moving in one directoin, fighting one person, until one of you wins. Then things open up. So half the players will never choose which way to expand!

99.9% of the time in FW you go for the one opponent anyway. So half the players still don't get to chose how they expand anyway.

It depends on how many players, for one thing. In FW, If one of the two nearby castles is neutral, then you're still bordering a player. In this one, if your lone neighbor is neutral, then you've got a big advantage.

And maybe you know which way to always go in FW, but I don't, and I'm sure most people who aren't extremely familiar with the map don't. While in Barbarians and Imperial, I always go for the villiage, in Rebel and Might you have to watch both sides... because you don't know when Great or Feudal might come from above. With Rebel, Might, Great, and Feudal, you have a villiage on one side, but you have a direct neighbor on the other. So don't tell me that only one of the entrances is important.

I'm currently playing some games of assassin FW with four players and fog. That means that there's a 40% chance any castle is neutral, a 20% chance its your target, a 20% chance it's your pursuer, and a 20% chance it's the neutral-to-you player. Having both entrances definitely comes into play.

I really think that this map will be much less enjoyable than FW unless it is opened up in some way. FW all interconnects on all sides, which is a large part of its charm. This feels like you're attacking down a lined-up row of targets.

[oaktown]

I think I am in the camp of not liking the one-way exits, but i appreciate the fact that there would be more options available to each player. I agree with the above concerns about everybody's first opponent being more or less pre-determined, which means that in games with an odd number of players somebody will have an advantage by being paired with a neutral. Could the same effect be had by giving each realm to gates in/out, or just scattering some more bridges around?

And I also nod my head to yeti's astute comment about the the victory condition being meaningless - hold all of the castles and the game is over regardless of whether or not it's a victory condition. Right now the victory condition just saves a round of mopping-up, which is kind of fun after a hard-fought game.

[Kotaro]

99.9% of the time in FW you go for the one opponent anyway. So half the players still don't get to chose how they expand anyway.

I agree completely, when it's Foggy. When it's not, well, you'll just build up for wherever they are, but for Fog, there's only 1 beginning choice, if your opponent doesn't show himself first.

[Kotaro]

Do want this map bad. Make it happen!